84 F.4th 507
2d Cir.2023Background
- Plaintiff Anita Eisenhauer, a female professor at the Culinary Institute of America (CIA), was paid less than male colleague Robert Perillo; disparity persisted and grew because of different starting salaries and uniform, formulaic raises under a compensation plan.
- The CIA’s compensation plan (CBA + handbook) is facially sex-neutral: fixed increases for time, promotion, and degree completion; no individualized “equity” adjustments.
- Eisenhauer does not allege her initial 2002 starting pay was sex-based; the disparity traces to Perillo’s higher 2008 starting salary and the plan’s uniform application thereafter.
- District Court granted summary judgment for the CIA on both the federal Equal Pay Act (EPA) claim and state New York Labor Law § 194(1) claim, applying the same standard to both.
- On appeal the Second Circuit held (1) EPA’s "factor other than sex" defense does not require job-relatedness and affirmed summary judgment on the EPA claim; (2) NYLL § 194(1) requires a bona fide, job-related factor and the state-law grant of summary judgment was vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the EPA’s "factor other than sex" defense requires the factor to be job‑related | Aldrich and related precedent require job‑relatedness; the CIA’s plan is not tied to job differences | "Any other factor other than sex" means any factor except sex; no job‑relatedness requirement | EPA: no job‑relatedness requirement; defendant need only show disparity results from a factor other than sex |
| Whether the CIA’s compensation plan qualifies as a "factor other than sex" under the EPA | Plan cannot justify disparity because it perpetuates differences not tied to current job differences | Plan is sex‑neutral; disparity stems from lawful starting pay differences and uniform formulaic raises | Court found no genuine dispute that the plan is a sex‑neutral factor other than sex; affirmed summary judgment for CIA on EPA claim |
| Whether New York Labor Law § 194(1)’s "factor other than sex/status" defense requires job‑relatedness | § 194(1) (post‑2016) requires the factor be job‑related and consistent with business necessity | (implicitly) same standard as federal EPA or that CIA’s plan suffices | NYLL § 194(1) imposes a job‑relatedness (bona fide) requirement; summary judgment for CIA on state claim vacated and remanded |
| Whether the District Court erred by applying the same standard to EPA and NYLL claims | District Court should have applied § 194(1)’s distinct statutory requirement | District Court treated standards identically (parties did not highlight difference) | Court held District Court failed to consider divergent standards and remanded the state claim for fresh analysis or discretionary declination of supplemental jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Aldrich v. Randolph Cent. Sch. Dist., 963 F.2d 520 (2d Cir. 1992) (discussing when a job‑classification system can qualify as a factor other than sex and requiring business‑related grounding for such systems)
- Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188 (1974) (characterizing the EPA’s fourth affirmative defense as a broad "catch‑all" for non‑sex factors)
- Rizo v. Yovino, 950 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding the EPA's fourth defense limited to job‑related factors)
- County of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161 (1981) (discussing the EPA’s affirmative defenses and bona fide job‑rating systems)
- Belfi v. Prendergast, 191 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 1999) (requiring legitimate business reasons for a gender‑neutral factor relied on as an EPA defense)