According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was hired
after being introduced to the defendant’s president by the female colleague
(who formerly worked with him). While
the female colleague was a vice-president, she and the plaintiff were the only
salespeople in the healthcare IT market for the defendant company. The plaintiff wanted to be paid exclusively a
percentage of a profit pool based on the profits generated by the healthcare IT
market, but the female colleague found that to be too risky and wanted to
receive a half of his percentage plus a guaranteed salary. No one knew who would end up being paid more
at the time. However, their division
became extremely profitable and the plaintiff ended up being paid almost $700K
more than her over a four year period.
Nonetheless, she never requested to modify her compensation structure.
In the meantime, his workplace conduct and refusal to follow
direction created friction between him and the president. There were also disputes as to who was more
responsible for making that division as profitable as it was. The plaintiff
alleged that the president made derogatory comments about his gender,
suggesting at one point that he would be happier working with other men. In May 2013, the president changed his
compensation structure to match his female colleagues and then, after finding
him insubordinate in December, terminated his employment.
The Court assumed that the plaintiff had made a prima facie
case of an EPA violation by paying him almost $700k more over four years than
his female colleague who was performing the same job. However, it agreed that the defendant had
carried its heavy burden of proving its affirmative defense that the
compensation difference was based on a factor other than sex.
The Court found that the female colleague’s decision to take
a less-risky compensation plan with a guaranteed salary was a legitimate factor
other than sex for the difference in their compensation. It rejected the plaintiff’s argument that this
was a valid defense for the first year or two, but that it became a statutory
violation when the compensation difference persisted for two more years without
the female colleague being given the option of changing her compensation. The
Court seemed reluctant to characterize a legal decision to an illegal one
simply with the passage of time, particularly when the female colleague
testified that there was never a time that she wanted or requested to be paid
on a purely contingency basis. There
was nothing about the plaintiff’s or colleague’s gender which played a factor
in the employer’s decision to pay them with different compensation plans while
performing the same work.
The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the
employer’s explanation was pretextual.
His evidence that there were discriminatory comments directed at him as
a man hardly demonstrates why he was paid more because he was a man.
Because it does not violate the EPA to reduce an employee’s
salary if it is not done to remedy an EPA violation, reducing the plaintiff’s
compensation to what his female colleague was being paid did not violate the
EPA.
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.
