Submitted By Leonard J. Dietzen, III, Esquire – Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell
The Eleventh Circuit’s holding in Bowen v. Manheim Remarketing, Inc., 882 F.3d 1358(11th Cir. 2018) reiterates an employer’s heavy burden to establish an affirmative defense in order to win summary judgment in cases alleging Equal Pay Act violations. In Bowen v. Manheim, Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her employment discrimination suit under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which alleged that Manheim discriminated against her by paying her less than her male predecessor. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of Manheim, holding that Plaintiff was entitled to proceed to trial.
Plaintiff Bowen was promoted to arbitration manager three years after being hired as an automobile detailer by Manheim. Bowen replaced a male arbitration manager. The male arbitration manager was paid $46,350 during his first year as arbitration manager, but Bowen’s starting salary as arbitration manager was $32,000.Bowen’s salary did not reach $46,350 until her sixth year as arbitration manager.
During the summary judgment stage of the litigation, Bowen offered documents and testimony about her performance and salary history, which showed that her salary was below the minimum salary for arbitration managers for a few years and was consistently well below the midpoint salary for arbitration managers. Bowen also provided an affidavit from Manheim’s human resources manager, which described seemingly sex-biased interactions with the general managers at Manheim and presented statistical evidence that women at Manheim were paid similarly but their pay was “thousands of dollars less than men’s pay for the same jobs.” Id. at 1361. Although the human resources manager reported these pay disparity findings to one of the general managers, nothing was done to address the issue.
In spite of this evidence, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Manheim because Manheim offered factors other than sex—prior salary and prior experience—to justify the pay disparity between Plaintiff and her male predecessor. The predecessor worked for Manheim for six years before his promotion to arbitration manager, had prior managerial and mechanical experience, and earned $46,350 at Manheim before the promotion. In contrast, Plaintiff was promoted to arbitration manager after only three years, had limited prior managerial and mechanical experience, and earned around $26,000 before the promotion.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded to allow Plaintiff’s case to proceed to trial, finding that, although Manheim had stated factors other than sex to explain the pay disparity, the employer’s burden to establish an affirmative defense after a plaintiff has established a case under the Equal Pay Act is a “heavy one,” and the employer must show “the factor of sex provided no basis for the wage differential.” Id. at 1362. Plaintiff established a prima facie case, i.e. that her employer paid “different wages to employees of opposite sexes for equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which [we]re performed under similar working conditions.” Id. (quoting Irby v. Bittick, 44 F.3d 949, 954 (11th Cir. 1995)). Although Manheim identified nondiscriminatory reasons for the disparity, the Court held that a jury could find that Manheim had failed to satisfy its “heavy burden” of showing that sex provided no basis for the disparity and could find that prior salary and experience alone did not explain the disparate pay overtime once Plaintiff had established herself as an effective arbitration manager.
With regard to Plaintiff’s mixed-motive claim under Title VII, the Court agreed with Plaintiff that she had presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that her sex was a motivating factor for the pay disparity between her and her male predecessor.
Thus, the Court reversed and remanded the trial court’s summary judgment ruling on this claim as well, finding Plaintiff was entitled to proceed to trial on this claim, as well as her claim under the Equal Pay Act. This case reminds employers that the burden to establish an affirmative defense under the Equal Pay Act is a heavy one. Employers should take proactive steps to audit their pay practices to determine whether disparities in pay between males and females could withstand scrutiny by a court.
Leonard J. Dietzen, III is a partner of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell and focuses his practice in the area of labor and employment and commercial litigation. Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwel provides litigation and counseling services in product liability, commercial litigation, construction, IP litigation, employment, insurance coverage, professional liability and toxic torts. Offices in Florida and Alabama. www.rumberger.com
Preferred is excited to announce a new online video streaming training platform being made available to all Preferred members free of charge through a new partnership with J.J. Keller & Associates, Inc.
This new training resource will give our members unlimited access to J.J. Keller’s extensive video streaming library of videos covering transport safety, hazmat, workplace safety, construction safety, and human resource/ legal compliance in english and spanish to support their training initiatives. In addition, Video on Demand includes the following:
- Expert content – J.J. Keller’s regulatory and subject-matter experts make sure all video content reflects the most current regulations and best practices.
- Consistent delivery – Powerful “Remote View” training capabilities help ensure that no matter how many employees need training, or where they are located, your training message will reach them and be consistent.
- Premium content – Programs include Trainer’s guides, quizzes, PowerPoint presentations, images, checklists and posters.
- Tablet & Mobile Capable – Now you can watch videos from the entire Video on Demand library on your preferred mobile device, such as tablets and smartphones.
To learn more on how your organization can take advantage of this exciting new free training resource being made available, please contact Mike Stephens, Senior Loss Control Specialist, at Ph: 321 832-1658 / Email: [email protected], or your respective regional Loss Control Consultant.
Your respective Loss Control Consultant can also suggest the best implementation strategy for your organization. As part of Preferred’s initiative to provide continuous improvements for products/services offered to our members, we highly encourage you to considering utilizing Video on Demand to assist you with your safety and risk management training needs.