Equal Pay Act cases are notoriously difficult for plaintiffs to win because of the stringent requirements for comparators. Basically, a plaintiff in an EPA case needs to show that his employment situation is almost exactly the same as the comparative female who is making more money. So it's nice to see an EPA case every now and then that breaks out how all these comparisons play in front of a jury. And the lesson that comes out of these cases is that almost any inconsistency in terms of payroll practice can be used to support a jury's verdict on an EPA claim---so consistency should be the by-word to any employer with regard to wage practices.
The case at issue, out of the 8th Circuit, deals with a relatively small amount of money, less than $5,000 in wage differential. However, it was clear that the employee, an assistant manager for a chain of retail stores, was paid less than her male counterparts. The employer's pay scales were wildy inconsistent, as a result of a series of job moves that caused different people to be paid different amounts of money at different times in the assistant manager position. Some assistant managers were transferred from other stores where they had higher salaries and kept those salaries when they arrived at the plaintiff's store. Some were allegedly performing as a store manager, rather than an assistant manager, and were paid more money, although there was still a pay disparity in the assistant manager compensation. And some managers allegedly had different levels of experience, although the employer failed to put evidence on of these differences at trial.
The Court's opinion points up the fact that employers must keep track of who was earning what throughout their workforce and not allow pay differentials except for articulable, legal reasons. The employer in this case tried to justify its decisions post hoc. These justifications simply couldn't override the alternative explanation for the wage differential -- namely that the company paid men more than women in this particular job. There were good faith reasons for the company's actions, but none that applied across the board to the situations that developed at the plaintiff's store. Believe me, it's easier to fix these problems up front than to try to back in explanations at trial or in front of a judge at summary judgement.