Price v. Northern States Power Co.
664 F.3d 1186
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Four NSP women (Price, O'Neil, Miller, Goebel) sue under EPA, MHRA, and Title VII for discriminatory pay.
- EPA claims focus on pay differences between women and men at NSP's Chestnut and St. Cloud centers, with pre-2007 decisions questioned.
- IPAD merit-based raises and the red circling starting salaries produced varying starting pay among field representatives.
- Chestnut and St. Cloud centers are treated as separate establishments; different supervisors and duties exist at each center.
- District court granted NSP summary judgment, holding no prima facie EPA case and defenses valid; MHRA/Title VII claims tied to EPA analysis.
- Appellants argue pre-2007 evidence and comparator data show discrimination; NSP argues evidence supports its defenses and no prima facie case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie EPA case with pre-2007 evidence | Price, O'Neil, Miller show pre-2007 decisions influenced later pay gaps. | No pre-2007 evidence links pay differentials to sex; data insufficient for a prima facie case. | No prima facie EPA case; insufficient comparators and pre-2007 evidence insufficient to show sex-based pay disparity. |
| Effect of red circling and IPAD on defenses | Red circling and IPAD ratings create sex-based disparities despite stated meritorious reasons. | Red circling and IPAD are legitimate, uniformly applied, merit-based or non-sex factors; evidence supports defenses. | Affirmative defenses grounded in red circling and IPAD-based raises supported; pay differences explained by factors other than sex. |
| Goebel establishment status for EPA claim | St. Cloud and Chestnut should be treated as a single establishment since Stifter supervised both and set compensation. | Two centers are separate establishments with distinct salaries, supervision, and practices. | Goebel cannot establish a prima facie EPA claim; Chestnut and St. Cloud are separate establishments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. White, 321 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2003) (EPA standard and burden shifting in discrimination cases)
- Hutchins v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 177 F.3d 1076 (8th Cir. 1999) (merit/other factor defenses and evaluation-based raises)
- Drum v. Leeson Elec. Corp., 565 F.3d 1071 (8th Cir. 2009) (prima facie EPA case shown by undisputed pay differential)
- Aetna Ins. Co., 616 F.2d 719 (4th Cir. 1980) (definition and conduct of merit system in EPA defenses)
- Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188 (Supreme Court, 1974) (jury/exceptional evidence allowed pre-period evidence under EPA)
- Mulhall v. Advance Security, Inc., 19 F.3d 586 (11th Cir. 1994) (centralized control can create single establishment for EPA if appropriate)
- Grabovac v. Allstate Ins. Co., 426 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2005) (establishment/comparison principles in EPA context)