preview

Marianne Stanley Case

Decent Essays

In the case involving Marianne Stanley vs University of Southern California, Marianne Stanley signed a contact with University of southern California on July 30, 1989 to serve as the head coach of the women's basketball team for four years. Stanley's contract expiration date was June 30, 1993, Stanley's contact provided an annual base salary for 60,000 with a 6,000 housing allowance. Around April of 1993, Stanley and Michael Garrett who’s the athletic director, started negotiating on a new contract. However, the confirmation is in debate with regards to the statement made by the Stanley and Garrett. Stanley claims in her statements that she informed Garrett that she was entitled to be paid the same amount as George Raveling, who’s the head …show more content…

Garrett and Stanley made an agreement verbally, that Stanley would be paid the same earnings as Coach Raveling, but Garrett later argued that USC did not have the funding at that time. He then later offered Stanley a multi-year contract on April 27, 1993 with the following terms. In 1993-94 her salary would increase to 80,000 with 6,000 allowance for housing, the second year 1994-95 Salary of $90,000 with a $6,000 housing allowance, and 1995-96 Salary of $100,000 with a $6,000 housing allowance. Garrett sent a memorandum with the terms above, and he informed Stanley that he needs a response within a few days. However, according to Garrett, Stanley said the offer was an insult; Stanley propose a counter offer which included her total compensation with the annual rate of 96,000 used for the first 18 months and then increase that total of her compensation to match Raveling for the last 18 months. Garret rejected Stanley’s counter offer, and told her that she should be pleased with being the second highest paid women’s basketball coach in the PAC-10 …show more content…

Stanley had to prove that the jobs are substantially equal and not identical, also she claimed that the differences of jobs were because of pervious gender based decisions based on University of Southern California. In effect Stanley also claimed that the differences between the jobs resulted from the Universities history on treatment of male and female athletic teams. Stanley attempts to argue that it has be proven that the reason for different pay was because of other reasons that sex, but it was found to be insufficient which resulted in Stanley motion for summary judgement to be denied. On the other hand, Michael Garrett and The University of Southern California stated that both coaches share the same responsibilities throughout games and during the recruiting process. After stating that, they explained the differences about the jobs, Raveling received more media scrutiny, more revenue was generate out of the men’s team, and the team along with Raveling has more pressure to produce revenue. In the light of the differences, coach Raveling was more experienced than Stanley. Raveling coached the Olympic men’s team, he had many years in marketing as well as promotion experience, he’s one of the highest recruiter in the nation for basketball, and he come to USC already having thirty one

Get Access