787 F. Supp. 2d 961
D. Minnesota2011Background
- Renstrom, a former Nash Finch head grocery buyer at the St. Cloud center, brings EPA, Title VII, and MHRA claims alleging pay disparity with two male head grocery buyers.
- Renstrom argues Crosier (Omaha) and Ebensteiner (Fargo/Minot) performed equal work for higher pay; she identifies these two as comparators but they are at different establishments.
- Nash Finch contends every distribution center is a separate establishment under the EPA's geographical rule, with centralized compensation not creating a single establishment.
- Evidence shows Nash Finch's Midwest region has multiple distribution centers, with compensation decisions by division managers and ultimate oversight by a regional VP; job descriptions for head grocery buyers are uniform in the region.
- Renstrom alleges added duties and larger workloads for the comparators; the court, focusing on equal effort, finds Renstrom did not show substantially equal effort with Ebensteiner or Crosier.
- The court grants summary judgment for Nash Finch, dismissing the EPA claim and, by extension, the Title VII and MHRA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Establishment for EPA purposes | Renstrom seeks single establishment for Midwest centers due to centralized control. | Each distribution center is a separate establishment; centralized control is insufficient. | Each distribution center is a separate establishment. |
| Prima facie EPA claim — equal work | Renstrom and comparators perform equal work with equal skill and responsibility. | Crosier and Ebensteiner do not perform equal work at the same establishment; workloads differ. | Renstrom failed to show equal work with the comparators. |
| EPA defenses and burden shifting | Any pay differential not based on sex is invalid; defendants failed to justify. | Pay differences are based on factors other than sex or are not applicable due to establishment rule. | The court accepts the establishment and workload defenses; EPA claim fails on both grounds. |
| Title VII and MHRA claims | Unequal pay for equal work supports Title VII/MHRA claims. | EPA governs these claims; failure on EPA dooms Title VII/MHRA claims. | Title VII and MHRA claims dismissed as EPA claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- A.H. Phillips, Inc. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490 (1945) (establishment historically tied to distinct physical place)
- Mitchell v. Bekins Van & Storage Co., 352 U.S. 1027 (1957) (establishment meaning anchored in physical separation)
- Mitchell v. Birkett, 286 F.2d 474 (8th Cir.1961) (separate establishments despite common ownership when geography significant)
- Goose Creek Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Brennan, 519 F.2d 53 (5th Cir.1975) (central administration can treat locations as single establishment in unusual cases)
- Krenik v. County of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953 (8th Cir.1995) (EPA establishment interpretation guided by EEOC regulations)
- Mulhall v. Advance Sec., Inc., 19 F.3d 586 (11th Cir.1994) (cites breadth of establishment concept under EPA)
- Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007) (affirms textual approach to substantial statutory terms)
- Orahood v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Ark., 645 F.2d 651 (8th Cir.1981) (EPA/Title VII interplay in unequal pay cases)
- Washington County v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161 (1981) (Title VII disparate-treatment context relative to EPA standards)
- Taylor v. White, 321 F.3d 710 (8th Cir.2003) (prima facie equal-work test under EPA)