©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Developments in Equal Pay Litigation 2026 | 89 When she asked for a raise the following year, the university denied her request and gave her a one-time $5,000 signing bonus.711 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.”712 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;713 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.714 The matter was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, and the EEOC filed an amicus brief attempting to clarify the burden shifting framework under the EPA.715 According to the EEOC, the EPA’s framework is as follows: (1) the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case; (2) the defendant must then prove an affirmative defense that, in fact, caused the difference in pay in order to avoid liability. According to the EEOC, under the EPA, the burden never shifts back to the plaintiff to prove pretext.716 Therefore, for the university to prevail, it would need to submit evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the proffered reasons do in fact explain the wage disparity (not simply that they could explain the disparity, which would be sufficient under Title VII’s McDonnell Douglas framework). The EEOC points out that this burden is even higher at the summary judgment stage because an employer must prove at least one affirmative defense so clearly that no rational jury could find to the contrary.717 Additionally, under the EPA’s framework, the burden does not shift to the plaintiff to prove pretext.718 According to the EEOC, the District Court’s decision to the contrary goes against Eleventh Circuit precedent, and the majority of other circuits also reject the pretext step for EPA claims.719 In reality, this issue has been hotly disputed among the federal courts, and it is no surprise that the EEOC would want to weigh in to steer the law in an as plaintiff-friendly direction as possible.720 711 Id. at *2. 712 Id. 713 Id. at *4. 714 Id. at *7. 715 See Br. of the EEOC as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant and in Favor of Reversal, Williams v. Ala. State Univ., No. 2312692 (filed Sept. 29, 2023). 716 Id. at 10-13. 717 Id. at 14. 718 Id. at 16-19. 719 Id. 720 See, e.g., Wilder v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 552 F. Supp. 3d 639, 654 (E.D. Tex. 2021) (Noting the differences in proving pretext under the McDonnell Douglas framework versus the framework applied under the EPA, the court held that, under the EPA, the defendant always keeps the burden of production and persuasion after a plaintiff has established a prima facie case: “the court will always consider pretext if the analysis gets that far, but the burden never shifts back to the plaintiff in an EPA claim”); Mullenix v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, No. 1:19-cv-1203-LY, 2021 WL 5881690 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2021) (“The burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), governs claims under the EPA.”) (citing Lindsley v. TRT Holdings, Inc., 984 F.3d 460, 466 (5th Cir. 2021)); Patel v. Tungsten Network, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-7603-SB-JEM, 2021 WL 4776348, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2021) (holding that the plaintiff did not need to establish pretext to avoid summary judgment because “summary adjudication on the EPA claim is proper only if Defendant produces ‘sufficient evidence such that no rational jury could conclude but that these proffered reasons actually motivated the wage disparity’ at issue”) (quoting Stanziale v. Jargowsky, 200 F.3d 101, 107-08 (3d Cir. 2000)).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4