Developments in Equal Pay Litigation

© 2021 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Developments in Equal Pay Litigation | 45 v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University , 372 the court had to decide whether the plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to name her supervisor, the University’s Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, the Director of HR, and the University Chancellor as her “employers” along with the University. Applying the economic realities test, the court held that plaintiff’s complaint had not adequately alleged an EPA claim against her supervisor or the Chancellor because their relationship to plaintiff satisfied only one or two of the elements of that test. With respect to her supervisor, plaintiff had alleged that he exercised control over her work schedule and conditions, but she did not allege that he also controlled her salary, had the power to hire or fire, or maintained her employment records. 373 And while the Chancellor was alleged to have power to set salaries, there were no allegations to establish the other elements. 374 But the court held that there were sufficient allegations to establish that the Director of HR could be held liable as an employer. According to the court, the complaint “does plausibly allege that [Director of HR] had some control over [plaintiff’s] salary raise, satisfying the third prong, and that [Director of HR] maintained [plaintiff’s] employment records, satisfying the fourth prong.” 375 The court also was satisfied that the complaint alleged that plaintiff had been told that HR was responsible for employee raises and held that it could “reasonably infer that [Director of HR] had at least some control over [plaintiff’s] compensation and played a role in raising [plaintiff’s] salary by two percent.” 376 Accordingly, the court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss as against the Director of HR. Similarly, in Malik v. Wyoming Valley Medical Center , 377 a physician sought to hold her employer, a medical center, and a manager of the medical center, liable for alleged equal pay violations. At issue was whether she had adequately alleged that the manager was an “employer” under the EPA and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). The court held that she had because she had alleged that he was a “high-level manager” at the organization, that he personally managed and oversaw her work, that she had the authority to discipline and counsel her, and that he had a hand in her removal from her position, her non-hiring for another position, and her suspension and termination . 378 Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the court held that those alleged facts “sufficiently alleged that Defendant [manager] exerted supervisory authority over her.” 379 However, in Caples v. Thiel , 380 the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed an EPA claim that was brought against four individual defendants rather than plaintiff’s actual entity employer. The court held that, under Seventh Circuit precedent, individual employees cannot be held liable under the ADA and Title VII. 381 However, with respect to the EPA, the district court noted that other courts within the Seventh Circuit had come to different conclusions concerning whether a complaint could be brought against individual defendants. 382 Under the FLSA’s definition of “employer,” an individual may be sued if that person is someone who is acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee. Accordingly, the district court held that in order to proceed on an EPA claim in federal court 372 Gunaldo v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. , No. 20-CV-154, 2020 WL 4584186 (E.D. La. Aug. 10, 2020). 373 Id. at *12. 374 Id. at *14. 375 Id. 376 Id. 377 Malik v. Wyo. Valley Med. Ctr. , No. 3:19-CV-01547, 2020 WL 3412692 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2020). 378 Id. at *3. 379 Id. at *4. See also Muslow v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. , No. 19-CV-11793, 2020 WL 6483134, at *11 (E.D. La. Nov. 4, 2020) (finding that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Vice President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel of university was “employer” of attorneys in its legal department because complaint alleged that he “had power over Plaintiffs’ contracts, that he organized legal work at [university], and that he reviewed employee salaries and status. Assuming the veracity of these statements, as is appropriate at this stage, this is enough to allege that Skinner was an employer under the FLSA to survive a motion to dismiss, even if the facts established at a later stage of the litigation tell a different tale”). 380 Caples v. Thiel , No. 17-CV-1797-pp, 2019 WL 1116948 (E.D. Wisc. Mar. 11, 2019). In that case, a field male employee in an accounting/HR position alleged that she was paid less and did not receive the same benefits, pension, vacation, or full-time status as her male predecessor. Id. at *1. 381 Id. at *5. 382 Id. at *6.