United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
Richard Mills United States District Judge
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Marybeth Lauderdale asserts that
Defendant Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS)
violated her rights pursuant to the Equal Pay Act
(“EPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d).
Plaintiff has also filed claims asserting that DHS and the
individual Defendants violated her rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, by discriminating against her
based on her gender.
end of the day, Lauderdale cannot prevail on either theory.
Marybeth Lauderdale worked for DHS at the Illinois School for
the Deaf (ISD) from October 1990 until July of 2012. In 2006,
the Plaintiff became Acting Superintendent of the School for
the Deaf and began earning an annual salary of $77, 388. On
September 1, 2010, the Plaintiff became the Interim Dual
Superintendent for the School for the Visually Impaired
(ISVI) and ISD. In March 2011, the Plaintiff became the
Permanent Dual Superintendent for the ISVI and the ISD. As
both the Dual Superintendent and Permanent Dual
Superintendent, the Plaintiff received an annual total salary
in excess of $106, 000. The Plaintiff claims that 5% of her
salary was for bilingual (sign language) pay.
Clinton was the superintendent of the ISVI in 2002 and 2003.
According to an exhibit which purports to show his salary
history, Clinton's annual salary in July 2003 at the time
he left his employment was $93, 336. In 2003, Clinton
accepted a job as superintendent of Arcola District Schools
where he earned an annual salary of $118, 794. Clinton
returned to ISVI as Superintendent from January 2008 to June
2010 and earned an annual salary of $121, 116.00.
Facts pertaining to pay plan
Illinois Personnel Code, at 20 ILCS 415/8a, directs Central
Management Services (CMS) to promulgate administrative rules
to govern compensation of positions in state service.
Pursuant to Section 8a of the Illinois Personnel Code, CMS
promulgated the Pay Plan. The CMS Transactions manual is a
guide that state agencies use in order to properly implement
the CMS Pay Plan.
Defendants allege that pursuant to the CMS Pay Plan, CMS sets
a specific salary range for a particular position and no one
in DHS has input on salary range. The Plaintiff disputes the
allegation and states that DHS personnel-specifically Sherrie
Bridges and Defendant Francisco Alvarado--were involved in
getting the position set up with CMS. Moreover, DHS decided
to set up the position as a Senior Public Service
Administrator, which determined the salary range.
Defendants next assert that pursuant to the CMS Pay Plan and
the Transaction Manual, an employee's salary is set by
considering the salary range of the position and the
individual's most recent salary. The Plaintiff disputes
this on the basis that Defendants rely on Illinois
Administrative Code Section 310.460, which applies to
promotions. The Plaintiff contends she was not given a
promotion. Rather, she was hired into a newly created
position and given additional duties. Moreover, the Plaintiff
further contends that a salary increase can be made for
basically any reason determined by the agency decision
Defendants allege that, pursuant to the CMS Pay Plan and the
Transaction Manual, a new employee or a former state employee
who is reinstated will not receive more than 5% of their most
recent salary, unless a higher percentage is needed to bring
the individual's salary to the bottom of the salary range
for that position. The Plaintiff disputes the allegation and
claims that the Pay Plan allows for a special salary increase
above 5% for basically any reason determined by the agency
decision makers and they are not limited to the bottom of the
to the CMS Pay Plan, an employee cannot be paid more than the
top number of the salary range set by CMS. If an agency
wishes to give an employee more than a 5% salary increase,
multiple steps must be taken including, in some instances, a
decision memo and a special salary request form referred to
as the CMS 183.
Dual superintendent position
create a new position at a state agency, a CMS 104 form must
be completed. This form includes a job description and a
Plaintiff was the first and only person to hold the position
of Dual Superintendent. The Plaintiff was offered 5% more
than her previous salary to take the Dual Superintendent
position. The Plaintiff notes that this was actually a
counteroffer to her request for a $130, 000 yearly salary,
plus additional benefits and personnel re-allocations to
assist her. The Plaintiff declined the Defendants'
counteroffer by making a counteroffer, requesting a yearly
salary of $115, 000 and an additional 5% with her bilingual
pay, which the Plaintiff states would have resulted in a
total of $120, 750.
point, Defendant Saddler received approval from the
Governor's Office and Governor's Office of Management
and Budget to offer the Plaintiff a salary above 5% over her
most recent salary. In response to the Plaintiff's
counteroffer, on July 30, 2010, Defendant Alvarado offered
the Plaintiff a salary of $100, 000, plus the additional 5%.
The Plaintiff made another counteroffer of $112, 350, which
would have been a 27.5% increase. She further asserts that
the Defendants had already refused to pay her an equal amount
to Reggie Clinton.
30, 2010, Alvarado sent an email to Saddler and others at DHS
noting the Plaintiff's most recent counteroffer and
inquiring as to how to proceed. The same day, Saddler sent an
email to the Governor's Chief of Staff, Jerome Sterner;
the Governor's Deputy Chief of Staff, Toni Irving; and
the Director of the Governor's Office of Management and
Budget, David Vaught. The email stated:
Please advise on Marybeth's request below for a 27.5%
salary increase. I am concerned that in the current climate,
even 19% is pushing the limits of public acceptability - even
though we are asking her to assume two full-time
superintendent positions. We have posted the position and may
need to say that her salary needs are simply above what can
be approved. We may need to hire someone else, and hence we
may need to reach out to our various Jacksonville partners.
Please let me know if you disagree.
Thank you Jerry,
Doc. No. 58-14 (Exh. L). The Plaintiff reiterates that the
decision to offer her less than Clinton had already been
made. Irving responded by saying Saddler should start
Plaintiff accepted a salary of $106, 500, which was a 21%
increase over her salary as Superintendent of ISD. The
Defendants submitted a special salary request form, called a
CMS 163, to CMS in order to give the Plaintiff a raise of
over 5% from her most recent salary.
Saddler testified she was not aware of any other employee
during her tenure at DHS receiving as high an increase as 21%
over a previous salary. In response, the Plaintiff states no
one had ever been asked to assume all of the duties of the
superintendent of one of the schools and remain the
superintendent of the other one. The Plaintiff's salary
as dual superintendent was higher than that of her two
immediate supervisors, Defendant Alvarado, Assistant Director
of the Division of Rehabilitative Services and Defendant
Kilbury, Director of the Division of Rehabilitative Services.
In response, the Plaintiff claims that the positions held by
those individuals were not similar in terms ...