United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Western Division
DAVID PROCTOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
case is before the court on the Motion for Summary Judgment
filed by Defendant the Board of Trustees of the University of
Alabama (“UA” or “Defendant”). (Doc.
# 38). The Motion is fully briefed, and the parties have
filed evidentiary submissions. (Docs. # 39, 40, 48, 49, 50).
After careful review, the court concludes that the Motion
(Doc. # 38) is due to be granted.
Relevant Undisputed Facts
Amy Heatherly (“Heatherly” or
“Plaintiff”) is employed by Defendant as the
Director of Human Resources for UA. (Doc. # 40-8 at p. 39).
On February 17, 2016, she filed a Complaint, seeking an
injunction, equitable relief, and damages for alleged (1)
sex/gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et
seq. (“Title VII”); (2) gender
discrimination under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681
(“Title IX”); (3) violation of the Equal Pay Act,
29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (“EPA”); and (4)
retaliation under Title VII, Title XI, and the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)
(“FLSA”). (Doc. # 1). The court dismissed
Plaintiff's punitive damages request and retaliation
claim on June 9, 2016. (Doc. # 18). Below, the court
discusses the Rule 56 record related to UA's compensation
structure, Heatherly's employment with UA,
Heatherly's purported comparators, and the expert studies
and opinions presented by the parties.
UA's Compensation Structure
a staff pay grade structure chart that helps to direct the
pay of staff employees.(Doc. # 40-6 at p. 26). UA's
Compensation and Classification area, which has been under
Heatherly's administration since 2006, determines the pay
grade for staff jobs. (Doc. # 40-6 at ¶ 2). Under this
pay policy, to determine the appropriate pay grades for staff
jobs, the Compensation and Classification group examines
knowledge and experience, job complexity and creativity,
impact on the institutional mission, internal and external
contacts, discretion exercised, physical demands, and working
conditions. (Id. at ¶ 2, p. 17-23). After
evaluating those factors and reviewing the pay grades for the
jobs in the same reporting channel, the Compensation and
Classification group assigns a staff job a pay grade.
(Id. at ¶ 2). Because each pay grade
encompasses jobs performing widely different functions from
multiple departments across UA, each pay grade is construed
to include a wide salary range along with an associated
minimum, first quartile, midpoint, third quartile, and
maximum salary rates for each grade. (Id. at ¶
3, p. 26). The jobs at issue in this case are classified in
pay grade 62. (Id. at ¶ 4).
generally awards merit increases annually to recognize
employees' job performances and contributions to the
institution. (Id. at ¶ 5). UA's President
allocates money to a merit pool that is established by
applying a predetermined percentage to base salaries
university-wide. (Id.). Next, the budget allocation
for each department is decided by determining a percentage of
base salaries in that department. (Id.). After the
department heads make a recommendation for the allocation of
funds based on employee performance, the department
heads' supervisors review the merit decisions and may
suggest adjustments, if warranted. (Id.).
Director of Human Resources, Plaintiff directly reports to
Associate Vice President for Human Resources, who is
currently Dr. Nancy Whittaker (“Whittaker”).
(Doc. # 40-12 at ¶ 2). Whittaker's other direct
reports are Travis Railsback (“Railsback”), the
Director of Human Resources; David Bertanzetti
(“Bertanzetti”), the Director of Benefits; and
George Tutt (“Tutt”), the Director of Payroll.
(Id.). In turn, Whittaker directly reports to Dr.
Lynda Gilbert (“Gilbert”), the Vice President of
Financial Affairs and Treasurer at UA. (Id. at
direct reports, such as Whittaker, make recommendations to
her regarding merit increases, and Gilbert approves,
increases, or decreases these recommendations. (Doc. # 40-6
at ¶ 7). Gilbert does not always consider evaluations
when making pay decisions because she may view an employee
differently than the person conducting the employee's
evaluation. (Id. at ¶ 9). Gilbert indicates
that she examines market competition, the importance of the
employee's service to UA, the number of individuals
supervised by the employee, the employee's performance,
the quality of the customer service provided by the employee,
and the financial responsibility of the employee's
position when determining a merit increase. (Id. at
¶ 7). However, Plaintiff disputes that Gilbert examines
market competition and performance when making these
decisions. (Doc. # 48 at ¶ 9).
Heatherly's Employment with UA
has worked for UA during two different time periods: first,
from 1995 until 2002 when she held various Human Resources
positions, and, second, from September 2006 to present
serving as the Assistant Director of Human Resources and
later the Director of Human Resources. (Doc. # 40-8 at p. 8,
11, 108). In 1995, Heatherly applied for a job at UA as a
compensation manager; however, she was ultimately hired as a
compensation analyst and was responsible for evaluating
positions, determining pay grades, and performing desk
audits. (Id. at p. 8). After about a year of working
as a compensation analyst, Heatherly became the Employee
Relations Manager following the departure of the previous
Employee Relations Manager. (Id.). Approximately a
year later, Plaintiff was promoted to Assistant Director of
Human Resources. (Id. at p. 9). Heatherly briefly
served as the Associate Vice President of Human Resources
until UA hired Charlotte Harris (“Harris”) as a
permanent employee to fill the role. (Id. at p. 9-10).
In September 2002, Plaintiff resigned from UA to accept a job
with the City of Hoover. (Id. at p. 10-12).
September 2006, Harris informed Plaintiff that UA had an
opening for a position as Assistant Director of Human
Resources. (Id. at p. 13-14, 108). Harris waived the
normal recruitment process and offered Plaintiff the position
immediately. (Id. at p. 14-15, 108). Plaintiff's
starting annual salary was $76, 000. (Id. at p. 15,
108-09). She received a raise at the end of her first six
months in that position that increased her annual salary to
$80, 000. (Id. at p. 15-16, 109). As Assistant
Director of Human Resources, Heatherly was responsible for
the employee relations partners group, staff training and
development, and recruitment and compensation. (Id.
at p. 15). In August 2007, Plaintiff was promoted to Director
of Human Resources and received a pay increase of $10, 000,
raising her salary to $90, 000. (Id. at p. 17, 110).
By August 2008, the following areas reported to Heatherly:
Classification and Compensation, Human Resources Partners,
Learning and Development, the Assistant Director of Human
Resources, and the Human Resources person in facilities.
(Id. at p. 19, 76, 140). In 2008, UA implemented a
freeze on merit increases, meaning that there were no
increases coinciding with the 2008 performance evaluation
process. (Doc. # 40-6 at ¶ 8).
and August 2008, Heatherly, along with one of her direct
reports Bill Wharton (“Wharton”), investigated
claims made by UA employee Deborah Minor
(“Minor”) against her supervisor David Wilson
(“Wilson”). (Docs. # 40-8 at p. 19-20, 153-54).
On August 5, 2008, Heatherly and Wharton sent Minor a letter
notifying her that they found her claims to be
unsubstantiated and that Human Resource's investigation
into the matter was concluded. (Id. at p. 19-20,
153-54). On August 6, 2018, Minor responded to that letter by
email and asked if she needed to refile one of her
complaints. (Id. at p. 20, 154). That same day,
Heatherly responded to Minor, “We found no
substantiation of your complaints . . . and therefore our
inquiry has been concluded. No. further communications on
this matter will be responded to by Human Resources.”
(Id.). Also on that day, Wilson informed Heatherly
that he wished to terminate Minor. (Id. at p. 20-21,
156). Heatherly told Wilson that the decision to terminate
Minor was his but that Minor would inevitably take legal
action to fight her termination. (Id. at p. 20,
22-23, 157). Heatherly provided input about the letter
notifying Minor of the termination of her employment.
(Id. at p. 20, 157). On December 8, 2008, Minor
filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) challenging her
termination. (Docs. # 40-6 at ¶ 10; 40-7 at p. 253). UA
later settled Minor's lawsuit. (Doc. # 40-6 at ¶
the Minor employment situation, Gilbert became concerned
about Heatherly's judgment. (Doc. # 40-6 at ¶ 11).
Because of concerns with Heatherly's ability to recognize
certain risks, Heatherly's job duties were reallocated
effective May 1, 2009. (Docs. # 40-6 at ¶ 11; 40-8 at p.
157). In her new role, Heatherly no longer supervised Human
Resources Partners who were regularly involved in making
employee relations decisions, and she was no longer involved
in employment relations decisions. (Doc. # 40-6 at ¶
11). Rather, she led the compensation area, was in charge of
a competency modeling initiative, and assumed Human Resources
duties involving affirmative action and EEOC compliance
activities. (Docs. # 40-6 at ¶ 11; 40-8 at p. 157).
Although Heatherly retained her title as Director of Human
Resources and her salary remained the same, only
Classification and Compensation reported to her. (Docs. #
40-6 at ¶ 11; 40-8 at p. 19). Railsback became Assistant
Director of Human Resources and assumed the majority of
Heatherly's former duties. (Docs. # 40-6 at ¶ 11;
40-8 at p. 19, 157).
2009, Gilbert made the determination that Heatherly should
not receive a merit increase during the next merit increase
process; however, that year there was a freeze on merit
increases, so no employees received merit increases. (Doc. #
40-6 at ¶ 12). In 2010, Harris recommended that
Heatherly receive a 3.5% merit increase, but Gilbert did not
approve any increase in Heatherly's salary.
(Id.). Gilbert states (and, to be clear, Plaintiff
disputes) that this decision was based on Heatherly's
handling of the Minor situation. (Id.).
2011, Heatherly received a 5% merit increase, which increased
her salary to $94, 500. (Doc. # 40-8 at p. 29, 110). In 2012,
Heatherly received a 3% increase, which increased her salary
to $97, 335. (Docs. # 40-8 at p. 31-32; 40-9 at p. 13). In
2013, Gilbert had extra money for merit increases and asked
Harris if employees in her department needed salary
adjustments. (Doc. # 40-7 at p. 46). Harris recommended that
three employees, including Heatherly, receive salary
adjustments. (Docs. # 40-7 at p. 46, 156-57; 40-9 at p.
15-16). Specifically, Harris requested that Heatherly receive
a $7, 000 to $10, 000 salary increase because Heatherly's
salary was lower than other employees in pay grade 62 in the
Financial Affairs Department. (Docs. # 40-7 at p. 47, 156-57;
40-9 at p. 15). Gilbert approved both a 3% raise and a $7,
000 salary increase for Heatherly. (Docs. # 40-7 at p.
155-57; 40-9 at p. 13-15). With this raise, Heatherly's
salary was increased to $107, 255.08. (Docs. # 40-7 at p.
158; 40-9 at p. 13).
summer of 2014, Heatherly assisted in launching a new
recruiting software for UA. (Docs. # 40-7 at p. 61; 49-1 at
¶ 31). After the software was implemented, Gilbert
received complaints from individuals, who were both internal
and external to UA, because they were not able to utilize the
software. (Docs. # 40-6 at ¶ 14; 40-7 at p. 61). Gilbert
called Whittaker, who by that time had become the Associate
Vice President of Human Resources following Harris's
retirement, and told her to fix the problem because
individuals could not apply for positions at UA. (Docs. #
40-6 at ¶ 14; 40-7 at p. 61).
August 2014, Whittaker recommended to Gilbert that Heatherly
receive a 3% merit increase. (Doc. # 40-6 at ¶ 14).
Gilbert did not believe that Heatherly should receive any
merit increase because of Heatherly's handling of the
recruiting software and complaints that Gilbert had received
about Heatherly's customer service. (Id.).
Plaintiff counters that there are no contemporaneous records
to substantiate Gilbert's claim that her handling of the
software program created a debacle. (Doc. # 48 at ¶ 30).
And, based upon this lack of records, Plaintiff disputes
Gilbert's rationale for reducing Heatherly's
suggested merit increase. (Id.). Ultimately, Gilbert
agreed to provide Heatherly with a 1% merit increase in 2014,
which increased her salary to $108, 327. (Docs. # 40-6 at
¶ 14; 40-8 at p. 33, 110).
August 18, 2014, Heatherly emailed Whittaker claiming that
she had not been treated favorably in receiving a 1% merit
increase when the merit increase pool was 3%. (Docs. # 40-8
at p. 33-34; 40-9 at p. 18). Heatherly noted that she had not
received an evaluation for the 2013 through 2014 period and
that she had not been informed of any performance issues.
(Doc. # 40-9 at p. 18). She also stated that she did not
believe that she was being compensated fairly compared to
males. (Id.). After receiving the email, Whittaker
met with Heatherly and explained that the 1% merit increase
was a result of customer service concerns. (Doc. # 40-8 at p.
35). Heatherly next met with both Gilbert and Whittaker about
her 1% salary increase, and Gilbert informed Heatherly that
she had decided that Heatherly would not receive a higher
merit increase because of customer service issues. (Docs. #
40-6 at ¶ 15; 40-8 at p. 35). Heatherly claims that
neither Whittaker nor Gilbert gave her any specifics of what
these purported customer service issues involved. (Doc. #
40-8 at p. 35).
Heatherly's meeting with Gilbert and Whittaker, Heatherly
sent an email to Gilbert and Whittaker summarizing their
meeting. (Id. at p. 36). Gilbert and Whittaker
copied and pasted Heatherly's email into a response and
“edited” it to reflect their expectations of the
behavior that Heatherly needed to exhibit to succeed in her
position. (Docs. # 40-6 at ¶ 15; 40-8 at p. 35-36; 40-9
at p. 19-20). Specifically, Gilbert called upon Heatherly to
be a “facilitator” and “partner” with
departments, rather than a
“gatekeeper.” (Doc. # 40-9 at p. 19-20). However,
Heatherly does not agree with all of the “edits”
that Gilbert and Whittaker made to the email. (Doc. # 40-8 at
2015, Heatherly received a 2.25% increase, which increased
her salary to $110, 765. (Id. at p. 36, 110). In
November 2015, she received a 12.85% increase so that her
salary was $125, 000. (Id. at p. 37, 110). Plaintiff
received this 12.85% salary increase because Railsback was
returning to UA Human Resources (he had previously left Human
Resources to work with the UA Division of Student Affairs)
and UA wanted to pay Heatherly the same salary as Railsback
upon his return to Human Resources. (Doc. # 40-6 at ¶
16; 40-8 at p. 37). On August 16, 2016, Heatherly's pay
was increased 2.75% to $128, 438. (Doc. # 40-8 at p. 37,
110). On August 16, 2017, Heatherly received a 2% increase so
that her salary was $131, 006. (Doc. # 40-6 at ¶ 16, p.
Heatherly remains the Director of Human Resources over
Recruitment, Compensation and Classification, and Student
Employment. (Doc. # 40-8 at p. 39). She does not handle
faculty recruitment or faculty compensation or
classification. (Docs. # 40-8 at p. 40; 40-12 at ¶ 5).
She does recruit regional representatives, or recruiters for
UA, from different states. (Doc. # 40-8 at p. 49). Although
she has a campus-wide role, Heatherly does not serve in any
system-wide role. (Docs. # 40-12 at ¶ 5; 40-13 at p.
14). Heatherly describes her duties on a day-to-day basis as
My team, they work with the departments all over campus and
they're managing the recruitments of positions that they
have that are either new or open in trying to help them
locate and find qualified, good candidates. They work with
them through the hiring process through salary negotiations.
They basically brand the University of Alabama as a place of
employment or as the place -- a good place of employment.
We also work with requests to change positions, to reclassify
jobs, to create new jobs. And then we also have the student
employment function which is involved with posting jobs for
students both on campus and off campus and the recruitment of
those -- hiring of those individuals.
(Doc. # 40-8 at p. 39). There are currently five people on
Heatherly's team. (Doc. # 40-8 at p. 39).
usually has around 1, 300 to 1, 500 staff postings a year.
(Id. at p. 40). If Heatherly does not properly
perform her job, open positions and operations could be
adversely affected. (Id. at p. 45). Additionally, if
she misclassifies employees under the FLSA, UA could be faced
with lawsuits and regulatory fines that could range from $1,
000 to $15, 000 per incident. (Id. at p. 46).
has received no formal discipline while working for UA, and
all of her performance evaluations have been positive. (Doc.
# 40-6 at ¶ 9). However, Tony Johnson, UA's
Assistant Director of Logistics and Support Services, has
complained about disagreements he has had with Heatherly over
job classifications. (Doc. # 40-11 at p. 24-26).
Heatherly's Alleged Comparators
compares her employment with UA with that of three other male
employees in the Human Resources Department: Bertanzetti,
Tutt, and Railsback. (Doc. # 1 at ¶¶ 32-42). Each
of Plaintiff's male comparators are in salary grade 62,
report directly to the Associate Vice President of Human
Resources, and have director-level positions. (Doc. # 39 at
p. 15). The job responsibilities and compensation of
Bertanzetti, Tutt, and Railsback are explored in more detail
David Bertanzetti (Director of Benefits)
January 18, 2008, UA offered Bertanzetti a position as the
Director of Benefits with a start date in March 2008. (Docs.
# 40-8 at p. 41; 40-9 at p. 44; 40-18 at p. 8). Currently,
Benefits, Wellness, Healthcare Insurance Administration, and
the Human Resources Service Center all report to Bertanzetti.
(Doc. # 40-17 at ¶ 3). In 2015 or 2016, Wellness was
moved from the Academic Affairs Department to the Human
Resources Department and is now under Bertanzetti. (Doc. #
40-18 at p. 11-12). Also, at some point, Healthcare Insurance
Administration was also transferred to Bertanzetti.
(Id. at p. 12-13). Since June 2009, Bertanzetti has
supervised more employees than Heatherly. (Doc. # 40-7 at
¶ 17, p. 42). Throughout his employment with UA, neither
Gilbert nor Whittaker have counseled, disciplined, or
formally evaluated Bertanzetti. (Doc. # 40-18 at p. 26).
Director of Benefits, Bertanzetti is responsible for UA's
in-house administration of numerous benefits programs
(including medical, dental, and vision coverage) for UA's
faculty and staff. (Docs. # 40-7 at ¶ 4; 40-18 at p.
16). He researches and evaluates the feasibility of new
benefits programs and alternative benefit designs, is the
major decision-maker in determining whether to implement new
plans, is responsible for assisting in the resolution of
benefit claim issues, and works with UA's third party
administrators, benefits consultants, and vendors to
negotiate favorable benefit-related costs and services for
UA. (Docs. # 40-17 at ¶ 4; 40-18 at p. 15-16).
Bertanzetti, along with the team he oversees, manages over
$45.3 million in total medical costs, which cover over 11,
200 employees and their dependents. (Doc. # 40-17 at ¶
not directly responsible for UA's day-to-day Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(“HIPAA”) compliance, Bertanzetti ensures that
UA's health plans are in compliance with HIPAA. (Doc. #
40-18 at p. 60). Full compliance is essential because without
it UA would be subject to substantial fines for HIPAA
violations. (Id.). In addition, he is responsible
for the employee assistance program and the flexible spending
plans and supervises UA employees who manage these programs
on a daily basis. (Doc. # 40-17 at ¶ 7). Bertanzetti
also oversees UA's I-9 compliance. (Docs. # 40-17 at
¶ 9; 40-18 at p. 60). Fines range from $200 to $2, 000
for each occurrence if an employer is not I-9 complaint.
(Docs. # 40-17 at ¶ 9; 40-18 at p. 60).
is responsible for overseeing the management of UA's
retirement plan and serves on the system-wide Investment
Committee with Mike Boyd (“Boyd”) from UAB,
Sandra Partin (“Partin”) from UAH, and Jon Garner
(“Garner”) from the UA System. (Docs. # 40-17 at
¶ 6; 40-18 at p. 14). The Investment Committee monitors
eighty funds in the retirement plan for changes that impact
the plan. (Docs. # 40-17 at ¶ 6; 40-18 at p. 57). As
necessary, the Committee adds funds to a watch list, removes
funds from the plan, and replaces removed funds with other
funds in the appropriate asset class. (Id.).
Although other employees attend these committee meetings,
Bertanzetti, Boyd, Partin, and Garner are the decision-makers
on the Investment Committee and, with the assistance of
Sageview's consulting services, manage UA's
retirement plan assets which amount to over $2.3 billion.
(Docs. # 40-17 at ¶ 6; 40-18 at p. 13-15, 57). Decisions
made by the Investment Committee impact all the campuses in
the UA System along with the UA System itself. (Doc. # 40-17
at ¶ 6). Bertanzetti also serves on the system-wide
Benefits Committee. (Doc. # 40-17 at ¶ 10). Decisions
made by the Benefits Committee impact UA, other campuses in
the UA System, and the UA System itself. (Id. at
along with the team he oversees, handled Affordable Care Act
(“ACA”) issues for UA for over seven years,
including the implementation of ACA regulations. (Docs. #
40-17 at ¶ 8; 40-18 at p. 57). For instance, one of the
issues he addressed was the 30/130 Rule which concerned an
employer's obligation to offer plans to employees who
work 30 hours a week or 130 hours a month. (Docs. # 40-17 at
¶ 8; 40-18 at p. 57). If the 30/130 Rule were not
properly followed, UA would be subject to up to $10 million
in fines. (Docs. # 40-17 at ¶ 8; 40-18 at p. 57-58). UAH
and the UA System adopted the same plan that Bertanzetti and
his team implemented at UA. (Docs. # 40-17 at ¶ 8; 40-18
at p. 58). Additionally, under Bertanzetti's leadership,
Benefits introduced a first dollar deductible plan in order
to increase the cost efficiency of UA's health plan.
(Docs. # 40-17 at ¶ 11; 40-18 at p. 59). UAH and the UA
System implemented this program as a result of UA's cost
savings. (Docs. # 40-17 at ¶ 11; 40-18 at p. 59).
agrees that the areas Bertanzetti oversees have a larger
fiscal impact on UA, compared to the areas she oversees.
(Doc. # 40-8 at p. 46). She also agrees that the financial
impact that someone's position has on UA is relevant in
determining whether jobs are comparable and that the
oversight of approximately two billion dollars in assets is a
relevant consideration for the comparability of positions.
(Id. at p. 44-45). Likewise, Heatherly acknowledges
that her job and Bertanzetti's job are “two
different jobs” and that she is not qualified to
perform Bertanzetti's job and he is not qualified to
perform hers. (Id. at p. 47).
starting salary was $90, 000, and his official offer letter
stated, “[I]t is expected that your salary will
increase to $100, 000 effective August 16, 2008.”
(Docs. # 40-7 at p. 38; 40-9 at p. 44; 40-18 at p. 19, 27-28,
73-75). At the time Bertanzetti was hired, Heatherly was also
making $90, 000. (Doc. # 40-8 at p. 110). Bertanzetti did not
get a $10, 000 increase in 2008 or 2009; further, because no
merit increases were given in 2008 or 2009, Bertanzetti also
did not receive a merit increase. (Docs. # 40-6 at ¶ 8;
40-8 at p. 42; 40-9 at p. 21). In 2010, Harris recommended a
5.5% increase to raise Bertanzetti's salary to $95, 000;
however, Gilbert increased Bertanzetti's pay to $105,
000, which included the 5.5% increase, plus the $10, 000
increase that was mentioned in his offer letter signed by
Harris. (Doc. # 40-6 at ¶ 18; 40-9 at p. 4). In 2011,
based on Harris's recommendation, Gilbert approved a 5%
salary increase (the same percentage increase that Gilbert
approved for Heatherly) for Bertanzetti, which increased his
salary to $110, 250. (Doc. # 40-6 at ¶ 19, p. 40). In
2012, Harris recommended a 3% increase for Bertanzetti, and
Gilbert increased it to 4%. (Doc. # 40-18 at p. 40). In 2013,
Harris recommended a $7, 000 to $10, 000 increase in salary
for both Bertanzetti and Heatherly because their salaries
were low in comparison to other employees in Financial
Affairs in the same grade. (Docs. # 40-6 at ¶ 21; 40-8
at p. 32; 40-9 at p. 14-16). Due to the equity issue and
Bertanzetti's strong performance, Gilbert approved a 9.1%
increase to raise his salary to $125, 099. (Doc. # 40-6 at
¶ 21, p. 40). Bertanzetti received a 4.8% increase for
2014, which increased his pay rate to $131,
100; a 2.17% increase in 2015, which brought
his salary to $133, 948; a 2.75% increase in 2016, which
increased his salary to $137, 631; and a 2% increase for
2017, which makes his current salary $140, 384. (Doc. # 40-6
at ¶ 22, p. 40).
George Tutt (Director of Payroll)
has been UA's Director of Payroll since he was hired in
May 2007. (Docs. # 40-6 at ¶ 23; 40-19 at p. 4). As the
Director of Payroll, Tutt is responsible for managing
UA's payroll (faculty, staff, and student), which is
approximately $400 million annually and includes monthly
payroll, bi-weekly payroll, and supplemental payroll. (Doc. #
40-19 at p. 4, 11, 51). He also oversees payroll processing,
payroll tax filing, processing of third-party payments for
garnishments and child support, and other special projects
that arise. (Id. at p. 4). Tutt manages numerous
employees who are responsible for performing many tasks and
has supervised more employees than Heatherly since August
2008. (Docs. # 40-6 at ¶ 24, p. 42; 40-19 at p. 9-14).
oversees the submission of tax reports to the federal and
state governments and the filing state tax returns in
approximately two dozen states that have varying filing
requirements. (Id. at p. 39-40). He also supervises
the filling and issuance of approximately 12, 000 W-2 Forms
that UA issues each year. (Id. at p. 41, 54).
Additionally, Tutt is the contact person for an annual
payroll audit that is conducted by PriceWaterhouseCoopers
each year. (Id. at 36, 39). Tutt played a key role
UA's 2010 implementation of a new time and attendance
system and has ...