Five full professors sued Vassar College in 2023 over a gender pay gap they alleged had persisted for years.

The case is *Graham et al. v. Vassar College*, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 7:23-cv-07692.

The complaint was filed on August 30, 2023. In September 2024, per class counsel, the court denied Vassar's motion to dismiss the equal pay claim under New York law. The parties reached a proposed $5,000,000 settlement, filed with the court on July 31, 2026.

A federal judge granted preliminary approval on September 11, 2026, per the Equal Rights Advocates notice. The final approval hearing is set for December 9, 2026.

Per the Equal Rights Advocates notice, the proposed plan would distribute the fund to approximately 84 women full professors, covering 2015 to 2026.

Per Lieff Cabraser's summary, the proposed reforms include annual independent pay-equity audits. They also include transparency to full professors about the methods and criteria Vassar uses to set compensation.

This is a proposed settlement, not a finding on the merits. A settlement is not an admission. No court has found discrimination.

Read the proposed remedy again. The methods and criteria. Shared.

Translation: where the rulebook is not shared, no one can check a pay decision against it. Here, access to the criteria is part of a proposed settlement awaiting final approval.

The problem

If you set or review compensation and cannot say, in one paragraph, what the written criteria are, you cannot check a pay decision against them.

Name it, then get to work.

What has not worked

Salary websites. They report what a title pays. They say nothing about which criteria your employer applies to move you inside or outside the band.

Performance reviews. "Exceeds expectations" is not a criterion. It is a rating produced by criteria you cannot read.

Asking peers. Someone else's number is not your employer's rulebook.

Waiting for the review. Payscale's 2025 Compensation Best Practices Report finds 64% of annual pay increases take effect in Q1. 32% in January. The decision precedes the effective date. Ask before the calendar closes it.

None of this is a personal failing. Nobody teaches this.

The solution: a Criteria Request Record

Four steps. Record retrieval only.

Step 1. Request the written criteria. In writing to HR or compensation, ask for the current written criteria. Criteria used to set or adjust pay for your role and the roles reporting to you. If none exist in writing, ask that answer in writing.

Step 2. Request the cycle in dates. Ask when merit budgets are set, when calibration happens, and when increases take effect. Write both dates down. Do not ask for a number.

Step 3. Retrieve three artifacts against the criteria. A dated outcome artifact. A written acknowledgment. A review passage that describes contribution. Point to where the evidence lives. Do not remove employer files from employer systems.

Step 4. File the four items in one place you control. The written criteria (or the "none in writing" answer). The cycle dates. The three artifacts. Date the file.

See the difference? A prepared speech is a hope. A filed record is evidence.

The example: the criteria are in the proposed remedy

In *Graham et al. v. Vassar College*, the five named plaintiffs were Wendy Graham, Maria Höhn, Mia Mask, Cindy Schwarz, and Debra Zeifman. All current or former full professors.

The case proceeded past the motion to dismiss. The parties reached the proposed $5,000,000 settlement in the summer of 2026.

The proposed remedy is on the record: the methods and criteria, shared.

Again: a proposed settlement, not an admission.

I have negotiated contracts with 41 named enterprise organizations. The pattern the Vassar record surfaces is not exclusive to higher education. Where the criteria are not written and not shared, you cannot check a pay decision against them.

Research finds Black candidates can face greater resistance from racially biased evaluators when negotiating (Journal of Applied Psychology, PMID 30335407). Preparation does not eliminate discrimination. It makes the request specific, documented, and legible enough to recognize an inflexible or biased system.

Translation: the criteria your employer uses to set your pay are the record you need to see. Not the market range. Not your salary band. The rulebook.

Your template

Copy this. Fill it in this week.

CRITERIA REQUEST RECORD  |  Dated: ________

1. Written criteria used to set compensation
   Requested from: __________________ on __________
   Answer received (yes / not in writing / no answer): _______
   Where the answer lives (email, PDF, HRIS page): _______

2. Review cycle dates
   Merit budget set by: ____________
   Calibration window: ____________
   Effective date: ____________

3. Three artifacts against the criteria
   Artifact 1: outcome record ___________________________
     Type / date / where it lives: _______________________
   Artifact 2: written acknowledgment ___________________
     Type / date / where it lives: _______________________
   Artifact 3: review passage on contribution ___________
     Type / date / where it lives: _______________________

What this does not do

This file names the criteria and the artifacts.

It does not tell you what the record is worth. That is the next problem.

Send the written request this week. File the answer, or the absence of one.

The record is step one. What it is worth is the next step. Lab Tools

Thank You; It's True™