Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05499/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05499-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSEANNE SAKAMOTO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STEPHEN JOHNSON, Administrator, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Defendant. /

No. C 03-5499 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

EQUAL PAY ACT CLAIM

This order addresses plaintiff’s claim under the Equal Pay Act. From March 5, 2007 through

March 12, 2007, the Court presided over a trial in this case, in which a jury heard evidence on and

decided plaintiff’s Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. The evidence presented on those

claims is also dispositive of the Equal Pay Act claims. Having carefully considered the testimony and

evidence presented, the Court concludes that plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case on her

Equal Pay Act claim. 

DISCUSSION

 The Equal Pay Act provides in relevant part: 

No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall

discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between

employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees . . . at a rate less than the

rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for

equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and

responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions . . . . 

29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1). In an Equal Pay Act case, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing a prima

facie case of discrimination by showing that employees of the opposite sex were paid different wages

for equal work. See Stanley v. University of Southern California, 178 F.3d 1069, 1073-74 (9th Cir.

Case 3:03-cv-05499-SI Document 457 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

1999). To make out a prima facie case, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the jobs being

compared are “substantially equal.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1620.13(a); see also Spaulding v. University of

Wash., 740 F.2d 686, 697 (9th Cir. 1984), overruled on other grounds, Atonio v. Wards Cove Packing

Co., Inc., 810 F.2d 1477 (9th Cir.1987) (en banc). Plaintiff need not demonstrate that the jobs in

question are identical; she must show only that the jobs are “substantially equal” in that they share a

“common core of tasks.” Stanley, 178 F.3d at 1074. 

Here, the evidence at trial established that plaintiff’s work at the GS-12 level was not

“substantially equal” to the work performed by her male GS-13 peers. The GS-12 and GS-13 jobs did

not share a “common core of tasks,” and did not require equal skill or equal responsibility. Instead, the

evidence showed that plaintiff’s GS-12 position involved more administrative and less technical skills

than the GS-13 position. Numerous credible witnesses testified that plaintiff’s work required less

technical expertise and more close supervision than the work done by her GS-13 male peers.

Plaintiff supports her claim that although her classification was GS-12, she was actually working

at a GS-13 level, primarily by pointing out that she spent a significant portion of her time working on

special projects assigned by Fong. However, the Court finds that plaintiff’s work on the special projects

was generally administrative and not high-level. In contrast, the GS-13 male employees had significant

technical, leadership or managerial duties. The EPA’s desk audit of plaintiff’s position confirmed that,

at most, plaintiff was working at the GS-12 level. HR specialist Vicki Lane, who conducted the desk

audit, testified credibly that as a result of the desk audit, she found that plaintiff was not performing at

a GS-13 level and, in fact, in several aspects was performing below the GS-12 level.

 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff has not established a prima facie case

on her Equal Pay Act claim, and defendant is entitled to judgment on this claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-05499-SI Document 457 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 2