McCullough v. Xerox Corp.
224 F. Supp. 3d 193
W.D.N.Y.2016Background
- McCullough, an African‑American former Xerox employee, worked in HR from 1999 and received multiple promotions and raises; disputed period covers 2004–2009.
- In 2009 she moved to a shared services group, later accepted an Experience Program Manager role (2009–2012) and resigned effective January 31, 2012.
- She filed an EEOC charge on March 3, 2011 alleging sex‑based pay discrimination going back to January 4, 2004; received a Right to Sue on February 1, 2012.
- Claims: (1) Equal Pay Act (sex‑based unequal pay); (2) Title VII race discrimination; (3) Title VII sex discrimination.
- Xerox moved for summary judgment; court dismissed Title VII claims and EPA claim tied to Black Belt Program, but allowed EPA claims based on her HR manager pay to proceed to trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| EPA claim based on Black Belt Program comparators | McCullough contends male Black Belt candidates who earned higher pay are proper comparators | Xerox: Black Belt participants varied widely in duties, departments, experience and project outcomes, so not substantially equal | Dismissed — Black Belt participants not substantially similar as a matter of undisputed fact |
| EPA claim based on HR manager positions (2004 onward) | McCullough identifies several male HR managers with similar duties who were paid more | Xerox: argued differences in education, experience, tenure explain pay gaps | Denied as to summary judgment — genuine issue of fact exists whether HR managers had substantially equal jobs and whether pay differences were for nondiscriminatory reasons |
| Title VII disparate treatment (race and sex) | McCullough argues pay disparities show discriminatory intent | Xerox: pay disparities alone are insufficient; no direct/circumstantial evidence of discriminatory animus | Granted — plaintiff produced no evidence of intentional discrimination; pay differences alone insufficient |
| Burden shifting and proof of employer justification | (Underlying to EPA/Title VII claims) Plaintiff maintains comparators and disparities support claims | Xerox contends legitimate business reasons (merit/seniority/experience) justify disparities | Court applied EPA burden‑shift: raised fact issues on HR manager comparators but accepted employer‑justification defense as disputed; required intent for Title VII which plaintiff failed to show |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment inferences to nonmoving party)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 768 F.3d 247 (EPA — focus on actual job content for substantial equivalence)
- Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295 (EPA prima facie elements; employer justification; pay disparity proof)
- Lavin‑McEleney v. Marist College, 239 F.3d 476 (substantial equivalence is jury question when facts disputed)
- Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34 (EPA substantial equivalence guidance)
- Belfi v. Prendergast, 191 F.3d 129 (Title VII — pay disparity plus falsity of employer reason insufficient without proof real reason was discrimination)
- Aldrich v. Randolph Cent. School Dist., 963 F.2d 520 (Title VII disparate treatment standard)