The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This action has been tried upon the facts without a jury.
After considering all the evidence and the briefs and
arguments of counsel, in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)
the Court finds the facts and states its conclusions of law as
Findings of Fact ("Findings")
A. Nature of the Case and Prior Proceedings
2. Scott's Complaint was timely, having been filed within 90
days of her receipt of a right-to-sue letter from the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Scott's initial
and amended charges before the EEOC were also timely filed:
(a) Her initial charge was filed March 18,
1977, within 180 days of the events complained
(b) Her amended charge, filed in September
1978, was based on her claimed constructive
discharge. It therefore alleged additional
unlawful employment practices related to or
growing out of the original charge.
3. Trial commenced October 23, 1981 and concluded October
29, 1981 with final arguments taking place November 2, 1981.
4. At the time of her Océ employment Scott was a widowed
white female using the name Patricia Marshall (she has since
married and changed her last name to Scott). Scott began
working at Océ in January 1974 as the credit secretary. From
December 1, 1974 through the termination of her employment
April 25, 1977 she was employed as Assistant Credit Manager of
the Repro division ("ACM-Repro").
5. Océ, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, is an employer
within the meaning of Title VII. During the entire time period
relevant to this action Océ had two divisions, the Repro and
II. Scott's Employment Record
6. Scott's predecessor as ACM-Repro was a man named Ronald
Norton ("Norton"). Norton had been hired in October 1973 at a
starting salary of $12,000, subject to a review and an
increase if his performance were found satisfactory four to
six months after hiring. Instead Norton was fired in May 1974.
From the pattern of Océ's increases (both on merit and to meet
inflation) reflected in the record, it is reasonable to
conclude that had Norton performed satisfactorily as ACM-Repro
he would have been earning not less than 10% more (or $13,200)
by December 1, 1974 (more than a year after hiring).
7. Scott was qualified to perform the duties of ACM-Repro
effective December 1, 1974. Indeed she had handled the
assignment on a trial basis since July 1, 1974 and had
voluntarily asked to wait to assume the ACM title until she
was adequately trained. Scott's initial salary as an ACM was
$9,460 (all salaries in these Findings are stated on an annual
basis). That was increased July 14, 1975 to $10,465. At that
time Océ's personnel action form for Scott (P. Ex. 3) stated,
"Since Patricia is doing all of the credit work for the Repro
Division, the above requested increase still brings in the cost
of this position at substantially less than her predecessor,
Ron Norton." Océ's personnel action forms for Scott dated
January 19, 1976 (P. Ex. 4) and January 19, 1977 (P. Ex. 5)
reflect that her performance was "excellent" and "outstanding."
8. Norton had substantially more experience in handling
credit than did Scott. However the job of ACM, although it
requires intelligence and application, is not an
extraordinarily complex or highly skilled activity for which
substantial experience is either necessary or relevant. Indeed
the fact is that Scott performed the ACM job in an "excellent"
and "outstanding" way while Norton had not. Scott has
established that in comparison with Norton she performed equal
work for unequal compensation. Océ's offered reasons for the
difference, in the light of this and subsequent Findings, are
pretextual. This Finding is not vitiated by the fact that
Scott, as a conscientious employee wanting to continue to
increase her skills, continued to seek and obtain further
on-the-job training from her superior (Credit Manager Paul
Calhoun) on dealing with credit problems.
9. In February 1976 the relevant credit department personnel
and their respective salaries were as follows: