Elba v. Mac's Convenience Stores, LLC, 2:23-cv-04108

Background

Plaintiff Nirmin Elba, an RDO for Circle K (formerly Dairy Mart), alleges sex-based wage discrimination and pay disparity beginning in 2010 when she became Category Manager and continuing through her promotion to Regional Director of Operations (RDO) in 2015 to the present.
Payroll records show Elba was paid less than male Category Managers (e.g., Steve Guzman, Lawrence Vertal) beginning in 2010, and several male RDOs (Scott Morris, Andrew Daggett, Steve Guzman, Derek Cahill) earned more than Elba after 2015.
Circle K’s stated pay policy: RDO pay range $80,000–$160,000 with placement based on experience and annual performance evaluations; defendant contends higher-paid males had superior performance (not sex-based reasons).
Elba received annual performance reviews and merit increases; evaluations improved over time but supervisors noted shortcomings in developing internal talent (no Market Manager elevated to director under Elba).
Procedural posture: Elba sued in state court (removed to federal court). Circle K moved for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations, laches, administrative-exhaustion, and merits grounds. Court GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART the motion; case remains open.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of wage‑discrimination claim under Ohio Rev. Code §4111.17	Elba contends each discriminatory paycheck (through 2010–present) restarts limitations; challenge reaches 2010–present conduct	Circle K argues promotions sever earlier pay claims and portions pre-2010 are time‑barred	Court: Wage claim as Market Manager (pre‑2010) is time‑barred for lack of evidence; claim proceeds for 2010–present (Category Manager and RDO) because paychecks during limitations period save the claim
Laches defense to wage claim	Elba says she only suspected pay differences later and did not have actual knowledge earlier	Circle K says Elba unreasonably delayed asserting rights because she knew her pay	Court: Genuine factual dispute about when Elba knew of disparity; laches defense denied
Merits of wage claim (Ohio Equal Pay Act analog to EPA) — whether pay differential justified by non‑sex factors	Elba: male comparators in same role were paid more without legitimate non‑sex justification	Circle K: Differential due to legitimate business factors—performance, merit system, and experience	Court: Elba made prima facie case; Circle K failed to meet heavy burden to show sex played no part. Genuine issues of fact on performance justification; summary judgment denied on merits
Sex‑discrimination claim (Ohio §4112.02) — exhaustion and statute of limitations	Elba argues discrimination began before 2021 and continued; claims accruing before 2021 need not exhaust OCRC	Circle K: Claim barred for post‑2021 conduct for failure to exhaust and generally by two‑year SOL	Court: For conduct accruing before April 2021, exhaustion not required; because claims accrued before ELUA change, six‑year SOL applies. Result: post‑2021 discrimination claims barred for failure to exhaust; sex‑discrimination claim preserved for Nov 2017–Apr 2021 period; summary judgment denied on merits due to overlapping factual disputes

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment and requirement of meaningful evidence)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute and view evidence most favorably to nonmovant)
Buntin v. Breathitt County Bd. of Educ., 134 F.3d 796 (6th Cir. 1998) (prima facie EPA analysis and comparators)
Beck‑Wilson v. Principi, 441 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 2006) (employer’s affirmative defenses under EPA; heavy burden)
Brennan v. Owensboro‑Daviess Cty. Hosp., 523 F.2d 1013 (affirmative defense burden under EPA)
George v. Youngstown State Univ., 966 F.3d 446 (subjective performance evaluations warrant scrutiny)