United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAKE
JUDICIAL NOTICE (DOC. 97)
Timothy S. Black United States District Judge
civil case is before the Court on the motion (Doc. 97) of
Plaintiff, Colleen McTague Storrs, for the Court to
judicially notice her benefits under the State Teachers
Retirement System of Ohio (“STRS”), as well as
the parties' responsive briefings (Docs. 99, 101, 102,
point, the sole issue remaining for trial is Dr.
McTague's claim that Defendant, the University of
Cincinnati (“UC”), violated the EPA by paying her
less than male Assistant Professors in the Geography
Department. For that claim, Dr. McTague seeks to recover the
difference between what she was paid as an Assistant
Professor and what UC paid to the male Assistant Professors,
as well as damages to compensate her for the effect that
discrepancy had on her retirement payments under the STRS.
February 5, 2018, Dr. McTague filed the instant motion
requesting that the Court take judicial notice of the formula
used to calculate her retirement payments under the STRS.
taking of judicial notice is governed by Federal Rule of
Evidence 201. That rule provides, in relevant part, that the
Court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to
reasonable dispute because it (1) is generally known within
the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be
accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy
cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)(1)-(2).
McTague argues that the Court should take judicial notice of
the formula used to calculate her retirement benefits under
the STRS. (Doc. 97 at 2-3). Dr. McTague filed two documents
to aid the Court in taking judicial notice: her STRS
statement, and the STRS's publication Service
Retirement and Plans of Payment. (Doc. 101-2).
the Court notes that the STRS statement and the STRS's
publication provide two different equations. Specifically,
the STRS statement provides that Dr. McTague's monthly
retirement benefit is calculated by multiplying her
“Final Average Salary” (see Ohio Rev.
Code § 3307.501) by 36.48%, and again by 85%, and then
dividing the resulting number by twelve (months). (Doc. 101-2
at 2). In contrast, the STRS's publication provides that
Dr. McTague's monthly benefit is calculated by
multiplying her “Final Average Salary” by a
number on a chart that corresponds to her age at retirement
and her years of service, and dividing the resulting number
by 12 (months). (See Doc. 102 at 22).
two equations appear to be different means of arriving at,
approximately, the same result. Nevertheless, the formulas
are different on their face, and the Court must determine
which, if either, is appropriate for judicial notice.
Court finds that the formula on Plaintiff's STRS
statement is not appropriate for judicial notice. The formula
is listed on a paper bearing STRS letterhead, but devoid of
any other context. This is hardly a source “whose
accuracy cannot be questioned” as required by Federal
Rule of Evidence 201.
the Court finds the formula provided in the STRS publication
is appropriate for judicial notice. The Court cannot
reasonably question the accuracy of an official publication
from STRS, the entity tasked with administering and managing
state teachers retirement benefits. See Ohio Rev.
Code § 3307.01, et seq. Further, the formula
for calculating ...