Grover v. Smarte Carte, Inc., 836 F. Supp. 2d 860

Grover alleges gender discrimination: lower pay than male comparators, fewer career opportunities, and termination in retaliation.
Smarte Carte is a Minnesota-based international retailer; Grover worked 1994–2007, becoming Vice President of Business Development and Operations for the domestic locker/retail unit.
Grover was paid less in guaranteed pay from 2002–2007 than at least one comparator (Johnny Chiu or Arthur Spring), with lower base pay each year.
Comparators: Chiu (VP, later SVP; domestic airport/China responsibilities) and Spring (VP Europe; later SVP, international operations).
Grover was terminated May 31, 2007; she claimed unequal pay and treatment, and filed EEOC charges in 2008; the case includes EPA and Title VII claims and later retaliation claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
EPA prima facie showing of pay discrimination	Grover was paid less than male comparators for equal work.	Aggregate pay should be considered, not year-by-year; comparators not properly situated.	Grover established a prima facie EPA pay-discrimination case; aggregate approach rejected.
Are Chiu and Spring proper comparators?	Chiu and Spring performed substantially equal work; Grover met the EPA comparability standard.	Chiu/Spring not proper comparators due to different establishments/roles and location.	There are genuine issues whether Grover and Chiu/Spring were substantially equal; Spring may be a proper comparator and a single establishment could exist.
Nondiscriminatory basis for unequal pay	Pay disparities were not based on job-related factors; gender bias present.	Pay differences explained by job responsibilities and market factors.	Defendant failed to show legitimate nondiscriminatory basis; EPA claim survives summary judgment.
Title VII disparate treatment and retaliation	Smarte Carte denied promotions and opportunities due to gender, and termination was retaliatory for complaints.	No summary judgment on disparate-treatment aspect; retaliation claim debated but not dismissed.	Disparate-treatment claim not dismissed; retaliation claim survives as to causation and timing issues; summary judgment denied on retaliation aspects.

Taylor v. White, 321 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2003) (EPA prima facie framework for equal work)
McKee v. Bi-State Development Agency, 801 F.2d 1014 (8th Cir. 1986) (EPA standards apply to Title VII retaliation/context)
Drum v. Leeson Elec. Corp., 565 F.3d 1071 (8th Cir. 2009) (EPA/Title VII alignment for pay discrimination)
Lisdahl v. Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research, 698 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (D. Minn. 2010) (retaliation proximate-cause analysis and damages)
Smith v. Allen Health Sys., Inc., 302 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2002) (timing as evidence of causality in retaliation cases)