42 F.4th 976
8th Cir.2022Background
- Schottel was hired in 2012 as a criminal justice instructor at Peru State; a male colleague, Hayes, was hired soon after.
- From hiring until Schottel’s 2017 promotion, Hayes earned about $1,500 more annually; the salary-setting VP explained the gap as Hayes’s greater teaching and professional experience.
- In April 2018 Schottel complained to VP Borchers about her supervisor (Galardi) and mentioned the pay differential; Borchers kept the complaint confidential.
- A student later complained to Galardi about Schottel’s repeatedly dismissing class early, canceling sessions, and not following the syllabus; Galardi investigated and reported to Borchers.
- Peru State issued Schottel a terminal contract (nonrenewal) for 2019 citing class-management issues; Schottel sued under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII (gender discrimination, retaliation); the district court granted summary judgment for NSCS and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal Pay Act / unequal pay | Schottel: Hayes was paid more because of sex | NSCS: Pay differential based on Hayes's greater experience; objective salary decision | Affirmed for NSCS — difference explained by factor other than sex |
| Title VII wage-based sex discrimination | Schottel: Unequal pay violates Title VII | NSCS: Same non-sex reason as EPA defense | Affirmed — claim fails for same reason as EPA claim |
| Retaliation for complaining (pay/supervisor) | Schottel: Complaints to Borchers preceded terminal contract; temporal proximity supports causation | NSCS: Decisionmaker (Galardi) unaware of complaint; investigation triggered by student complaint, not retaliation | Affirmed — no causal link; temporal proximity insufficient; but-for causation not shown |
| Pretext / comparator evidence | Schottel: A male colleague also dismissed class early but was not disciplined | NSCS: Comparator evidence vague and lacks frequency/context; insufficient to show pretext | Affirmed — comparator evidence too vague to create genuine issue of pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. N. States Power Co., 664 F.3d 1186 (8th Cir. 2011) (Equal Pay Act prima facie and employer burden-shifting)
- Hutchins v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 177 F.3d 1076 (8th Cir. 1999) (education/experience as "factor other than sex")
- Lawrence v. CNF Transp., Inc., 340 F.3d 486 (8th Cir. 2003) (company experience as a valid factor in pay decisions)
- Brousard-Norcross v. Augustana Coll. Ass’n, 935 F.2d 974 (8th Cir. 1991) (marginal pay differentials permissible when based on legitimate factors)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for disparate treatment/retaliation claims)
- Porter v. City of Lake Lotawana, 651 F.3d 894 (8th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff must prove but-for causation for retaliation)
- Bunch v. Univ. of Ark. Bd. of Trs., 863 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2017) (temporal proximity alone insufficient to prove retaliation)
- Wilson v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 850 F.3d 368 (8th Cir. 2017) (lawful alternative explanations can defeat causation inference from timing)
- Sellars v. CRST Expedited, Inc., 13 F.4th 681 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard for proving pretext in retaliation claims)