92 F.4th 1
1st Cir.2024Background
- Clare Mundell, a licensed clinical psychologist, worked as one of five "pool" psychologists at Acadia Hospital (two men, three women) and was paid about $50/hour while the two men were paid $90–$95/hour.
- The parties agree all pool psychologists had comparable qualifications and Acadia conceded the disparity was not due to seniority, merit systems, or shift differences; Acadia asserted a "market-based" rationale.
- Mundell exhausted administrative remedies, sued under the Maine Equal Pay Law (MEPL), MHRA, and Title VII; the district court granted partial summary judgment to Mundell on the MEPL claim only and awarded damages including treble liquidated damages under 26 M.R.S. § 626‑A.
- Acadia appealed and sought certification to the Maine Law Court on whether the MEPL requires discriminatory intent and whether a catch‑all reasonable‑factor‑other‑than‑sex defense exists; the First Circuit declined certification and reviewed the issues de novo.
- The First Circuit affirmed: it held the MEPL does not require proof of discriminatory intent, limits affirmative defenses to the three enumerated categories (seniority, merit, shift/time), and permits treble damages under § 626‑A for unpaid wages resulting from MEPL violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MEPL requires discriminatory intent | Mundell: No intent element; unequal pay for comparable work suffices | Acadia: MEPL requires proof employer paid less "because of" sex (intent) | No intent required; statute makes unequal pay for comparable work actionable absent an enumerated defense |
| Scope of affirmative defenses under MEPL (catch‑all "reasonable factor" defense) | Mundell: Defenses limited to seniority, merit, shift/time only | Acadia: May assert market‑based or other reasonable non‑sex factors as defense | Defenses are limited to the three enumerated categories; no implicit catch‑all defense |
| Availability of treble/liquidated damages under 26 M.R.S. § 626‑A for MEPL violations | Mundell: § 626‑A applies; unpaid wages from MEPL violations are subject to liquidated (treble) damages, interest, fees | Acadia: § 626‑A does not provide treble damages for MEPL claims or unpaid wages here | § 626‑A applies; plaintiffs proving unpaid wages under MEPL may recover interest, costs, attorney's fees, and liquidated damages equal to twice unpaid wages (i.e., treble total) |
| Whether federal court should certify question to Maine Law Court | Mundell: Certification unnecessary; MEPL text, precedent, and history are decisive | Acadia: Certification appropriate because Maine courts have not construed MEPL on these points | Court declined certification, predicting Maine Law Court would reach the same interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1974) (Federal Equal Pay Act construed to permit liability absent proof of intent)
- Scamman v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 157 A.3d 223 (Me. 2017) (Maine courts prioritize plain meaning and consider legislative history only if text ambiguous)
- Jancey v. School Committee of Everett, 658 N.E.2d 162 (Mass. 1995) (Mass. Equal Pay Act construed not to require purposeful discrimination)
- In re Wage Payment Litig., 759 A.2d 217 (Me. 2000) (Maine law: "unpaid wages" includes amounts employees were not paid in full and triggers § 626‑A remedies)
- Beckwith v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 889 F.2d 344 (1st Cir. 1989) (discussing interplay of Maine wage statutes and remedies under § 626‑A)
- Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (U.S. 2020) (textualist reminder that courts follow statutory text over policy preferences)