Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18533
2d Cir.2014Background
- EEOC sued the Port Authority under the Equal Pay Act (EPA), alleging female nonsupervisory attorneys were paid less than male counterparts for "substantially equal" work after a three-year investigation.
- The EEOC’s complaint pleaded broad, generic similarities (same professional degree, bar admission, shared job code, common evaluative criteria, a salary "maturity curve," and occasional transfers) but did not plead facts describing actual job duties or demonstrate overlap in job content across practice areas.
- In interrogatory responses, the EEOC identified 14 female claimants and multiple male comparators in a table comparing bar admission dates, Port Authority tenure, division, and salary; many comparisons spanned substantial experience differences (up to a decade) and some showed male underpaid relative to other males.
- The district court treated the interrogatory responses as a functional amendment, found the complaint conclusory and the interrogatory responses insufficient to show equal skill or effort, rejected the "an attorney is an attorney" theory, and granted judgment on the pleadings for the Port Authority under Rule 12(c).
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standards apply to discrimination/EPA claims: the EEOC failed to plead nonconclusory facts from which to infer that any claimant performed "substantially equal" work to a higher‑paid opposite‑sex coworker.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EEOC pleaded a plausible EPA claim that female nonsupervisory attorneys performed "substantially equal" work to higher‑paid male attorneys | EEOC: attorneys share core legal duties and HR indicators (job code, evaluation criteria, maturity curve, transfers) so job content is substantially equal within Port Authority | Port Authority: generic qualifications, titles, and HR policies do not show actual job-content equivalence; comparators selected are inconsistent and show legitimate non‑sex factors | Held: Dismissal affirmed—EEOC failed to plead nonconclusory facts showing substantially equal job content, so claim not plausible under Twombly/Iqbal |
| Whether Swierkiewicz shields discrimination/EPA pleadings from Twombly/Iqbal plausibility requirement | EEOC: Swierkiewicz allows more lenient pleading in discrimination cases | Port Authority: Twombly/Iqbal govern; Swierkiewicz does not eliminate plausibility requirement | Held: Swierkiewicz survives only to reject a heightened prima facie pleading rule; Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies and requires nonconclusory factual allegations |
| Whether job codes, shared evaluation criteria, and salary "maturity curve" can substitute for job-content allegations | EEOC: these Port Authority practices show the employer treated attorney jobs equivalently | Port Authority: such policies reflect HR structure, not the content, scope, or complexity of actual work | Held: These administrative indicators are insufficient alone to infer substantially equal job content |
| Whether EEOC’s three‑year investigation and access to Port Authority information excuses the lack of specific factual allegations | EEOC: investigation obviated need to plead granular duties | Port Authority: access does not permit conclusory pleading; adequate factual pleading still required | Held: Court emphasized access makes vague pleading less acceptable; EEOC still failed to plead requisite facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 8)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain nonconclusory factual matter permitting reasonable inference of liability)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (discrimination complaints need only meet Rule 8 but do not avoid Twombly/Iqbal plausibility requirement)
- Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295 (EPA claims hinge on job content, not title)
- Lavin‑McEleney v. Marist Coll., 239 F.3d 476 (substantial evidence required to isolate comparable positions by job content)
- Belfi v. Prendergast, 191 F.3d 129 (EPA’s focus on equal pay for equal work)
- Beck‑Wilson v. Principi, 441 F.3d 353 (evidence jobs were fungible can support EPA prima facie case)