©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Developments in Equal Pay Litigation | 29 The court held that the 2016 revision to California’s equal pay law “did not materially alter the definition of ‘equal work’ or the analysis of that issue reflected in prior state and federal cases,” but instead, “the amended standard was very close to that which has long been applied by courts under the federal Equal Pay Act.”218 Rather than changing the standard applied under the federal EPA, the court held that the law “simply brought that section in line with case law under the federal EPA.”219 Applying that standard, the court held that plaintiff failed to establish that her comparators performed substantially similar work. Among other things, it found that the general counsel had been at the company for much longer, had performed admirably in his role, and always had considerably more responsibility than plaintiff.220 The court found similarly with respect to plaintiff’s other comparator, noting that the vice president of law and policy performed different work than an associate general counsel, that she had “broad responsibilities in management, policy work, and legal projects,” and, “had significantly more managerial responsibility.”221 The court concluded: “The undisputed facts demonstrate both [general counsel comparator] and [vice president comparator] had greater and substantially different responsibilities than [plaintiff]. When viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, [plaintiff] did not perform substantially similar work to either comparator.”222 Similarly, in Jirek v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP,223 the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois applied the same standard to analyze the pleading requirements under the federal and Illinois equal pay statutes. In that case, a group of female pharmaceutical sales representatives attempted to sue on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated female sales representatives, alleging that they were paid less than male sales representatives. In reviewing the complaint on the employer’s motion to dismiss, the court first held that “because the statutes are ‘nearly identical . . . claims brought under the IEPA and EPA are analyzed the same way.’”224 The court then found that the complaint failed to allege claims under either statute because plaintiffs failed to identify any higher paid male comparators who performed equal work within the geographic limitations set by the federal EPA (same “establishment”) or the Illinois EPA (same county). Plaintiffs argued that they were not required to identify individual comparators at the pleading stage, and instead based their allegations on the findings of a Conciliation Agreement the employer had entered into with the OFCCP, which found that female sales employees were paid less based on their sex.225 But the court held this was insufficient to meet plaintiffs’ burden to establish a prima facie case, which requires, among other things, that plaintiffs show they performed “equal work” as compared to their comparators. “While Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains a high-level description of the responsibilities of sales employees generally, this description does not contain enough detail for the Court to ascertain Plaintiffs’ ‘actual job duties.’”226 The court noted that the complaint did not mention the nature of plaintiffs’ customers (i.e., large academic medical centers vs. solo providers), the complexity of the therapies they sold, or the related training and education needed to sell such products. Moreover, the OFCCP’s findings that female Level 4 Specialty Care Sales Representative positions were paid less than men could not save their complaint because “having a ‘similar position’ or the ‘same job classification’ does not, in itself, mean that all employees holding that position performed ‘equal work,’ which is what the statute requires.”227 218 Id. at *4 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)). 219 Id. at *5. 220 Id. at *5-6. 221 Id. at *7. 222 Id. at *8. 223 Jirek v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, No. 21-cv-6929, 2023 WL 415547 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 2023). 224 Id. at *2. 225 Id. at *3. 226 Id. at *4. 227 Id. See also McLaughlin v. Cook Cnty., 2023 IL App. 1st 221869, at *5 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023) (holding that “claims brought under the [Illinois EPA] are analyzed the same way as claims brought under the federal Equal Pay Act,” and applying the same standard to both to determine that “plaintiff did not perform equal work requiring substantially similar skill and responsibilities as [comparator’s] position”); Boyd v. City of Chi., No. 20-cv-710, 2023 WL 3627708 (N.D. Ill. May 24, 2023) (holding that “[t]he Illinois Equal Pay Act and the federal Equal Pay Act are evaluated using the same standards,” and finding that plaintiff “has not established that [comparator] is an adequate comparator for purposes of the EPA,” because even if one were to accept that their jobs “share a ‘common core’ of tasks, [comparator] has additional duties that make the two jobs ‘substantially different’”).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4