women faculty members included in the study pool, plus fringe benefits, see Smith v. Virginia Commonwealth Univ., 856 F.Supp. 1088, 1089 & nn. 4 & 5 (E.D.Va.1994), evidence permitting a jury to conclude that the average pay difference attributable to gender was smaller than that shown by the VCU study is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the salary equity pool was larger than necessary to remedy the differential properly attributed to gender. If the difference in pay attributable to gender was overstated, the question is raised whether VCU’s affirmative action plan unnecessarily tram-melled the interests of male faculty members by awarding unjustifiable salary increases only to female faculty members. See Weber, 443 U.S. at 208, 99 S.Ct. at 2729-30 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of VCU
holding that plan language giving plan administrator power to determine which employees are eligible to participate in the plan and providing all parties dealing with the plan an interpretation of plan provisions on request indicates deferential standard of review of trustee eligibility decisions holding an affirmative action plan should be a temporary measure    not intended to maintain racial balance but simply to eliminate a manifest racial imbalance holding affirmative action plan did not unnecessarily trammel interests of white employees when plan was tailored simply to eliminate a man ifest racial imbalance holding that plan did not comply holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant