A pair of former female Warren Consolidated Schools high school teachers have settled their gender-bias lawsuit against the district.

Amy Ryntz of St. Clair Shores and Ashley Schoen of Grosse Ile Township sued the district in federal court in 2023 for their treatment in 2021 and 2022 while teachers at Sterling Heights High School.

They accused the district of providing preferential treatment to up to eight male teachers in scheduling, pay, and assignments; offering additional compensation to male teachers through the teaching of additional courses; and causing disruptive changes to plaintiffs’ schedules while maintaining the schedules of male teachers.

The district, which encompasses parts of Warren, Sterling Heights and Troy, denied the claims and in April 2024 asked U.S. District Judge Laurie Michelson to dismiss the case because it went to binding arbitration via the plaintiffs’ labor union, the Warren Education Association.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Eric Stempien, said the case went into mediation, and the two sides settled the case in April. Michelson dismissed the case in May.

“It was a global resolution of all issues — labor as well as the lawsuit,” Stempien said, adding he was restricted on his remarks due to confidentiality.

The lawsuit alleged violation of the Equal Pay Act, the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and federal Title IX, which bars gender discrimination in programs that receive federal assistance.

Both plaintiffs had worked for WCS for over 20 years before filing the lawsuit.

Ryntz retired last month and Schoen retired in 2024 and is now working for Wayne County, according to Stempien.

Among the allegations, the plaintiffs say high school administrators provided certain extra assignments to eight male teachers but not to Ryntz and Schoen, who taught history and other classes in the social-studies department. The assignments involved additional students being placed in the teachers’ classroom for which instructors received more pay.

In denying the allegations, the district said the plaintiffs “cannot show that their gender was a motivating decision in work arrangements,” and accused the them of “a history of unsatisfactory work performance” who “were not capable of performing the essential elements of the job assignment they base their complaint upon.”

The district also claimed governmental immunity.