4th Circuit clarifies what qualifies as similar jobs under EPA

In an unpublished opinion, a unanimous panel from the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (whose rulings apply to employers in South Carolina, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) provided some great insight into possible defenses against an Equal Pay Act (EPA) claim. Because this is just an unpublished opinion, it’s not binding precedent.

Background

Shelly Ann Lee filed a complaint alleging her former employer, Belvac Production Machinery, Inc., paid her less as its controller than it did her predecessor, Paul DiTomasso. She claimed the pay disparity was because of her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act (EPA).

Lee further alleged that Belvac retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity, which is also in violation of Title VII and the EPA. The district court granted Belvac’s motion for summary judgment (dismissal without a trial), and Lee appealed.

Equal work for equal pay

To establish a prima facie (minimally sufficient) case under the EPA, an employee must demonstrate:

• The employer paid different wages to an employee of the opposite sex;
• For equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility; and
• All jobs were performed under similar working conditions.

Under this standard, Lee had to show that she and DiTomasso had “virtually identical jobs,” which required more than a showing that they held the same title and had the same general responsibilities.