|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
||||||
|
Search:
|
Third Circuit Holds Claim Timely under Ledbetter Act
Posted: September 24, 2009
Page Tools:
For More Information Contact:
Related Practice Areas:
After resurrecting a claim it previously found untimely, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, has concluded that the failure to answer an employee’s request for a raise constituted a “compensation decision” that could be an actionable event under the federal anti-discrimination laws. Mikula v. Allegheny County, 2009 WL2889742 (3d Cir. Sept. 10, 2009). This seems to continue the broad interpretation that courts are giving the phrase “compensation decision” following enactment of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. In 2001, the Allegheny County hired Mary Lou Mikula as a grants coordinator. By 2004, Mikula discovered she was earning approximately $7,000 less than a male manager. In 2005, Mikula requested a salary increase so that she would be paid the same or more than the male manager, but the County never responded. In 2006, Mikula filed a complaint with the County, asserting that her lower pay was due to gender and age discrimination. The County responded with a letter in August 2006 stating that Mikula’s discriminations claims were unfounded. In April 2007, Mikula filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging discriminated against her on the basis of gender by failing to give her a pay raise in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and by paying her less than a male employee who performed substantially equal work in violation of the Equal Pay Act. Before the Ledbetter Act was passed, the district court dismissed Mikula’s claim on the grounds that her 2007 EEOC charge was untimely. The court reasoned that Mikula's requests for a raise occurred more than 300 days before she filed her EEOC charge and the County's 2006 letter was not a pay “decision or other practice” because it merely provided the results of the County's investigation. The Third Circuit affirmed this decision shortly after the Ledbetter Act was passed. In the latest development, the appellate court reversed its initial decision. It concluded that:
This decision is noteworthy because of the Court’s reversal of its own decision regarding the interpretation of the Ledbetter Act and because it demonstrates the expansive interpretation that courts are giving the phrase “compensation decision”— here, to include even failure to respond to requests for salary increases. Jackson Lewis will continue to monitor developments involving the Ledbetter Act and are available to assist employers with their compliance efforts.
| |||||||
