©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Developments in Equal Pay Litigation | 73 alleged no facts to suggest that [Defendants] played any role in the decisions’ alleged in the [complaint].”607 Although these joint-employment issues more typically involve different corporate entities, the EPA’s definition of an “employer” is broad enough to include individual managers or supervisors who are shown to exercise substantial control over the plaintiff’s terms of compensation and work activities.608 For example, in Malik v. Wyoming Valley Medical Center,609 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.610 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.”611 Similarly, in Gunaldo v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University,612 the court held that there were sufficient allegations to establish that the Director of HR of a university 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, . . . and that [Director of HR] maintained [plaintiff’s] employment records . . . .”613 The court also was satisfied that the complaint alleged that plaintiff had been told that HR was responsible for employee raises, and so 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.”614 Many cases have demonstrated that individual liability is much easier to allege as a possibility in a complaint, than it is to prove once the facts are known. For example, in a later case against the same university, Muslow v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College,615 the district court for the Eastern District of Louisiana originally allowed a complaint to proceed against some members of the university’s administration.616 In that case, the full-time General Counsel 607 Id. (quoting Rhodes, 2012 WL 1868697, at *7). 608 Some employers have argued that individual liability cannot be alleged along with entity liability, with some success. See, e.g., Weaver v. Jackson, HMA, LLC, No. 3:22-cv-151-HTW-LGI, 2023 WL 1787169, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 6, 2023) (dismissing claim against supervisor because it was a “remedial redundancy,” meaning that the plaintiff already has the same claim against the employer under the EPA and, since double recovery for the same alleged acts of discrimination is disallowed, any further relief against an individual would be redundant and subject to dismissal); but see Cooper v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., No. 21-cv-02411-PABNYW, 2022 WL 2063229, at *8 (D. Colo. June 8, 2022) (holding that plaintiff’s proposed amendment to the complaint to, among other things, add EPA claims against two individual defendants was not futile, noting some precedent to support defendant’s argument that an employee “may only assert an Equal Pay Act claim against the entity or her individual supervisors, but not both,” but holding that there was a split of authority and lack of clear, binding precedent, such that: “the court cannot conclude that the present state of the law is so clear that it renders Plaintiff's Proposed Claims . . . patently futile”). 609 Malik v. Wyo. Valley Med. Ctr., No. 3:19-cv-01547, 2020 WL 3412692 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2020). 610 Id. at *3. 611 Id. at *4. See also Davis v. Dawgs of St. John, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-0112, 2022 WL 17735829, at *23 (D.V.I. Dec. 16, 2022) (refusing to grant motion to dismiss filed by restaurant owners sued in their individual capacity under the EPA, finding that plaintiff had adequately alleged that they “jointly own, operate and/or manage the business known as [restaurant], and that Individual Defendants exercised control over significant aspects of the company's day-to-day functions, including compensation of employees”). 612 Gunaldo v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ., No. 20-cv-154, 2020 WL 4584186 (E.D. La. Aug. 10, 2020). 613 Id. at *14. 614 Id. 615 Muslow v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. and Agric. and Mech. Coll., No. 19-cv-11793, 2022 WL 1642137 (E.D. La. May 24, 2022). 616 See 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 [legal officer] 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”).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4