Patricia N. Kalu v. Florida Department of Children and Families
681 F. App'x 730
11th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Patricia Kalu and Susan Linder-Wyatt are female advanced nurse practitioners at Florida State Hospital; they earned about $78,000/year each at the time of suit.
- Michael Peel, a male nurse practitioner, was hired into the same Forensic Unit with a nearly $95,000 salary after negotiating a 10% raise to return to the Hospital.
- The Forensic Unit is staffed “globally” (director reassigns prescribing providers between two sections to meet overall need); departures left the Unit understaffed for prescribing providers.
- Peel was the only applicant for the vacancy, had prior positive experience at the Hospital, and stated he would not return without the raise; Hospital leadership justified the pay as necessary to fill a critical staffing need.
- Kalu and Linder-Wyatt sued under the Equal Pay Act alleging sex-based pay disparity; the district court granted summary judgment for the Department, finding the disparity was based on factors other than sex and not pretextual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer proved pay differential was due to factors "other than sex" under the Equal Pay Act | Pay disparity between similarly situated practitioners shows sex-based discrimination | Pay difference was due to exigent staffing needs, Peel being sole applicant, qualifications, and his demand for a raise — all sex-neutral factors | Employer met burden; pay disparity resulted from factors other than sex |
| Whether employer's asserted reasons were pretextual | Department’s staffing explanation is contradicted by facts (e.g., Kalu filled the vacancy in Forensic Central) and deposition testimony | Staffing is done unit-wide; Kalu’s transfer did not eliminate the overall prescribing-provider shortfall; director’s testimony supports exigency | No genuine dispute of material fact; explanations were not pretextual |
| Whether absence of a formal policy granting raises on inter-agency transfers undermines justification | Peel’s raise was improper because no automatic transfer-raise policy existed | Raise was not automatic — it was tailored to critical need, sole applicant status, and Peel’s refusal without pay increase | Lack of blanket transfer policy irrelevant; raise justified by exigent circumstances |
| Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment | Plaintiffs’ deposition statements and alleged inconsistencies create triable issues | Plaintiffs’ testimony was conclusory, not probative enough to defeat summary judgment | Plaintiffs failed to produce substantial, specific evidence of pretext; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Steger v. Gen. Elec. Co., 318 F.3d 1066 (11th Cir. 2003) (sets burden‑shifting framework under the Equal Pay Act)
- Irby v. Bittick, 44 F.3d 949 (11th Cir. 1995) (standard of review for summary judgment in EPA cases)
- Jones v. UPS Ground Freight, 683 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment requires construing facts and inferences in favor of nonmoving party)
- Bailey v. Allgas, Inc., 284 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 2002) (merits of conclusory or nonprobative evidence at summary judgment)
Decision: AFFIRMED (summary judgment for the Florida Department of Children and Families).