ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE - Case 1-19-CV-1203-LY

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by Finn

Order and report and recommendation issued by the United States Magistrate Judge in the Western District of Texas (Austin Division) in an employment discrimination dispute brought by Linda Susan Mullenix against the University of Texas at Austin. The filing addresses competing motions for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), covering Equal Pay Act and Title VII discrimination theories, as well as related evidentiary motions. The document sets out the governing standards for summary judgment, including the treatment of material facts and evidentiary sufficiency.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages38

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

Background

Summary judgment motions and claims

Legal Standards

Rule 56(a) requirements

Burden-shifting and evidentiary sufficiency

Affirmative defenses standard

Case 1:19-cv-01203-LY-SH Document 151 Filed 12/13/21 Page 1 of 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION LINDA SUSAN MULLENIX, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, Defendant §§ §§ §§ § CIVIL NO. 1-19-CV-1203-LY ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO: THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 129); Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on her Equal Pay Act Claim Regarding Professor Bone (Dkt. 130); Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Strike Defendant’s New Summary Judgment Evidence and Argument (Dkt. 147); and the associated response and reply briefs.1 I. Background Plaintiff Linda Susan Mullenix has 47 years of teaching experience and has been a tenured law professor at The University of Texas School of Law (“UT Law”) since 1991. Plaintiff is the fourteenth-highest-paid of 52 tenured faculty members at UT Law and the fourth-highest-paid female tenured faculty member. Dkt. 129-1 at 5-6. Plaintiff’s current annual salary is $349,418; the highest male faculty member’s annual salary is $390,276 . Id. 1 On July 28, 2021, the District Court referred all pending and future motions in this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Dkt. 106. Case 1:19-cv-01203-LY-SH Document 151 Filed 12/13/21 Page 2 of 38 Plaintiff alleges that she discovered in 2010 that “she was being severely underpaid for her work compared to her male coworkers.” Dkt. 25 ¶ 24. Plaintiff filed a discrimination claim against the UT Law, alleging that it was violating the Equal Pay Act. Plaintiff settled her claim in 2011. Id. ¶ 33. On December 19, 2016, Plaintiff signed a “general release of all claims to date.” Id. ¶ 42. On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed this suit against The University of Texas at Austin (the“University”), alleging sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C.§§ 2000e-2, 2000e-3. Dkt. 1. In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that “the gender pay gap between Professor Mullenix and her male comparators has grown by thousands of dollars every year.” Dkt. 25 ¶ 12. Plaintiff alleges that she is paid less than her male counterparts because of her sex and in retaliation for her complaints of unequal pay. Id. ¶ 101. The District Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Title VII and EPA retaliation claims with prejudice. Dkts. 18, 61, 90. On November 19, 2021, the undersigned Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint to reassert her previously dismissed retaliation claims. Dkt. 146. Both parties now move for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) . The University seeks summary judgment on both Plaintiff’s EPA and Title VII discrimination claims, while Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on her EPA claim as to Professor Robert Bone. The Court addresses each claim in turn. II. Legal Standards Summary judgment shall be rendered when the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials, and any affidavits on file show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25 (1986); Washburn v. Harvey, 504 F.3d 505, 508 (5th Cir. Case 1:19-cv-01203-LY-SH Document 151 Filed 12/13/21 Page 3 of 38 2007) . A dispute regarding a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) . When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court is r

FAQs

What claims are addressed in the motions for summary judgment?

The parties move for summary judgment on the University’s summary judgment request regarding the Equal Pay Act and Title VII discrimination claims, and on the Plaintiff’s summary judgment request regarding her Equal Pay Act claim concerning Professor Robert Bone.

What standard governs summary judgment under Rule 56(c)?

Summary judgment is appropriate when pleadings, discovery materials, and affidavits show no genuine dispute of any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

How does the court treat the evidence and credibility determinations at summary judgment?

The court views inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by Finn