Duke University has reached a settlement in a pay discrimination lawsuit filed by Rachel Lance, a professor in the School of Medicine. In August 2023, Lance accused the university of gender-based pay discrimination and retaliation, highlighting the disparities between her salary and that of her male colleagues and the professional limitations she faced after raising her concerns. This legal dispute has shone a light on persistent issues within Duke’s anesthesiology department, raising questions about the fairness of faculty compensation and the treatment of employees who voice their grievances.
Background and Initial Allegations
The lawsuit amplified existing concerns within Duke’s anesthesiology department, following the findings of an internal faculty compensation survey published by the Academic Council three months prior to the lawsuit. This survey unveiled a gender-based pay gap among certain faculty members, adding weight to Lance’s allegations and suggesting a recurring pattern of inequitable treatment. Lance’s journey toward seeking justice began in 2020 when she was assigned additional responsibilities without corresponding compensation. Despite multiple internal complaints, her concerns went unaddressed, leading her to believe there was a significant gender pay gap based on conversations with male colleagues.
In August 2021, Lance formally filed a complaint with the Office of Institutional Equity (OIE), which marked the beginning of her protracted legal battle. Her internal complaints did not yield the desired outcomes, pushing her to escalate the matter through official channels. The complaint highlighted not just the pay disparities but also the systemic issues within the department that perpetuated such inequities. This step was crucial in bringing greater attention to the underlying problems and sparked further investigations into the department’s compensation practices.
Retaliation and Hostile Work Environment
Following her official complaint to the OIE in August 2021, Lance reported experiencing a hostile work environment created by her supervisor and other employees. She described how this environment became increasingly toxic, with several incidents that she believed were direct repercussions of her complaint. To strengthen her case, Lance filed several Charges of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and received a Notice of Right to Sue in May 2023, following the EEOC’s comprehensive investigation into her claims.
A pivotal incident in the lawsuit involved a job offer letter from Duke sent shortly after Lance met with the OIE in 2021. According to Lance, the letter not only removed her Principal Investigator (PI) title for projects she brought to Duke but also reassigned the leadership role to her male research partner. This demotion exemplified the type of retaliatory action she alleged to have faced, fundamentally altering her professional standing and limiting her career progression. The letter presented her with two undesirable choices: either accept a demotion to a staff position or assist another male PI, with an implied threat that failing to choose would be interpreted as her resignation. Lance rejected both options in writing, but she did not receive a response from the university, allowing her faculty contract to lapse.
Demotion and Reclassification Attempts
During this tumultuous period, Lance accused Duke of multiple attempts to reclassify her faculty position as a staff role, which she perceived as deliberate demotions. This reclassification was particularly concerning because faculty members at Duke enjoy extensive employment and grievance rights not afforded to staff, as well as better access to Human Resources assistance. The demotion attempts served to strip her of these essential rights and protections, exacerbating the already hostile work environment she described. By aiming to reclassify her position, Lance argued that the university was undermining her professional standing and limiting her ability to seek recourse.
Throughout this period, Lance faced significant challenges in maintaining her professional roles and responsibilities. Her attempts to transfer to another department were thwarted by what she described as deliberate misinformation spread by her supervisor, restricting her opportunities to staff position applications only. This concerted effort to limit her professional mobility further underscored the retaliatory actions she alleged in her lawsuit. The lack of response from the university to her official rejections of the demotion choices only added to the pressure she felt, as her faculty contract lapsed without tangible resolution or support.
Transfer Attempts and Confidentiality Breaches
Lance’s struggles did not end with attempted demotions and contractual ambiguities. Her efforts to transfer to another department were stymied by alleged false information spread by her supervisor, which confined her to applying only for staff positions. This limitation severely hindered her career prospects and validated her claims of a hostile work environment. Additionally, Lance accused Duke of failing to maintain confidentiality concerning her complaints to OIE or EEOC, suggesting that multiple department members were made aware of her “protected activity.” This breach of confidentiality led to an uncomfortable professional atmosphere where colleagues encouraged her to abandon her grievances.
Many colleagues conditioned their professional interactions with Lance on the abandonment of her complaints, intensifying the pressure she felt to drop the issue. One colleague went so far as to label her a troublemaker in a conversation she recorded and later shared with The Assembly. These actions contributed to a culture of fear and isolation, as Lance’s pursuit of justice seemed to mark her negatively in the eyes of her peers. The breach of confidentiality and subsequent backlash underscored the significant challenges employees might face when standing up against institutional inequities.
Settlement and Employment Status
In January 2023, the legal dispute culminated in a settlement, resulting in a “stipulation of dismissal with prejudice,” which prevents Lance from refiling the case in the future. The settlement amount remains undisclosed. Although the case’s docket had initially set a trial date for May 2025, plans to file dispositive motions in December 2022 accelerated the settlement process. Nearly a month later, the settlement was approved, closing a significant chapter in this protracted legal battle. Duke University has declined to comment on its decision to settle, and attempts to reach Lance for comment before publication were unsuccessful.
Lance’s employment status at Duke remained unclear at the time of publication. Though listed as an assistant consulting professor on the School of Medicine’s faculty page, her official Duke email address was inactive. Previously, Lance indicated in communications that her faculty contract lapsed in 2021; however, she continued in an undefined staff role. This ambiguity in her employment status mirrored the uncertainties and challenges she had faced throughout her journey, reflecting broader issues within the institution’s handling of such disputes.
Broader Implications and Historical Context
Duke University has settled a pay discrimination lawsuit brought by Rachel Lance, a professor in the School of Medicine. In August 2023, Lance alleged that the university engaged in gender-based pay discrimination and retaliated against her for raising these issues. She pointed out the significant salary disparities between her and her male colleagues, as well as the professional hurdles she encountered after voicing her concerns. This lawsuit has cast a spotlight on ongoing issues in Duke’s anesthesiology department, raising important questions about the equity of faculty compensation and the treatment of employees who speak up about injustices. The settlement reflects a broader conversation around fair treatment in academia, emphasizing the need for transparent policies and equal opportunities. The prominent case has encouraged other institutions to reassess their own compensation structures and address potential imbalances, paving the way for a more equitable academic environment.
