According to the Court’s opinion, one of the plaintiffs was
the employer’s only African-American supervisor and the other plaintiff was his
domestic partner who alleged that he was discriminated against because of his
association with the other plaintiff.
They had been hired in 2005 at approximately $10/hour, had been promoted
to the positions of Account Manager and were making approximately $42,000/year
at the time that they filed their Charges.
Of the 26 other Account Managers, all but one was hired after them, 12
were hired after 2010 and most were paid significantly more than them,
including 11 of the newly hired managers. The employer defended the higher salaries
paid to the other Account Managers on the basis that the market after 2010 was
competitive and that they needed to increase the level of college education and
prior management experience required for the positions and the starting
salaries. While the plaintiffs conceded
the fairness of paying more for greater education and experience, they felt
that their salaries should have been increased as well to reflect their greater
seniority with the employer. During pre-trial
discovery, the employer discovered that one of the plaintiffs had made
misrepresentations on his job application about having a high school diploma
(which he lacked) and voluntarily leaving a job from which he was actually
involuntarily terminated (when he had similarly lied on a job application).
Charge of
Discrimination. The plaintiffs sent
notarized letters (signed under penalty of perjury) to the EEOC and OCRC and completed
intake questionnaires, but never signed or dated official Charge of Discrimination
forms. Instead, they requested and
received right-to-sue letters from the EEOC and filed suit. The district court found that they exhausted
their administrative remedies because, among other things, the EEOC treated
their letters and questionnaires as Charges, but the EEOC filed an amicus brief
indicating that this factor was irrelevant. The Court agreed that the EEOC’s
treatment of the letters and questionnaires was irrelevant, but still found
that the plaintiffs had exhausted their administrative remedies because the
plaintiffs had filed Charges giving notice of their allegations and requesting
the agencies to take action.
Pay Discrimination. The employer conceded that the plaintiffs had
alleged a prima facie case because they were paid less than all of their fellow
Account Managers. On appeal, the
employer contended that the other Account Managers were more qualified than the
plaintiffs and were paid more on account of a factor other than race. In particular, the employer increased the
starting salary for the position in 2010 to reflect increased requirements for
college and job-related prior experience.
This resulted in virtually all of the new hires being paid more than
most of the existing Account Managers, including plaintiffs. The Court found this to be a
non-discriminatory reason: The plaintiffs’
belief that seniority should have been given equal or greater
weight than educational and experiential accomplishments does not mean that the
defendants were guilty of wage discrimination simply because they viewed other
criteria as more germane to their salary-determination decision.
As for the other Account Managers hired before 2010 who were
also paid more than the plaintiffs, the Court found that they similarly
possessed greater education (i.e., college degrees) and more relevant job
experience than the plaintiffs. One of
the plaintiffs did not even have a high school degree and the other had a fine
arts degree, unlike business, marketing or communications majors who had higher
salaries. In other words, the court
found that a fine arts degree did not justify the same amount of salary paid to
co-workers with a marketing degree or business classes:
Clearly, skills gained from such a [fine arts] degree were
not as immediately transferrable to Lorenzo’s job at FacilitySource as were
those from the degrees obtained and courses taken by other individuals in
management and business related subjects.
Promotions. The employer promoted a few Account Managers
in to Senior Account Manager positions.
Even though the plaintiffs did not apply for these promotions, the Court
found this was unnecessary in light of the employer’s failure to post the
positions:
[I]n failure to promote cases a plaintiff does not have to
establish that he applied for and was considered for the promotion when the
employer does not notify its employees of the available promotion or does not
provide a formal mechanism for expressing interest in the promotion. Instead,
the company is held to a duty to consider all those who might reasonably be
interested in a promotion were its availability made generally known.
Nonetheless, the plaintiffs could not prevail because one of
them lacked the requisite college degree and the other was less qualified than
the individuals ultimately promoted due to their more relevant college courses.
Hostile Work Environment. The
plaintiff was able to identify race-based comments and that clients were rarely
introduced to him during walk-arounds unless they were also African-American or
specifically requested to meet with him. “When directed toward or used to
describe an African-American employee, especially the sole African-American
employee in a management position, such comments and conduct must be considered
both inappropriate and racially insensitive.”
However, the plaintiff never explained how this conduct was so offensive
that it interfered with his work. He
was ultimately fired because of dishonesty on his job application, not because
of his job performance.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you
of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not
apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to
different results. Information here can be changed or amended without
notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If
you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or
retain an employment attorney.
