University of Michigan faces $2.5 million lawsuit for faculty pay discrepancies

In November 2024, a lawsuit was filed against the University of Michigan, claiming systematic underpayment of approximately 3,600 faculty members, due to delayed raises. The lawsuit alleges that the university failed to implement raises starting July 1 when they were scheduled, instead allowing them to take effect two months later, in September. This issue has been acknowledged previously by the university's faculty senate, which resolved earlier in the year to advocate for retroactive pay adjustments in compliance with relevant laws. The resolution pointed out that while UM intends to modify the pay structure effective July 1, 2025, it has not yet addressed the financial shortfall claimed in the lawsuit. The key plaintiffs in the lawsuit assert that this delay has led to significant financial losses over recent years, with one faculty member, Gökçen Gözde Gökçek, claiming an underpayment of $3,644. Matthew L. Turner from Sommers Schwartz PC, the legal representative for Gökçek, criticized the university's reluctance to take responsibility for these financial discrepancies that have adversely affected tenured professors. He provided an estimate that the total potential claim for back pay from UM could approach $2.5 million annually, a burden that many faculty members are now seeking through this legal action. The lawsuit's emergence highlights broader concerns about faculty compensation structures at major public universities, where similar practices of delayed pay may exist and go unchallenged. The ongoing situation raises questions about accountability and compliance with state and federal laws governing faculty salaries. As the university prepares for upcoming changes to its pay practices, stakeholders are left wondering about the ultimate resolution of both current faculty demands for retroactive pay adjustments and the overall implications for university governance and funding. An underlying tension persists between faculty seeking fair compensation and university administration practices that contribute to financial grievances, placing pressure on the institution to rectify its pay processes for the future. This legal case not only underscores the challenges faced by university faculty members in obtaining fair remuneration, but it also reflects larger debates on academic labor rights. As the case unfolds, it will be pivotal to observe how the university responds to these allegations and what changes may be enacted to ensure compliance with pay standards moving forward.