Question

Case 10.7 Polly Ann Heller v. Elizabeth Forward School District

2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13547 (U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals)

The issue is whether the school district had a valid explanation for paying younger male teachers higher salaries than it was paying three female teachers who were over 50 years of age.

NYGAARD, CIRCUIT JUDGE.

The School District’s salary scale and the collective bargaining agreement between the School District and the teachers’ union, sets different “steps” in salary depending on a teacher’s experience, education, and teaching certification area. When the School District hired plaintiffs, they were all over the age of fifty years old and they were all hired at step 1 of the District’s salary scale. They alleged that after the School District hired them as teachers, it hired seven other teachers (“comparators”), five of whom were male and all of whom were younger, with substantially the same qualifications as Plaintiffs, at higher salary steps.

When making out a prima facie case, a plaintiff need only show that the jobs being compared are substantially equal, not necessarily that they are identical. The EPA defines what constitutes equal work as jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility. Additionally, when a court assesses the substantial equality between jobs, it should rely on actual job performance and content rather than job descriptions. Moreover, because of the heavily fact-driven character of the inquiry, substantial equality must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the facts and the evidence presented, the proper comparator might be another teacher within the same certification class. A school district may have a particular need, justifying pay differentials, to hire teachers certified in specific subject areas.

Here, as we noted earlier, the plaintiffs established their prima facie case for both their EPA and ADEA claims. Therefore, any claim by the School District that the plaintiffs had no evidence that any of the comparator teachers were hired at higher than step 1 because of their gender or age is inapt. . . .

(A)t trial Superintendent Mueller was unable to explain what the School District had meant when, in its answer to the PHRC complaint, it proffered three reasons for the hiring discrepancies: he could not explain what “applicable law” could have required the salary differences, he did not know who had suggested “experience” as a possible justification, and he admitted that the reason given for the hiring of Ms. Stock at a higher level was false. He also testified that the “specialized certification” rationale for the hiring of the comparator teachers was new and that it did not apply to Ms. Stock even though in the School District’s answer, he had claimed that it did. He also testified that the School District had changed its reason for the hiring discrepancies. Furthermore, when pressed on his claim that the scarcity of applicants necessitated the higher salaries, he was unable to testify as to how many other teachers had applied for the position or even how many were considered. He also suggested that hiring Ms. Stock at a higher salary step was motivated by loyalty for her short-term substitute teaching. Additionally, three school board members testified that they did not know why many of the teachers were hired at their pay steps.

Because the record clearly suggests that there was no cohesive or consistent answer to the question why the comparator teachers were hired at significantly higher salaries, a jury could have found that the School District’s proffered nondiscriminatory reasons were unbelievable, and, consequently, we will affirm the District Court’s denial of the motion for judgment as a matter of law.

The District Court granted plaintiffs’ request to be placed higher up on the pay scale, in line with their comparators. It is well settled that the District Court has discretion to fashion equitable relief to effectuate the purposes of the Title VII statutory scheme, specifically, in order to award make-whole damages. Moreover, where, as here, the jury makes explicit findings that, had the discrimination not occurred, the plaintiffs would have been at higher salary steps, a District Court may appropriately fashion an award of damages to support this finding. Thus, the District Court’s decision here to place the plaintiffs in the same position as their comparators was not an abuse of discretion.

In summary, and for the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

Case Commentary

The Third Circuit decided that the Vernonia school district’s explanation was invalid, which means the district was guilty of violations of the ADEA and the Equal Pay Act.

Case Questions

1.

Do you agree with the reasoning of the court in this case?

2.

If the salary the school district offered was acceptable to the women over 50 years of age but not to the younger male teachers—and the school district needed the male teachers—what would you think?

3.

What would be an appropriate ethical resolution to this case?

Answer 1

Age discrimination and sex discrimination is widespread in the workplace and it's a very sad condition and it's too illegal. In the past, the Americans have excluded women in any work position/place in the labor market.

ADEA (Discrimination in Employment Act)which is aimed at protecting people 40 and older from discrimination in hiring, promotion, and retention at firms with 20 or more employees.

Equal Pay Act (EPA) is a landmark of U.S legislation where there is a mandating equal pay for equal work, with a goal to end the gender-based disparity

1. I am agreeing with the reasoning of the 3rd U.S circuit court in this case. Why because the Third Circuit Court decided that the School District explanation was found to be invalid. The district has guilty of violations of the ADEA and Equal Pay Act. They found that the School officials failed to offer a credible explanation for paying for the three teachers less than some of the new hires (male).

2. America is the most popular country in the world where the economy was almost exclusively in the hands of the men.

In the present scenario Its clearly, we can see the age discrimination and sex discrimination in the workplace to the women who over the age of 50 years.

Women should be empowered and encouraged in society and to realize the potential in their workplace.

School officials are thinking that the hired young men having more skill, effort, and responsibility

"In the second scenario if the salary of the school district was offered was acceptable to the women over the age of 50 years of age but not to the younger male teachers" its a type of women empowerment and thus avoiding the age and sex discrimination.

I am not agreeing with the statement because all are employees, as working an organization should be equally treatable instead of age and sex determination. They should be equally treated according to their education and experience (equal pay for equal work).

3.

*Treat men and women in an equal manner at the workplace

*Avoid age and sex determination

*Identify the reasons for age and sex determination at the workplace

*Identify the instances of sex determination

*Hire the staff according to the customer's preferences not with regard to sex

*Encourage women to realize their full potential in their workplace

*Identify that sometimes men also will be victims of sex discrimination, take efforts to avoid that sex/age determination