©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Developments in Equal Pay Litigation | 79 DEVELOPMENTS IN EEOC ENFORCEMENT OF EQUAL PAY ACT CLAIMS The EEOC is the federal government’s most powerful agency for the enforcement of federal antidiscrimination laws in the workplace. Authorized by Congress to wield broad investigative and subpoena powers for the prevention and remediation of unlawful employment practices, the EEOC’s enforcement mechanisms cover a range of activities, from individual and systemic claims investigations, conciliation, litigation, and monitoring compliance, to serving as an agent for effecting broader policy change in employment sectors throughout the country. For more than a decade, the EEOC has set forth its top litigation priorities in its Strategic Enforcement Plan. For just as long, that plan has stated that the EEOC will continue to focus on compensation systems and practices that discriminate based on sex under the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) and Title VII.653 Most of its cases have revolved around sex-based discrimination. However, the EEOC stressed that it will also focus on compensation systems and practices that discriminate on any protected basis, such as race, ethnicity, age, or individuals with disabilities.654 A.Recent Examples Of EEOC Enforcement Activity The number of EEOC lawsuits alleging equal pay violations has dropped significantly over the past few years. This has led to a decline in legal decisions relating to equal pay issues, at least those involving the EEOC as a party. Equal pay litigation, itself—apart from the EEOC’s involvement—continues apace. And the EEOC has been actively attempting to steer the results, even if not as a party plaintiff. For example, in September 2023 the EEOC filed an amicus brief in favor of reversal of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama’s decision in Williams v. Alabama State University.655 In that case, a female Athletic Director of a university alleged she was underpaid compared to her male successor in the same position. Before the university hired her, the plaintiff had earned a Master’s Degree in Athletic Administration and worked for two other Division I schools. When plaintiff was hired in 2018, she was given a $135,000 salary with performance incentives. When she asked for a raise the following year, the university denied her request and gave her a one-time $5,000 signing bonus.656 Williams resigned in 2021, and the university posted the Athletic Director position again, modifying the education and experience requirements. On education, the posting required “a master’s degree, preferably in sports management or sports administration, an MBA or terminal degree.” On experience, the posting required “at least seven to ten years of experience in major leadership posts in sports administration and management.”657 The university hired a male as plaintiff’s successor, who had a Master’s Degree and a PhD. He had never been an athletic director before. But he requested and received a starting salary of $170,000 along with performance incentives. The District Court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s EPA claim. The court held that: (1) the university had met its burden on its affirmative defense because the evidence demonstrated that it could have legitimately relied on plaintiff’s successor’s higher degree and greater relevant experience to set his higher salary;658 and (2) plaintiff had not proven pretext because she failed to produce evidence that directly establishes discrimination, or which would permit a jury to reasonably disbelieve the employer’s proffered reason.659 653 See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Strategic Enforcement Plan Fiscal Years 2024 - 2028, Strategic Enforcement Plan Fiscal Years 2024 - 2028 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc.gov). 654 Id. 655 Williams v. Ala. State Univ., No. 2:22-cv-48-ECM, 2023 WL 4632386 (M.D. Ala. July 19, 2023). 656 Id. at *2. 657 Id. 658 Id. at *4. 659 Id. at *7.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4