United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
PATRICIA J. O'DONNELL, Plaintiff,
CAINE & WEINER COMPANY, LLC. Defendant.
M. O'Hagan, Jamie L. Filipovic, Ryan T. Benson
O'Hagan Meyer, LLC Attorney for Caine & Weiner
T. Rosellio ERNEST T. ROSSIELLO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF
LAW ON EQUAL PAY ACT AND TITLE VII GENDER DISCRIMINATION
COMES the Defendant, CAINE & WEINER COMPANY, LLC
(“Caine Weiner”), by and through its attorneys
O'HAGAN MEYER, LLC, and moves this Honorable Court for a
Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 50(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on Plaintiff's claims for
retaliation under Title VII of 1964, 42 USCS § 2000e-3
and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(d). In support thereof,
Defendant states as follows:
O'Donnell (“Plaintiff”) has not shown through
any testimony or documents that she had a substantially equal
job as John Czapor or Karl Anderson. Besides not showing that
her job required equal skill, effort and responsibility as
John Czapor and Karl Anderson, she has not shown that she had
substantially the same job duties as them. Plaintiff has not
shown any evidence that she had sales duties like Karl
Anderson or management duties like John Czapor (which are
both just one piece of the differences in duties from the
evidence at trial). Furthermore, the evidence does not show
that Plaintiff has the same skills as these individuals, let
alone that her job took the same effort or had the same
responsibility level. Finally, the evidence presented lacks
any showing of “intent” by Caine Weiner to
discriminate against Plaintiff based on her gender regarding
the pay she received, which she is required to prove to
prevail under a Title VII claim for gender discrimination
based on pay.
Rule 50(a) Standard
Rule 50(a), a court should render judgment as a matter of law
when “a party has been fully heard on an issue and
there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a
reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.”
Fed R. Civ. P. 50(a); see also Reeves v. Sanderson
Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097,
2109, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000).
motion for judgment as a matter of law should be granted only
when there can be but one conclusion from the
evidence.” Id. at 636 (citation omitted). The
Court should apply this standard in reviewing Defendant's
arguments for judgment on each count. Roberts v. County
of Cook, 01 C 9373, 2004 WL 1088230, at *1 (N.D. Ill.
May 12, 2004).
Equal Pay Act Standard
Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. 206(d), prohibits
discrimination in wages based on sex. To establish a
prima facie case of wage discrimination under the
Equal Pay Act, O'Donnell must show that Caine Weiner pays
different wages to employees of opposite sexes for equal work
on jobs the performance of which require equal skill, effort,
and responsibility, and which are performed under similar
working conditions. Stopka v. Alliance of Am.
Insurers, 141 F.3d 681, 685 (7th Cir. 1998).
“While the work performed by the two employees, or
groups of employees, need not be identical, it must be
"substantially equal." If the Plaintiff succeeds in
proving a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the
Defendant to show that any pay differential is justified
under one of the Equal Pay Act's four exemptions.”
29 U.S.C.S. § 206(d)(1); Epstein v. Secretary,
United States Dep't of Treasury, 739 F.2d 274,
275 (7th Cir. 1984). “These exemptions are (i) a
seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which
measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or
(iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex.
The Equal Pay Act specifies three separate elements that are
to be considered in comparing job duties: (1) skill; (2)
effort; and (3) responsibility. 29 U.S.C.S. § 206(d)(1).
Each of these elements must be met individually to establish
a prima facie case.” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.14.
Moreover, the jobs must be performed under similar working
conditions.” 29 U.S.C.S. § 206(d)(1). Id.
the Equal Pay Act, skill includes consideration of such
factors as experience, training, education, and ability. In
the context of the Equal Pay Act, education is a relevant
consideration in determining whether disparate salaries exist
for reasons other than sex.” Cullen,
Cullen v. Ind. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 338 F.3d 693, 695
(7th Cir. 2003).
proper domain of the Equal Pay Act consists of standardized
jobs in which a man is paid significantly more than a woman
(or anything more, if the jobs are truly identical) and there
are no skill differences.” Sims-Fin ...