The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge f or the Eastern 1 District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4083

___________ Annie Mae Jackson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Superior Industries International, Inc., * a Delaware Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: January 7, 1999 Filed: January 20, 1999

___________ Befo re McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPAR D ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Annie Mae Jackson appeals from the district court’s entry of judgment on a jury 1 verdict for her former employer, defendant Superior Industries International, Inc

. (Superior), and from the court’s denial of her new trial motion, in her action alleging race and sex discrimination und er Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.-2-

§ 2000e et seq. , and sex discrimination under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), 2 9 U.S.C. § 206(d). We affirm.

For reversal, Ms. Jackson first contends that the district court should hav e granted her a directed verdict on her EPA claim. We disagree. Superior offere d evide nce from which the jury could find that Ms. Jackson did not perform a job tha t requiredequal skill, effort, and responsibility and that was performed under the same conditions as the jobs of the male employees with whom s he sought to compare herself. See 29 U .S.C. § 206(d)(1); McLaughlin v. Esselte Pendaflex Corp. , 50 F.3d 507, 513 (8th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, Superior provided sufficient evidence to support it s af firmative defense that any differential in pay was based upon factors other than Ms. Jackson’s sex, i.e., that the male employees had significantly more relevant experience than did Ms. Jackson, and that Superior needed experienced workers in its new West Memphis facility. Cf. Corning Glass Wor ks v. Brennan , 417 U.S. 188, 196-97 (1974); Glenn v. General Motors Corp. , 814 F.2d 1567, 1571 (11th Cir.), c ert. denied , 488 U.S. 948 (1988). Ms. Jackson also argues that the district court should have granted her a mistrial
or a new trial based on Superior’s allegedly improper closing argument. Specificall y she com plains that during his closing argument, Superior’s counsel improperl y compared M s. Jackson’s salary to the salaries of two white male employees who m Superior had

not listed in discovery as being similarly situated to Ms. Jackson, who is Af rican-American. During Superior’s defense, the district court had excluded a n exhibit that compared Ms. Jackson’s salary to those of the two employees, after Ms

. Jackson’s counsel claimed “surprise” and asserted that Supe rior had “never mentioned” the employees as “comparables.” Ms. Jackson’s claim of surprise is undercu t, however, by Su perior’s inclusion of the two employees as “comparables” in its Pre-tria l Confer ence Information Sheet filed five months before trial; Ms. Jackson’s failure t o object during opening statement when Superior’s counsel compared Ms. Jackson to the two employees; and Ms. Jackson’s ow n trial testimony comparing herself to one of the-3-

employees. We also note that the parties specifically stipulated during trial to th e salary, po sition, sex, and race of the two employees, the court granted Ms. Jackso n additional time to rebut the objected-to argument, and the jury was cautioned that the attorney s’ arguments were not evidence. Under these circumstances, we canno t con clude that Superior’s closing argument was “plainly unwarranted” or “clearl y injurious”. See Alholm v. American Steamship Co. , 144 F.3d 1172, 1181 (8th Cir

. 1998). Therefore the

district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Ms. Jackson a mistrial or a new trial on this basis. See id. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.