Gordon v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 604

Plaintiffs Gayle Gordon, M.D. and Teresa Maxwell, M.D. (female) were hired in 2008 as emergency physicians at a VA hospital; initial total pay set at $195,000.
Male colleague Dr. Iftikhar Ali, hired about the same time at the same salary, received a market pay raise after one year; plaintiffs received only step (longevity) increases and were told they were ineligible for market pay until 2010.
VA pay panels recommend market pay adjustments based on updated resumes and other factors; final approval rests with facility leadership.
Plaintiffs delayed or disputed submission of updated resumes; Maxwell’s panel recommended a raise to $212,000 in December 2010 but the Chief of Staff rescinded it because a government-wide pay freeze became effective Dec. 17, 2010.
Plaintiffs allege gender-based pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act, arguing the resume requirement was a pretext; the VA contends missing/late resumes prevented timely panel consideration and the freeze caused the disparity.
Court found record did not show purposeful gender discrimination; timing of documentation and the pay freeze (and uncertain facts about Ali’s probation or eligibility) explained the disparity. Summary judgment for defendant granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs were paid less because of sex in violation of the Equal Pay Act	Plaintiffs: VA used resume requirement as pretext to deny market pay and discriminated based on gender	VA: Plaintiffs failed to provide required current resumes so pay panels couldn’t timely consider raises; freeze then prevented increases	Held: No evidence that gender motivated disparate treatment; summary judgment for VA
Whether pay panels needed current resumes before meeting	Plaintiffs: Panels could have used earlier records; requirement was pretextual	VA: Updated resumes are the procedural trigger for panel review and were necessary	Held: Resumes were reasonably related to agency needs and not applied unevenly; no pretext shown
Significance of Dr. Ali’s 2009 raise relative to plaintiffs	Plaintiffs: Ali’s earlier raise shows disparate treatment and undermines probation claim	VA: Ali may have had different probation/eligibility or recruitment/retention rationale	Held: Record does not explain Ali’s raise; no evidence it was due to sex
Whether pay freeze allowed any individualized raises or excuses VA’s conduct	Plaintiffs: VA guidance permitted individualized adjustments during freeze, so raises could have been granted	VA: Freeze and its guidance limited discretionary raises to strategic needs; timing prevented approvals	Held: The freeze, together with timing of panels and documentation, explains the outcome; no Equal Pay Act violation found

Marshall v. Dallas, 605 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1979) (wage differentials can be justified by important differentiating tasks even if performed infrequently)
Brennan v. City Stores, Inc., 479 F.2d 235 (5th Cir. 1973) (plaintiff must show comparators with virtually identical duties to establish pay discrimination)