• Thinkstock/wildpixel
  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Top administrators at San Diego's Salk Institute have been aware that female scientists were underpaid compared to their male colleagues as well as unfairly treated.

According to documents obtained by the Reader, scientist Katherine Jones, one of three women to have sued the Salk Institute for gender bias and discrimination, informed former president Dr. Richard Murphy back in 2003 of the issues.

Murphy, according to the documents filed in San Diego Superior Court, then launched an investigation. The findings were published in 2003's "Report on the Status of Women Faculty at Salk."

"The report contained findings related to the gender disparity and made specific recommendations for Salk to improve the status of women," reads the court documents.

However, while trying to level the playing field, Murphy was allegedly replaced as president.

"There are witnesses that believe Dr. Murphy was replaced as president because of his intention to investigate the male dominated culture and intent to provide more parity and improve the condition of women at Salk."

Attorneys for the Salk Institute have asked that Murphy and another former president, Dr. Thomas Pollard, not be allowed to give depositions in the case. Attorneys have requested protective orders be issued to prevent the depositions from taking place.

"Dr. Pollard left his position at Salk roughly seventeen years ago, and Dr. Murphy more than ten years ago," reads a Salk Institute filing. "Any information that Drs. Pollard and Murphy may remember from more than a decade ago is far too stale to be of any relevance now."

San Diego Superior Court judge Eddie Sturgeon will decide whether the former presidents can be deposed at a hearing on Friday (January 5th).

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Comments

Cassander Jan. 4, 2018 @ 11:44 a.m.

Any information that Drs. Pollard and Murphy may remember from more than a decade ago is far too stale to be of any relevance now.

Actually, it would establish a basis for alleging a long and persistent history of "gender bias and discrimination." The word for that isn't stale, it's damning.

2

Visduh Jan. 5, 2018 @ 7:26 a.m.

Agreed. What better way of prevailing in the suit than to suppress the testimony of two well-placed witnesses?

2

Sign in to comment

Get $5 off any Reader event

Sign up for our email list to get your promo code

Close