80 | Developments in Equal Pay Litigation 2026 ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP on the geographic distance between offices, but also on “the nature of the services provided and the degree of central administration, such as budgeting, hiring, and day-to-day management.”632 The court found that there was no reason to combine the branches in this case, because, among other things, the branches were managed independently, had their own sales and profitability goals, each serviced and solicited distinct clients, and there was never any significant overlap in the daily operations.633 Accordingly, for purposes of the EPA—but not Title VII—the plaintiff was limited to just one comparator. In Flannigan v. Universal Steel America, Inc. (E.D. La. 2026),634 the court addressed what it characterized as “a legal issue of first impression”: whether remote work constitutes dissimilar “working conditions” under the Equal Pay Act. Rejecting the employer’s argument that in‑office ISRs faced greater industrial hazards, the court held that minor or incidental hazard differences do not defeat comparator status, even where one employee works entirely remotely. Although the employer prevailed on its affirmative defense based on experience and book of business, the working‑conditions analysis provides important guidance for EPA claims in hybrid/remote workplaces. Courts are often quick to stress that extending an EPA claim beyond a single establishment is the exception rather than the rule. It requires the existence of “unusual circumstances” that tie together a larger group of employees under some centralized decision-making scheme. For example, in Winks v. Virginia Department of Transportation,635 an employee of a state agency alleged she was paid less than male employees for the same work. The agency argued those comparators did not work in the same establishment as the plaintiff.636 The court found there were no “unusual circumstances” that would justify expanding the typical definition of an establishment as a distinct physical place of business, because the agency’s nine regional districts operated independently from its central office with respect to whom to hire and what to pay: “The districts, not the Central Office, control the duties and assignments of the NPDES Coordinators on a daily basis. Each district functions as a largely independent unit within VDOT, making its own decisions with only high-level oversight from the Central Office. In scenarios with similar facts, courts have repeatedly found that regional offices could not constitute a combined single establishment.”637 It is important that, unlike the EPA, there is no “establishment” requirement for plaintiffs proceeding under Title VII. In Lindsley v. TRT Holdings,638 the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded a decision holding that Directors from other locations of the same hotel chain were not proper comparators because they were not part of the same “establishment” where plaintiff worked.639 The Fifth Circuit noted that, although the case did not present the “unusual circumstances” that might warrant departure from the usual rule regarding an “establishment” under the EPA, that analysis does not apply under Title VII or to plaintiff’s state law claims. The Fifth Circuit faulted the district court for failing to address that issue in the context of those statutory schemes. “Those statutes contain no ‘establishment’ requirement. Yet the district court did not address whether [plaintiff] established a prima facie case under Title VII and the Texas Labor Code based on male food and beverage directors at different [employer] locations.”640 632 Id. (quoting Winther v. City of Portland, 21 F.3d 1119, at *1 (9th Cir. 1994)). 633 Id. at *6. 634 Flannigan v. Universal Steel Am., Inc., No. CV 22-3080, 2026 WL 35192, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 6, 2026) 635 Winks v. Va. Dep’t of Transp., No. 3:20-cv-420-HEH, 2021 WL 5614764 (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2021). 636 Id. at *3. 637 Id. at *4 (emphasis in original). 638 Lindsley v. TRT Holdings, Inc., 984 F.3d 460, 464 (5th Cir. 2021). In that case, a hotel Food and Beverage Director alleged she was paid less than other Food and Beverage Directors who worked at different outposts of the same hotel chain in different cities in Texas. 639 See Lindsley v. TRT Holdings, No. 3:17-cv-2942-X, 2019 WL 6467256, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2019). The Fifth Circuit held that plaintiff had “put forth a prima facie case of sex discrimination,” and stated “[i]f there is a good explanation for that disparity, [employer] is required to put one forth if it wishes to prevail in this litigation. [Employer] failed to do so. Yet the district court granted summary judgment to [employer] anyway.” Lindsley, 984 F.3d at 464. The court pointed to the fact that plaintiff had established that she was paid less than her predecessors in the same position, and “[n]o more is needed to establish a prima facie case.” Id. at 467. 640 Id. at 468.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4