Sandra Wheatley Jane Grogan v. Wicomico County, Maryland
85 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,819, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 24288, 390 F.3d 328 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Equal Pay Act, jobs with similar titles and general supervisory duties are not considered 'equal work' if the actual day-to-day functions require substantially different skills and responsibilities. A plaintiff must demonstrate substantial equality by comparing their job to a specific male comparator on a factor-by-factor basis, not to a broad, dissimilar group of employees.
Facts:
- Sandy Wheatley was the director and Jane Grogan the deputy director of the Wicomico County Emergency Services Department.
- They alleged they were paid less than male directors and deputy directors of other county departments.
- The plaintiffs argued that all department heads performed the same general managerial duties, such as supervising staff, preparing budgets, and conducting meetings.
- Wicomico County commissioned a compensation study (the 'Hendricks Study') which assigned pay grades to all jobs; Wheatley was assigned Grade 17 and Grogan Grade 13.
- Despite receiving pay raises as a result of the study, the plaintiffs' salaries were set below the midpoint for their respective grades, while all male directors and deputy directors were given salaries above their grade midpoints.
- The male department heads to whom plaintiffs compared themselves often managed departments with different functions, such as Public Works or Recreation, Parks & Tourism.
- Some of the male comparator positions, such as the Director of Public Works, required specialized advanced degrees like civil engineering, which the plaintiffs did not possess for their roles.
Procedural Posture:
- Sandy Wheatley and Jane Grogan sued Wicomico County in a federal district court for violations of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- After the plaintiffs presented their evidence and rested their case, the defendant, Wicomico County, made a motion for judgment as a matter of law.
- The district court granted the defendant's motion, ruling in favor of Wicomico County before the case was submitted to the jury.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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:
Does having a similar job title and general managerial duties as higher-paid male employees satisfy the 'equal work' standard under the Equal Pay Act when the specific functions of the departments and the required skills are substantially different?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkinson
No. Having a similar title and general responsibilities is insufficient to establish 'equal work' under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) when the core jobs require substantially different skills and responsibilities. The EPA requires 'equal' work, not merely 'comparable' work, meaning the jobs must be 'virtually identical' or 'very much alike.' Here, the plaintiffs failed to meet the 'equal skills' requirement because their positions did not require the advanced engineering degrees mandated for higher-paid male directors in other departments, like Public Works. They also failed to meet the 'equal responsibility' requirement because managing a 911 call center involves fundamentally different day-to-day functions and responsibilities than dredging waterways or maintaining parks. A plaintiff cannot satisfy their burden by making a generalized comparison to a broad group of employees; instead, the EPA requires a more specific, factor-by-factor comparison to an appropriate male comparator.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict 'substantially equal' standard of the Equal Pay Act, firmly rejecting attempts to broaden it into a 'comparable worth' theory. The court's holding clarifies that plaintiffs cannot rely on shared job titles or general managerial functions to prove their case. It establishes a high evidentiary bar, requiring plaintiffs to identify a specific male comparator whose job is virtually identical in its core requirements of skill, effort, and responsibility. This protects employers' ability to create pay differentiations that reflect different tasks, market demands for specialized skills, and varied departmental responsibilities, even within the same level of management.
