Bauer v. Curators of the University of Missouri, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11375

Bauer, an advanced practical nurse at the University of Missouri Hospital and Clinics, sues the Board of Curators under the Equal Pay Act for paying women less than men for substantially equal work.
District court instructed the jury with a business-judgment instruction, which Bauer objected to as inappropriate in an EPA case.
Jury returned a verdict for the Curators; Bauer moved for a new trial; district court denied the motion.
The Eighth Circuit reviews jury instructions for abuse of discretion and preserves objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51.
EPA imposes strict liability and requires a defendant to prove the disparity is based on a factor other than sex, unlike Title VII.
The court ultimately affirms, concluding the improper instruction did not prejudice Bauer when viewed in the context of the entire charge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the business-judgment instruction is appropriate in EPA claims	Bauer argues the instruction is inappropriate for EPA claims.	Curators contend the instruction is sometimes proper in mixed EPA/Title VII contexts.	Not appropriate in EPA alone.
Preservation of objection to jury instruction	Bauer preserved the objection during trial.	Objection was insufficient or not specific.	Objection preserved; reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Effect of the erroneous instruction on substantial rights	Any error affected the outcome by undermining EPA's standard.	Misstatement did not alter the ultimate EPA framework governing liability.	No reversible error; taken as a whole, instruction correctly stated the law and did not prejudice Bauer.

Niemiec v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 449 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2006) (abuse-review standard for jury instructions)
McCoy v. Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc., 593 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2010) (review for abuse if error affects substantial rights)
Brown v. Sandals Resorts Int'l, 284 F.3d 949 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard for assessing impact of jury instructions)
Allen v. Entergy Corp., 193 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 1999) (specificity required to preserve objections)
Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard for unpreserved errors)
AT&T Technologies, 995 F.2d 846 (8th Cir. 1993) (business-judgment instruction in Title VII contexts)
Strecker v. Grand Forks County Soc. Serv. Bd., 640 F.2d 96 (8th Cir. 1980) (definition of roving commission in state courts)
Price v. Northern States Power Co., 664 F.3d 1186 (8th Cir. 2011) (EPA defenses: seniority, merit, output-based, or other non-sex factors)
Simpson v. Merchants & Planters Bank, 441 F.3d 572 (8th Cir. 2006) (EPA burden on defendant to show disparate pay based on non-sex factor)
Walker v. AT&T Technologies, 995 F.2d 846 (8th Cir. 1993) (context for business-judgment instruction in mixed-claims cases)
Lup v. City of Minneapolis, not included () ()