First Discrimination Case Reaches Appeal Stage At U-M

Anyone who has kept an eye on the question of sex discrimination at the University of Michigan knows who Cheryl Clark is. She is the first woman in the United States in a nonacademie position to charge a university with discriminating in the payment of salary on the basis of sex. A year ago yesterday, Miss Clark filed a grievance with the U-M charging that she had been paid $3,400 less in her capacity as a research associate at the Highway Safety Research Institute than a male with the same job classification. Miss Clark's action, although her claim was denied by a review committee in May, has made waves. The outcry over the denial of her complaint, which Miss Clark's attorney Prof. Harry T. Edwards called "unfair, logical and childish," caused U-M President Robben Fleming to announced that a new complaint appeal procedure composed of "fair and objective" rules would have to be hammered out. It was. And now Miss Clark is the first person to avail herself of the revised appeal procedure. Yesterday Edwards presented his client's case once more, this time before a panel composed of three member.s: Business Prof. John H. Stamm, chosen by Miss Clark and her attorney; College of Engineering Assistant Dean Harold Harger, chosen by the University, and Law Prof. Russell A. Smith, selected by the other two members from a list drawn up by Fleming. Smith chairs the panel. The complaint appeal procedure promises to be a lengthy one. By Feb. 25, the three member panel must receive briefs from Edwards and the University's attorney, William Lemmer. After study, and possible further meetings between the panel and the two sides, the panel then will make a recommendation to President Fleming who will make the final decisión. In an opening statement yesterday before the panel, Edwards said, "We were first told Miss Clark was not equally qualified with the male employé. Then we were I told that because of market standards and educational distinctions, the salary discrepancy was warranted. Finally, we were told that indeed these first two points maybe weren't valid, but that really the male employé was overpaid." "With this kind of I ing," Edwards continued, "it would be impossible for Miss Clark to ever achieve a fair hearing. Hopefully, justice will finally be done." Miss Clark is asking the University to award back pay if it concurs with her plaint. Edwards said he will base the appeal on the fact that the University, through its affirmative action program, has committed itself to providing equal pay for equal work and to ending discrimination because of sex. Edwards also is contending that there exists a pattern of discrimination in the Highway Safety Research Institute. University Attorney William Lemmer said the University "does not condone sex crimination." However, he added, a careful reading of the University's affirmative action plan will show that a distinction is made between ending sex discrimination and ending salary inequities. He said the question before the appeal panel concerns the former, not the latter. ''The University simply says that Miss Clark's salary was not determined, did not result, because of her sex - but was determined, did result, because of the application of the standards used by research administrators for all employés regardless of sex," Lemmer said. Edwards replied that he will contend that the "law of the land" banning discrimination on the basis of sex "subsumes the idea of equal pay for equal work" and that it's impossible to separate the two. Lemmer added that the "University's position is that you can have inequity in salaries not only among women as a group and men as a group but between men and women. "If it exists because of sex discrimination, then it's wrong. If it exists because of a poor wage and salary program, or if too much weight is given to educational background, then it's not wrong," he maintained. Lemmer contended also that the University does not agree that a pattern of j crimination is applicable in Miss Clark's case.