Where a female employee alleged that she was paid less because of her sex, but her only male comparator did not perform a similar job and she offered no other evidence suggesting the disparate pay was because of her sex, the company prevailed on the claim.
Background
Ashley Noonan claims that she suffered sex-based wage discrimination while working at Consolidated Shoe Company, and, what’s more, was retaliated against when she complained about it. Before the district court, she sought to show wage discrimination by comparing her wages to those of Matt Wiese, a male co-worker at Consolidated Shoe.
But Wiese, a graphic designer, had a meaningfully different role at the company than Noonan, a content creator and part-time photographer. Because the two did not perform similar jobs, Noonan could not rely on Wiese as a comparator to show wage discrimination. So the district court granted summary judgment to Consolidated Shoe.
Analysis
In her complaint, and before the district court, Noonan relied Wiese as a comparator. She argued that he performed a similar job but was paid more than she was paid. But the district court rejected that argument, finding that Wiese did not perform a similar job. Now, on appeal, Noonan has abandoned any argument that Wiese’s job was similar. And rightfully so — Wiese had a distinct job.
Of course, Noonan doesn’t need a male comparator to establish a prima facie case of pay discrimination. But she must still present evidence that reasonably creates...
BAKU, Azerbaijan, May 20. The United States is using the UN Security Council to spread false information about Iran and its peaceful nuclear program, the Permanent Mission of Iran to the UN said i...