Boyer v. United States
97 F.4th 834 (2024)
Rule of Law:
Under the Equal Pay Act, an employer cannot rely solely on an employee's prior salary as an affirmative defense to justify a pay disparity unless the employer proves that the prior salary was not based on sex.
Facts:
- Dr. Leslie Boyer was hired as a clinical pharmacist by the Veterans Affairs Medical Center (BVAMC) in 2015.
- Six months later, BVAMC hired a male clinical pharmacist for a substantially similar position.
- Boyer was appointed at Grade 12, Step 7 ($115,364) based partly on her prior salary of $115,003.
- The male comparator was appointed at Grade 12, Step 10 ($126,223) based on his higher prior salary of $130,000.
- Boyer possessed seven more years of experience than the male comparator, though the male held a master's degree in addition to a doctorate.
- Boyer discovered the pay discrepancy three years after being hired and inquired with Human Resources.
- The government conceded that Boyer and the male comparator performed substantially equal work.
Procedural Posture:
- Boyer filed an administrative complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity commission.
- Boyer sued the government in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
- The District Court initially granted summary judgment for Boyer, but then vacated the ruling and transferred the case.
- The case was transferred to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
- The Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of the government.
- Boyer appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is prior pay, standing alone, a valid 'factor other than sex' that constitutes an affirmative defense to a pay discrimination claim under the Equal Pay Act when applied to federal employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Dyk
No, the court held that prior pay alone cannot justify a pay disparity unless the employer demonstrates that the prior pay was not determined by sex. The court adopted a 'middle ground' approach used by the 6th, 10th, and 11th Circuits. It reasoned that because the gender wage gap persists, prior pay often functions as a proxy for sex discrimination. Therefore, treating prior pay as a 'factor other than sex' without further inquiry would perpetuate historical discrimination. The court rejected the government's argument that federal pay-setting statutes, which permit consideration of prior pay, exempt federal employers from this standard, noting that the EPA applies equally to the government and private sectors.
Analysis:
This decision aligns the Federal Circuit with the 'middle ground' approach regarding the 'salary history' defense in Equal Pay Act litigation. It explicitly rejects the view held by the 7th and 4th Circuits that market forces (prior salary) automatically constitute a neutral justification for pay disparities, acknowledging that past wages often reflect systemic gender bias. This ruling imposes a higher burden of proof on federal employers, requiring them to show that a prior salary relied upon for setting current pay was not itself tainted by sex discrimination.
