Seyfarth Synopsis: The EEOC sued an employer for Equal Pay Act violations, claiming that Maryland Insurance Administration failed to pay three female fraud investigators the same wages as comparable male fraud investigators. On cross motions for summary judgment, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied the EEOC’s motion and granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. Although there was a pay disparity between the female investigators and the male comparators, the Court determined that reasons other than gender justified this difference. The Court also rejected the EEOC’s use of comparators with different job duties but whose positions fell within the same pay grade classification. The ruling is important for employers in the wake of the EEOC’s focus on Equal Pay Act issues.
In E.E.O.C. v. Maryland Insurance Administration, No. 15-CV-1091 (D. Md. Oct. 11, 2016), the EEOC filed a complaint on behalf of three female fraud investigators who claimed that they were paid less than their male counterparts in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. §206(d)(1). On cross motions for summary judgment, the Court denied the EEOC’s motion and granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. At the end of the day, the Court concluded that the EEOC had failed to show that any pay disparity was attributed to gender, observing that all of the comparable males were initially hired at a more senior level due to their weightier work experience. The Court further rejected the EEOC’s use of comparators with different job duties but whose positions fell within the same pay grade classification
This ruling, which cites no authority and is under three pages, demonstrates that federal judges will be quick to swat down equal pay claims where the evidence indicates a non-gender-based reason for a pay disparity or when the job duties of alleged comparators are not apples-to-apples. Employers, therefore, can take some comfort in the fact that a pay disparity and broad classifications alone do not expose them to liability.
Case Background And Decision
Three fraud investigators, Alexandra Cordaro, Marlene Green, and Mary Jo Rogers, were hired in 2009, 2010, and 2011, respectively, by the Maryland Insurance Administration. Id at 1. The EEOC claimed that the employer discriminated against these women on the basis of their gender because it paid a higher salary to four other male fraud investigators (Bruno Conticello, Homer Pennington, James Hurly, and Donald Jacobs).
The EEOC and the employer both moved for summary judgment and, after briefing, the Court denied the EEOC’s motion and granted the employer’s motion In granting summary judgment for the employer, the Court determined that “as to all of the comparable male employees to which the EEOC points, reasons other than gender justified the pay disparity between them.” Id. at 2.
Specifically, the Court explained that, even though the comparable male employees worked as fraud investigators, they were all “hired at higher steps than were Cordaro, Green, and Rogers.” Id. The Court, for example, noted that the male employees were hired at Steps 6 and above, while the female employees were hired at Steps 4 and 5. The Court observed that this, in turn, was because the male employees had more experience in working for the State, either in law enforcement or within the Administration itself. The female employees, in contrast, did not have prior State or law enforcement experience. Id. As a result, the Court concluded that these differences in prior work experience justified the pay disparity.
The Court was also critical of the other male comparators that the EEOC offered because they did not work in the same unit as the females who were allegedly underpaid. These employees worked as enforcement officers, not fraud investigators. Although the EEOC argued that these two positions were the same because they were similarly classified as “Grade 16,” the Court disagreed. Based on testimony that workers in these two positions did not perform the same job, the Court determined that these employees were not appropriate comparators. Id. at 2. Importantly, the Court explained that performing the same job was the “touchstone of the analysis under the EPA.” Id. Crucial to the Court’s determination, therefore, was the substance of the position, not the classification. Indeed, the Court reasoned that “[t]he mere fact that jobs were reclassified . . . does not ipso facto establish a violation of the EPA.” Id. at 3. The Court additionally found these comparators inappropriate based again on their hiring level and previous experience, both of which were distinguishable from plaintiffs. Based on these factors, the Court denied the EEOC’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the defense.
Implication For Employers
This decision reaffirms the principal that pay disparity alone is not enough to give rise to liability under the Equal Pay Act. Employers are free to continue to make salary determinations based on non-gender based reasons, like prior work experience.
This ruling also demonstrates that when deciding whether two employees are comparable, it is the substance of the position that counts — not a broader classification. The fact that two positions with different job functions may fit within a similar pay grade or other designation does not alone demonstrate that the jobs are the same for purposes of the EPA. Employers, nevertheless, should take care to track differing job duties that fall under the same general classification since the EEOC continues to attempt to use these classifications as a way to manufacturer comparators.
Readers can also find this post on our Workplace Countdown blog here.