Developments In Equal Pay Litigation - 2022 Update

© 2022 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Developments in Equal Pay Litigation | 57 was alleged to have power to set salaries, there were no allegations to establish the other elements. 492 But the court held that there were sufficient allegations to establish that the Director of HR could be held liable as an employer. According to the court, the complaint “does plausibly allege that [Director of HR] had some control over [plaintiff’s] salary raise, satisfying the third prong, and that [Director of HR] maintained [plaintiff’s] employment records, satisfying the fourth prong.” 493 The court also was satisfied that the complaint alleged that plaintiff had been told that HR was responsible for employee raises and held that it could “reasonably infer that [Director of HR] had at least some control over [plaintiff’s] compensation and played a role in raising [plaintiff’s] salary by two percent.” 494 Accordingly, the court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss as against the Director of HR. Similarly, in Malik v. Wyoming Valley Medical Center , 495 a physician sought to hold her employer, a medical center, and a manager of the medical center, liable for alleged equal pay violations. At issue was whether she had adequately alleged that the manager was an “employer” under the EPA and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). The court held that she had because she had alleged that he was a “high-level manager” at the organization, that he personally managed and oversaw her work, that he had the authority to discipline and counsel her, and that he had a hand in her removal from her position, her non-hiring for another position, and her suspension and termination. 496 Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the court held that those alleged facts “sufficiently alleged that Defendant [manager] exerted supervisory authority over her.” 497 However, in Caples v. Thiel , 498 the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed an EPA claim that was brought against four individual defendants rather than plaintiff’s actual entity employer. In that case, a field male employee in an accounting/HR position alleged that she was paid less and did not receive the same benefits, pension, vacation, or full-time status as her male predecessor. 499 The court held that, under Seventh Circuit precedent, individual employees cannot be held liable under the ADA and Title VII. 500 However, with respect to the EPA, the district court noted that other courts within the Seventh Circuit had come to different conclusions concerning whether a complaint could be brought against individual defendants. 501 Under the FLSA’s definition of “employer,” an individual may be sued if that person is someone who is acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee. Accordingly, the district court held that in order to proceed on an EPA claim in federal court against an individual defendant, “a plaintiff must not only explain what each defendant did, but must explain how each defendant’s actions harmed her.” 502 The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss because plaintiff had failed to allege those facts. 492 Id. at *14. 493 Id. 494 Id. 495 Malik v. Wyo. Valley Med. Ctr. , No. 3:19-cv-01547, 2020 WL 3412692 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2020). 496 Id. at *3. 497 Id. at *4. See also Muslow v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. , No. 19-cv-11793, 2020 WL 6483134, at *11 (E.D. La. Nov. 4, 2020) (finding that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Vice President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel of university was “employer” of attorneys in its legal department because complaint alleged that he “had power over Plaintiffs’ contracts, that he organized legal work at [university], and that he reviewed employee salaries and status. Assuming the veracity of these statements, as is appropriate at this stage, this is enough to allege that Skinner was an employer under the FLSA to survive a motion to dismiss, even if the facts established at a later stage of the litigation tell a different tale”). 498 Caples v. Thiel , No. 17-cv-1797-pp, 2019 WL 1116948 (E.D. Wisc. Mar. 11, 2019). 499 Id. at *1. 500 Id. at *5. 501 Id. at *6. 502 Id.