©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Developments in Equal Pay Litigation | 85 supposed high demands imposed on [comparator] did not, according to [employer’s COO’s] deposition, significantly impact [employer’s] decision to pay [comparator] a higher base salary.”696 Turning to the EEOC’s Title VII claim, although the two statutes apply different standards for establishing a prima facie case, the court concluded that “[h]aving found that the Plaintiff successfully established a prima facie case under the Equal Pay Act, the Court also finds that the evidence used under the EPA burden is sufficient to establish a prima facie case under Title VII.”697 The court explained that under the burden shifting scheme of Title VII, “[t]he burden of production now shifts to the Defendant to articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason in light of the four exceptions outlined in the Equal Pay Act.”698 The employer argued that the comparator’s salary had been set at a time when it needed to hire someone quickly or close that branch, and the comparator manager had made a “take it or leave it” demand that the company felt compelled to take. The court held that that satisfied the employer’s burden under the Title VII burden-shifting scheme “because an employer ‘need only articulate—not prove—a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason,’” to meet its burden of production.699 However, the employer was not able to rebut the EEOC’s claims that those purportedly legitimate reasons were merely a pretext for discrimination; the court found the employer’s reasons “highly suspicious” in light of the fact that it had sometimes allowed even larger branches to operate for short periods of time without a manager.700 696 Id. The court noted that “equal does not mean identical,” and that “[i]n determining whether job differences are so substantial as to make jobs unequal, it is pertinent to inquire whether and to what extent significance has been given to such differences in setting the wage levels for such jobs.” Id. (quoting 29 CFR § 1620.14(a)). The court also denied the employer’s attempt to meet one of the statutory exceptions found in the EPA, finding that the differences in training and experience could not justify the wage disparity, nor could the managers’ different salary demands and expectations. 697 Id. at 647. 698 Id. at 647-48. 699 Id. at 648 (quoting Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 258, 258 (1981)). 700 Id. at 648-49.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4