Female Workers Paid Less Than Male Employees: EEOC
In 2017, charging parties Amanda Peters and Beverly Richardson worked in the sales department at Fastenal Co., an international industrial and construction supply distributor, in Manchester. The women claimed that their wages were less than those of similarly qualified mail co-workers.
June 13, 2019 at 02:58 PM
3 minute read
|
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Fastenal
$50,000 Settlement
Date of Settlement: April 15.
Court and Case No.: U.S. District Court, M.D. Pa. No. 1:18-cv-01753-CCC.
Type of Action: Civil rights, employment.
Injuries: Unequal pay.
Plaintiffs Counsel: Ashley M. Martin and John S. Brubaker, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Defense Counsel: Maria L. Morocco, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Donald D. Gamburg and Jessica M. Bocchinfuso, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, Philadelphia.
Comment:
In 2017, charging parties Amanda Peters and Beverly Richardson worked in the sales department at Fastenal Co., an international industrial and construction supply distributor, in Manchester. The women claimed that their wages were less than those of similarly qualified mail co-workers.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, acting in behalf of Peters and Richardson, sued Fastenal. The EEOC alleged that Peters and Richardson were paid disparately to their male co-workers, in violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Since May 2012, Peters worked as a part-time sales support employee. Peters was paid $9 per hour, and a male employee in the same position was paid $10 per hour. According to the EEOC, after requesting an increase in pay numerous times, Peters received a raise in August 2015, in which she began earning $10 per hour. However, in June and September 2016, Fastenal hired two male part-time sales support employees at a rate of $12 per hour. The new hires allegedly performed the same duties as Peters.
According to the EEOC, after learning that the company was paying new hires $12 per hour,
Peters made several requests to her direct supervisor for an additional pay increase because she performed the same job duties as new hires, trained new hires and had more experience. In May 2016, Peters' supervisor asked the district manager to raise Peters' pay to at least $11 per hour, but the district manager refused. In February 2017, after learning that Peters had filed an EEOC charge, Fastenal raised Peters' pay to $12 per hour.
Since October 2015, Richardson has worked as a part-time sales support employee. Similar to Peters, she was paid less than male co-workers, and once Fastenal learned of Richardson's EEOC suit it increased her salary in parity of the male employees.
The EEOC maintained that Fastenal discriminated against Peters and Richardson based on their gender by paying them less than it paid male employees.
The defense maintained that the charging parties were appropriately paid in relation to their experience and that no violation of the EPA or Title VII had occurred.
The EEOC sought to recover back pay and unspecified amounts in compensatory and punitive damages. The EEOC further sought to have Fastenal institute anti-discrimination policies and to provide training on employee rights under Title VII and the EPA.
The parties settled for $50,000. Under a two-year consent decree, Fastenal is prohibited from engaging in any future sex-based pay discrimination and retaliation for complaining about it. The company agreed to provide training on federal anti-discrimination laws and to prevent sex-based pay discrimination to management overseeing the Manchester store.
This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffs counsel. Defense counsel did not respond to calls for comment.
—This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250