14 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2024 EDITION ©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP University of Miami,40 the EEOC alleged that a university paid a female professor less than her counterpart who performed the same job. The university had hired the charging party as an associate professor during the same year that it hired a male professor with comparable qualifications for a lower-ranked position in the same department at a higher salary.41 The university argued that the professors did not perform substantially equal work and that the salary discrepancy could be explained by a factor other than sex. The court first held that a reasonable jury reviewing the duties of the two professors could conclude that their positions were substantially equal.42 Although the two professors taught different political science specialties, the court noted that they both had doctorate degrees, generally taught the same number of courses at the introductory and advanced levels, and were subject to the same university requirements regarding teaching and research. The university argued that the two professors were not comparable because of their different areas of specialization, because they published in different journals, and because the male professor had published in more prestigious journals. The court found this evidence unpersuasive because “the professors’ specializations within the field of political science do not appear to be dispositive as to the question of substantial job similarity,” but “[r]ather, subspecialties are considered when evaluating whether a professor conducted research and was subsequently published in high-ranking journals relevant to their respective specializations.” 43 The court was ultimately convinced that “the quality of [comparator’s] publications and number of cite counts are determinative of this inquiry because the Plaintiff’s prima facie case requires a comparison of jobs, not the skills and qualifications of the individuals who hold the jobs.” 44 Written policies regarding salary scales and job categories often factor into equal pay cases as well, as employers often rely on those policies to prove that salaries were set according to by their terms and are therefore not discriminatory. For example, in EEOC v. Enoch Pratt Free Library, the employer pointed out that it used a Managerial and Professional Society Salary Policy (MAPS) to determine compensation for newly hired library supervisors.45 According to the employer, that policy is facially neutral, and clearly permitted the employer to pay the starting salaries that it did.46 The court held, however, that the MAPS policy left open the possibility that the employer could apply discretion with respect to setting starting salaries.47 The court concluded that the alleged comparator “was hired at a rate not only higher than the female [library supervisors] represented by the EEOC, but also significantly above the salary [the comparator] had received during his first tenure at [employer]. Given these facts, combined with the inherent discretion within the MAPS policy, genuine factual questions exist about how defendants arrived at [the comparator’s] salary.” 48 After the conclusion of a five-day bench trial, the court concluded that the employer had violated the EPA.49 The EEOC easily met its burden to establish a prima facie case because the parties stipulated that the comparator’s salary was higher than that of each charging party.50 To carry its burden, the employer argued that each library branch differed with respect to circulation size, outreach efforts, and physical footprint, thus rendering the job duties of each library supervisor too dissimilar to support a finding that 40 EEOC v. Univ. of Miami, No. 19-cv-23131, 2021 WL 4459683 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2021). 41 Id. at *6. 42 Id. at *8. 43 Id. 44 Id. 45 EEOC v. Enoch Pratt Free Library, No. 17-cv-2860, 2019 WL 5593279, at *3 (D. Md. Oct. 30, 2019). 46 Id. at *6. 47 Id. 48 Id. at *7. See also EEOC v. George Washington Univ., No. 17-cv-1978, 2019 WL 2028398, at *4 (D.D.C. May 8, 2019) (denying an employer’s motion to dismiss even though the complaint at issue did not explicitly allege how the positions at issue were equal with respect to skill, effort, and responsibility, holding that the complaint “straightforwardly pleads that [plaintiff] was paid less as Executive Assistant than [comparator] was paid as a Special Assistant for substantially the same job responsibilities”); EEOC v. Univ. of Miami, No. 19-cv-23131-Civ-Scola, 2019 WL 6497888, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2019) (denying a motion to dismiss claims brought by professors in the same department because the EEOC had supported its claims of pay discrimination with numerous allegations relating to the professors’ job duties, such as teaching classes and publishing books and articles, and allegations that the female professor had two more years of teaching experience and had published more works, and because the EEOC had alleged that both professors were in the same department and had been promoted to full professor at the same time after a review by the same committee based on the same criteria); EEOC v. Denton Cty., No. 4:17-cv-614, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175794, at *22 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 12, 2018) (denying cross motions for summary judgment, holding that it was “not convinced that [defendant] or the EEOC has met their respective burdens demonstrating that there is no material issue of fact as to the EEOC’s claim for violation of the Equal Pay Act entitling it to judgment as a matter of law”). 49 EEOC v. Enoch Pratt Free Library, No. 8:17-cv-2860, 2020 WL 7640845 (D. Md. Dec. 23, 2020). 50 Id. at *8.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4