3 Baldwin-Whitehall teachers claim discrimination
Baldwin-Whitehall School District put three female teachers lower on the pay scale than their male counterparts by giving them less credit for prior experience, the teachers claim in a federal lawsuit filed on Friday.
The district hired Holly Niemi, 37, of East Allegheny, Katherine Musselman, 36, of Swissvale and Donna Vecchio, 52, of North Strabane during the 2004-05 school year, said their lawyer, Colleen Ramage Johnston.
They don't know whether the year they were hired is a factor in their treatment, she said.
“We're going to find out,” Johnston said.
Superintendent Randal Lutz couldn't be reached for comment.
The district gave Niemi credit for three of her six years of teaching. Musselman got no credit for her two years of teaching and Vecchio received credit for two of her 17 years of teaching, the lawsuit says.
Their experience included teaching in public schools in other states, and public and private schools in Pennsylvania. Though districts give different credits for that type of experience, Baldwin-Whitehall gave more credit to male teachers with the same mixes of experience, Johnston said.
“We believe that the men we are aware of were given more favorable treatment and pay credit for their experience, which is comparable to the women in this lawsuit,” Johnston said.
The teachers want a judge to order the district to move them up to the same position on the pay scale as comparable male counterparts and award back pay.
The Equal Pay Act doesn't have a statute of limitations as long as the discrimination is continuing, but the teachers could recover lost wages only for up to the past three years, Johnston said.
Brian Bowling is a Trib Total Media staff writer. Reach him at 412-325-4301 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.