King v. ACOSTA SALES AND MARKETING, INC.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5156
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Acosta Sales and Marketing hired Susan King as a Business Manager in its Midwest operation; she alleged hostile work environment and sex-based pay discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act.
- Most alleged harassing acts by a colleague (Connelly) occurred 2001–2004, with one later 2004 incident; after 2004 the environment improved but kept some unwelcome conduct.
- A 2007 salary table showed men in similar roles earning substantially more than King, with many men above the pay range while King remained lower.
- Acosta argued differences in pay could be explained by education and experience; King did not have a college degree while several men did.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Acosta on federal-law claims; King appealed, and after procedural steps the case proceeded on the original briefs.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the Equal Pay Act claim must be tried, and the Title VII hostile-environment claim should be reconsidered under Morgan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morgan allows a hostile-work-environment claim based on acts outside the 300-day window | King argues pattern of hostility can rely on acts pre-dating 300 days if persistent. | Acosta contends only timely acts are actionable under the 300-day window. | Morgan applied; but record fails pattern into 300 days; no remand necessary. |
| Whether pay disparities can be attributed to factors other than sex under the Equal Pay Act | Education/experience do not fully explain King’s lower pay; they may mask discrimination. | Differences due to non-sex factors like education and experience. | District court erred; King must prove education/experience actually account for the difference; trial required. |
| Whether King’s Title VII claim survives given the pay disparity and on-the-job performance | Male managers earned higher raises and pay despite comparable performance. | Differences may reflect legitimate factors or performance. | Title VII claim must be tried; evidence could permit a finding of discrimination. |
| Whether the salary data supports sex discrimination beyond random variation | Pattern where men consistently out-earn women indicates discrimination. | Disparities could be explained by variables or chance. | The distribution undermines random explanation; supports potential discrimination. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (hostile-work-environment claims may rest on a pattern of acts; timing relative to the charge matters differently)
- Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (definition of hostile environment and its components)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (sexual harassment must be judged by objective severity to alter conditions of employment)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (burden-shifting framework for evaluating evidence at summary judgment)
- American Nurses' Association v. Illinois, 783 F.2d 716 (7th Cir. 1986) (equal-pay-analysis framework under Equal Pay Act)
- Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1974) (employer bears burden to prove factor other than sex as defense)
- Warren v. Solo Cup Co., 516 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2008) (clarifies burden-shifting under Equal Pay Act within Seventh Circuit)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (commentary on confusion surrounding burden-shifting in APA contexts)