82 | Developments in Equal Pay Litigation 2026 ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP When plaintiffs sue under Title VII or state laws, different tests may be used. For example, in Noble v. Gould Medical Group, Inc.,652 a physician brought a range of discrimination claims under federal, state, and common law. The claims were brought against a group of distinct healthcare entities that were corporate affiliates of each other, used the same corporate branding, and reported to a single CEO. The court first held that “[t]here is a presumption that separate corporate entities have distinct identities, and plaintiffs bear a heavy burden under both California and federal law when they seek to rebut this presumption and hold multiple corporate entities liable as a single employer.”653 The Plaintiff relied on an integrated enterprise theory to establish joint liability, which looks to four factors: (1) the interrelation of operations between the two entities; (2) whether they share common management; (3) the degree to which centralized control of labor relations exists; and (4) whether there is common ownership or financial control.654 But plaintiff had not alleged the defendant group hired him, set his compensation, or maintained his employment records. Nor did he allege that any entity other than his direct employer imposed any discipline on him. The court concluded: “’The key question in the integrated enterprise inquiry is who is responsible for the employment decisions at issue, and Plaintiff has alleged no facts to suggest that [Defendants] played any role in the decisions’ alleged in the [complaint].”655 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.656 For example, in Malik v. Wyoming Valley Medical Center,657 a physician sought to hold both her employer, a medical center, and a manager of that 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 she had, because she alleged he was a “high-level manager” at the organization, he personally managed and oversaw her work, he had the authority to discipline and counsel her, and he had a hand in her removal from her position, her non-hiring for another position, and her suspension and termination.658 Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the court held those contentions “sufficiently alleged that Defendant [manager] exerted supervisory authority over her.”659 Similarly, in Gunaldo v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University,660 the court held 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 . . . .”661 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 652 Noble v. Gould Med. Group, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01433-MCE-CKD, 2022 WL 3718036 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2022). 653 Id. at *4 (quoting Rhodes v. Sutter Health, No. 2:12-cv-0013 WBS DAD, 2012 WL 1868697, at *6 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2012)). 654 Id. at *5. 655 Id. (quoting Rhodes, 2012 WL 1868697, at *7). 656 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”). 657 Malik v. Wyo. Valley Med. Ctr., No. 3:19-cv-01547, 2020 WL 3412692 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2020). 658 Id. at *3. 659 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”). 660 Gunaldo v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ., No. 20-cv-154, 2020 WL 4584186 (E.D. La. Aug. 10, 2020). 661 Id. at *14.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4