©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Developments in Equal Pay Litigation 2025 | 89 university’s policy of making fixed pay increases only exacerbated the situation over time, so that by the time they became full professors, the male professor made approximately $28,000 more than the female professor.685 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. 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.686 The university argued that the salary disparity between the two professors was due to a factor other than sex; namely, they were “market-based,” that annual raises were determined by individual performance, and that multiple salary analyses confirmed that there was no relationship between gender and salary at the University.687 The court could not credit the “market-based” theory due to the absence of credible evidence as to what the market was at the time the two professors were hired. The court was also not convinced that the pay disparity could be explained by disproportionate performance. Although the university claimed the charging party published in less prestigious journals than the male professor, the Dean had admitted he had not reviewed her salary increases or the reasons for the amounts that had been awarded in each year, thus undercutting the university’s explanation.688 Moreover, the court did find evidence of gender disparities at the university, including evidence that it placed a higher service requirement on female professors and had proactively increased male professors’ salaries to close the gap with female professors, but had not done so for the charging party, despite the fact that her Department Chair had conceded she was “grossly underpaid.”689 Accordingly, the university’s motion for summary judgment was denied. This was a significant victory for the EEOC at the time, and the court’s decision remains relatively bad precedent for employers. But on March 23, 2022, the court entered judgment in favor of the university after a jury found in its favor after trial on the merits.690 The EEOC has also recently taken aim at defenses that rely on written policies regarding salary scales and job categories. For example, in 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.691 According to the employer, that policy is facially neutral, and clearly permitted the employer to pay the starting salaries that it did.692 The court held, however, that the MAPS policy left open the possibility that the employer could apply discretion with respect to setting starting salaries.693 The court concluded that “[the EEOC’s comparator] was hired at a rate not only higher than the female [library supervisors] represented by the EEOC, but also significantly above the salary he had received during his 685 Id. 686 Id. at *8. 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.” Id. 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.” Id. 687 Id. at *9. 688 Id. at *10. 689 Id. at *11. Turning to the Title VII claim, the court held that “[b]ecause the EEOC has established its disparate pay claim under the more rigorous analysis of the Equal Pay Act, the court finds that it has met its initial burden of showing its prima facie case under Title VII.” Id. at *12. The court also found that the university met its burden to articulate legitimate bases for the alleged pay disparity, but, for the same reasons that doomed the university’s defense to the EPA claim, also held that the EEOC had “advanced sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the University's purportedly legitimate basis for the pay differential,” thus meeting its burden to show that those reasons were pretextual. Id. 690 Judgment, EEOC v. Univ. of Miami, No. 19-cv-23131-Scola (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2022), ECF No. 203. 691 EEOC v. Enoch Pratt Free Library, No. 17-cv-2860, 2019 WL 5593279, at *3 (D. Md. Oct. 30, 2019). 692 Id. at *6. 693 Id.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4