Fontenot v. Safety Council of Southwest Louisiana
2:16-cv-00084
W.D. La.Aug 14, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Joni Fontenot, COO of Safety Council of Southwest Louisiana, sued under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) alleging she was paid less than her male predecessor, Robert McCorquodale, and that she was retaliated against for complaining.
- The court previously granted Fontenot partial summary judgment, finding she established a prima facie EPA wage-discrimination claim.
- Safety Council contends McCorquodale paid himself unauthorized amounts and that any pay disparity resulted from those unauthorized payments, not sex.
- Safety Council’s expert projected what McCorquodale’s salary would have been under his 2005 contract and compared that to Fontenot’s pay.
- Fontenot moved in limine to exclude projections/tethering of her pay to McCorquodale’s hypothetical contracted pay as irrelevant and prejudicial; Safety Council opposed, arguing the comparisons are relevant to its ‘‘factor other than sex’’ defense.
- The district court considered FRE 401 and 403 and denied the motion, allowing comparisons as potentially probative of Safety Council’s affirmative defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of projections of McCorquodale’s pay under his 2005 contract and comparisons to Fontenot’s pay | Projections are speculative, irrelevant to EPA defenses, and would mislead/jury confuse | Projections and side-by-side pay comparison are relevant to show pay differential resulted from unauthorized overpayments, not sex | Denied — projections/comparisons may be relevant to the ‘‘factor other than sex’’ defense and are admissible absent a Rule 403 exclusion |
| Whether evidence implies existence of a pay ‘‘system’’ (seniority/merit/production) | No system governed Fontenot’s pay; evidence would mislead jury into thinking a system set pay | Comparison of approved contractual pay shows what an authorized salary would have been, supporting defense | Court noted plaintiff already proved prima facie case; comparison need not show a system to be relevant to the catch‑all defense |
| Rule 403 exclusion for unfair prejudice/confusion | Probative value is substantially outweighed by risk of confusion and prejudice | Any alleged speculation goes to weight, not admissibility; opponent can attack expert at trial | Denied — plaintiff failed to show unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value |
| Scope of evidence defendant may present at trial | Exclude testimony/argument tying Fontenot’s pay to speculative contract numbers | Admit expert projections and factual evidence of unauthorized withdrawals and board actions | Court allows documentary/expert comparisons and factual proof about unauthorized payments; plaintiff may argue speculative nature to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106 (5th Cir. 1993) (Rule 403 exclusion should be applied sparingly)
- United States v. McRae, 593 F.2d 700 (5th Cir. 1979) (probative value vs. unfair prejudice analysis)
- King v. Univ. Healthcare Sys., L.L.C., 645 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2011) (burden-shifting framework under the EPA)
- Ryduchowski v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 203 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2000) (definitions/analysis of merit systems)
- Schulte v. Wilson Indus., Inc., 547 F. Supp. 324 (S.D. Tex. 1982) (discussion of employer compensation systems)