Last week, the Franklin County Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer concerning a wage discrimination claim brought under Ohio Revised Code 4117.17 by a male engineer-in-training on account of a higher paid engineer-in-training who worked in a different work group. Lang v. Columbus Div. of Power and Water, 2012-Ohio-2037. Both jobs required a similar level of prior work and educational experience. However, in comparing the skills, duties, effort and responsibility required by the two jobs, the Court found that the jobs were not equivalent and, thus, not similarly situated. The Court also found that the male plaintiff also failed to prove that the defendant was the unusual employer that discriminates against the majority.
According to the Court’s opinion, Ohio courts follow federal Equal Pay Act precedent. The legal analysis “depends not on job titles or classifications, but on actual job requirements and performance.” An analysis of the skills required by a job “looks at factors such as experience, training, education, and ability” of the job, not the incumbent employees. Her job required more training than his job. An analysis of the effort required by a job concerns:
the measurement of the physical or mental exertion needed for the performance of a job. Job factors which cause mental fatigue and stress, as well as those which alleviate fatigue, are to be considered in determining the effort required by the job. The definition of "effort" encompasses the total requirements of a job.In this case, her job required working outside and climbing water towers, working in confined spaces, etc. In contrast, the plaintiff worked in an office. Her job also required more responsibility because she acted as the back-up supervisor of employees. The plaintiff did not supervise any staff. Therefore, their jobs were not equivalent or subject to the same pay.
The Court also rejected a reverse discrimination theory based only on the fact that there were three women involved management because there were male managers also involved in establishing pay rates. Moreover, two males recommended against promoting the plaintiff.
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 change or be 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.
