Law School Professor Alleges Discrimination, Says She Was Reprimanded For Not Smiling
She alleges gender and age discrimination as well as violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Family Medical Leave Act.
photo by Getty
Barbara Lentz was a legal writing professor at Wake Forest University School of Law since 2000, but her contract was not renewed in September of 2018. In a lawsuit, Lentz alleges she was let go due to discrimination based on her age, gender, and medical condition.
Lentz alleges that she taught 15 different classes over the course of her employment at Wake, including doctrinal classes such as Contracts. However, she alleges that she was paid less for her teaching hours, something the university allegedly justified as the difference between legal writing class hours and doctrinal ones. But when Lentz stepped up to teach doctrinal classes, while she got a bump in pay, the complaint alleges it was less than the usual amount paid for doctrinal classes. According to the complaint, there were multiple points during her time at Wake when she was paid less than male counterparts.
The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm
Lentz says the only formal review of her performance was after she revamped the way Contracts was taught and received the 2018 Innovation in Teaching Award by Wake Forest University, and that review was understandably exemplary. However, Lentz says that she asked numerous times over the years to have her pay explained, but was brushed off and told her performance was “vaguely inadequate.” The complaint then details a specific incident when Lentz received a negative performance review because she didn’t smile enough:
Following Plaintiff’s request to have her pay explained, each year for several years, Defendant held a meeting with [then Associate Dean Suzanne] Reynolds and Plaintiff (and occasionally others who supervised Plaintiff) where Plaintiff was told her performance was vaguely inadequate, but these were pre textual assertions designed to retaliate against, buy, and intimidate Plaintiff. No document was ever produced or reviewed, no performance plan was ever discussed, no review of Plaintiff’s teaching and service was made until the exemplary review in April 2018. For example, one year Reynolds informed Plaintiff, reading from a one-inch post-it on Reynolds’s finger, that Plaintiff’s performance was somehow subpar because Plaintiff had not smiled on one occasion in the hallway. Defendant did not produce a copy of the post-it when Plaintiff requested copies of all materials.
She also says that when she was promised a five-year contract in 2015, it was delayed and never put in writing, saying, “Defendant’s practice with plaintiff was to make a promise of employment, but then refuse to provide a timely written agreement of the agreed upon terms.”
Lentz also alleges she was wrongfully discharged under the Americans With Disabilities Act and Family Medical Leave Act. In 2018, she was diagnosed with hypertension as well as other medical issues that caused her to miss orientation week for that semester, which she says was the impetus for the school terminating her employment.
Sponsored
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
Is The Future Of Law Distributed? Lessons From The Tech Adoption Curve
The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
When reached for comment, a Wake Forest spokesperson said they are unable to comment on pending litigation.
Read the full complaint on the next page.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).
Sponsored
Navigating Financial Success by Avoiding Common Pitfalls and Maximizing Firm Performance
