Brokaw v. Weiser Security
780 F. Supp. 2d 1233
S.D. Ala.2011Background
- Brokaw hired as Mobile branch manager for Weiser in Aug 2006 at $40,000 salary; predecessor Hipp was paid $44,000 and later $40, for 2004-2006 period.
- Weiser’s Mobile branch faced losing multiple accounts; SMC was the largest and contentious client.
- Brokaw’s performance included client CSRs; management noted concerns about interpersonal treatment of employees and clients.
- Brokaw was terminated on June 16, 2008 after alleged continued performance and conduct issues; SMC canceled its contract on the same day.
- Weiser asserted the pay gap versus male comparators (Hipp and Sturgill) and branch revenue decline as nondiscriminatory reasons for pay disparities and for termination.
- Brokaw asserted Title VII discrimination and EPA pay claims tied to gender, and retaliation for prior complaints about discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII discrimination based on gender | Brokaw claims Weiser fired her for gender bias | Weiser maintains nondiscriminatory reasons for discharge | Discriminatory discharge claim survives summary judgment |
| Retaliation linked to protected activity | Brokaw alleged discharge followed reports of gender staffing preferences | No causal link; timing too attenuated | Retaliation claim grants summary judgment for Weiser (discharged) — no sufficient causal linkage |
| EPA wage discrimination for Hipp | Wage gap with male Hipp violates EPA | Pay differences justified by branch revenue decline | EPA claim regarding Hipp granted for pretext/defense insufficient (Weiser entitled to summary judgment) |
| EPA wage discrimination for Sturgill | Wage gap with Sturgill violates EPA | Differences justified by other factors; wardrobe moving costs unclear | EPA claim regarding Sturgill denied; issues of fact remain; cannot grant summary judgment |
| Title VII wage disparity claim | Wage gaps indicate gender-based discrimination | Similar to EPA, heavy burden on defense | Title VII wage-disparity claim as to Hipp denied; as to Sturgill denied due to triable issues; partial denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Meeks v. Computer Associates Int'l, 15 F.3d 1013 (11th Cir. 1994) (differences in burden for wage discrimination under Title VII vs EPA)
- Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2007) (causal link in retaliation requires very close proximity)
- Higdon v. Jackson, 393 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2004) (three-month gap alone insufficient for retaliation causation)
- Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment in employment discrimination cases is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact)
- Rioux v. City of Atlanta, Ga., 520 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2008) (pretext can be shown by weaknesses in employer's reasons)