The Fourth Circuit recently issued an opinion addressing employment discrimination allegations raised by three former female employees of Virginia Tech University. In Maron v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, No. 12-1146 (4th Cir. Jan. 31, 2013) (unpublished), the plaintiffs claimed that Virginia Tech violated the Equal Pay Act (EPA) when the University paid female employees less than males employees performing the same work. Additionally, one of the plaintiffs contended that Virginia Tech retaliated against her in violation of Title VII. Four claims were brought in total: three under the EPA and one under Title VII.
The district court concluded that one of the EPA claims was time-barred. After the jury issued verdicts in favor of the other two plaintiffs on their EPA claims, the district court set aside the awards and granted a new trial on those two claims. The court also set aside the verdict awarded on the retaliation claim, instead entering judgment as a matter of law in favor of the University. The jury in the subsequent trial returned a verdict in favor of Virginia Tech on the EPA claims. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s setting aside of the jury verdicts from the first trial and the entry of final judgment on one of the EPA claims.
On appeal, the plaintiffs put forth evidence showing that three male employees were paid higher salaries than the plaintiffs even though the employees in question were hired for the same or similar positions. One of the plaintiffs testified that she was told that a male employee was paid more because he “was the head of his household and had mouths to feed.” One supervisor allegedly remarked that it is a liability to hire a young and newly married female employee of child-bearing age.
Defending its position, Virginia Tech produced evidence showing that three other male employees, in similar positions, were paid less than the plaintiffs. The University also put forth “gender-neutral” factors that are considered when determining salary, such as fundraising/sales experience and advanced degrees.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s granting of a new trial on the EPA claims. The court was persuaded by evidence presented by Virginia Tech that other male employees were paid less than the plaintiffs and that higher-paid male employees were more experienced. This evidence, along with testimony regarding gender-neutral factors, was sufficient to support the lower court’s decision to order a new trial on the Equal Pay Act claims.
The court affirmed the district court’s entry of judgment as a matter of law on the third EPA claim. This claim was brought beyond the two-year statute of limitations for non-willful Equal Pay Act claims and the evidence did not support the argument that Virginia Tech willfully violated the EPA.
On the retaliation claim, the parties did not dispute that one of the plaintiffs engaged in protected activity (the plaintiff filed informal and formal complaints of sex discrimination). Instead, the issue was whether the plaintiff was subject to adverse employment action. Concluding that she was, the Fourth Circuit held that a jury could have concluded that adverse employment action occurred when the plaintiff’s supervisors sent her disciplinary memos, her benchmarks were “spontaneously changed,” and the plaintiff’s supervisors attempted to replace her while she was on FMLA leave. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in entering judgment as a matter of law in favor of Virginia Tech. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine whether a new trial should be granted on the retaliation claim.