Trevor Schleicher v. Preferred Solutions
831 F.3d 746
6th Cir.2016Background
- Trevor Schleicher (male) and Susan Piotrowski (female) performed the same healthcare IT sales role at Preferred Solutions and generated a shared profit pool.
- Upon hiring, Schleicher negotiated a profit-pool-only pay model (20% of pool, no base salary); Piotrowski declined that model and elected a $100,000 base plus a 10% draw from the same profit pool.
- From 2009–2013 Schleicher outearned Piotrowski by $694,159.38 under their differing compensation elections.
- In May 2013 Preferred changed Schleicher’s pay to match Piotrowski’s ($100,000 + 10% draw); Preferred terminated Schleicher in December 2013.
- Schleicher sued under the Equal Pay Act (EPA); the district court granted summary judgment for Preferred, finding Preferred proved an EPA affirmative defense (a factor other than sex: Piotrowski’s choice of pay model). The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether paying Schleicher more than Piotrowski violated the EPA | Schleicher: maintaining a longstanding pay disparity became violative even if neutral at inception | Preferred: disparity resulted from a legitimate, non-sex factor — Piotrowski’s voluntary choice of a salaried + draw plan | Held: No EPA violation — employer proved the "factor other than sex" defense (Piotrowski chose her pay model) |
| Whether Preferred’s proffered reason is pretext for sex discrimination | Schleicher: comments and the size of disparity indicate pretext | Preferred: provided documentary and testimonial evidence that pay difference derived from negotiated, voluntary choices | Held: No genuine issue of pretext; plaintiff failed to raise triable factual dispute |
| Whether lowering Schleicher’s pay in 2013 violated EPA by "curing" a prior violation | Schleicher: reducing his pay to equalize violated EPA’s prohibition on lowering wages to comply | Preferred: there was no underlying EPA violation to cure, so the reduction was not unlawful | Held: No violation — because no prior EPA violation existed, the reduction did not contravene the statute |
| Burden allocation under EPA at summary judgment | Schleicher: EPA is strict-liability and employer must show intent irrelevant | Preferred: EPA requires plaintiff to make prima facie showing, then employer must prove one of four defenses; intent relevant to defenses and pretext | Held: Court reaffirmed three-step burden-shifting: prima facie by plaintiff; defendant bears burden to prove an affirmative defense; plaintiff must show pretext to avoid summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Beck-Wilson v. Principi, 441 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 2006) (sets out EPA prima facie and burden-shifting framework)
- Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188 (1974) (EPA prohibits paying different wages for equal work)
- Buntin v. Breathitt Cty. Bd. of Educ., 134 F.3d 796 (6th Cir. 1998) (discusses defendant’s burden on EPA affirmative defenses)
- Bence v. Detroit Health Corp., 712 F.2d 1024 (6th Cir. 1983) (rejects a purportedly neutral policy that in practice locked women into inferior pay)
- Timmer v. Michigan Dep’t of Commerce, 104 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 1997) (clarifies that not all pay differences violate the EPA and addresses pretext)
- EEOC v. J.C. Penney Co., 843 F.2d 249 (6th Cir. 1988) ("factor other than sex" must be a legitimate business reason)
- Brennan v. Owensboro-Daviess Cty. Hosp., 523 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1975) (quoted for the principle that sex must provide no part of the basis for the differential)