2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-24-2009 

# Mi k ul a v . Alleghe n y P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4023

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Mi k ul a v . Alle ghe n y " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1703. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1703NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 4023

___________ M AR Y L OU MI KUL A,

A ppel l ant v . A L L E G H E N Y C O U N T Y O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 06- cv- 01630) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A r thurJ . Schw ab

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a) B efor e: B arr y , Sm i th and G arth, C i r cui tJ udges

M A R C H 10, 2009 ( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 24, 2009 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antM aryL ou M i kul a appe al s pr o s e fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der gr ant i ng the def

endant ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entas t o herempl oym ent d isc rim in a tio n a c tio n . F o r th e f o llo w in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm in p a rt, v a c a te in p a rt,2

and rem and the m at t er for fur ther proceedings. I. M i kul a br oughtthi s l aw s ui tagai ns therempl oy er , A l l eghenyC ounty( “the C o u n ty ” ), alle g in g th a t itd isc rim in a ted a g a in st h e r o n th e b a sis o f g e n d e r b yf

a ili n g to g iv e h e r a p a yra is e in v io la tio n o f T itle V II o f

th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U .S .C . § 2000e- 5( b) ( “Ti t l e V I I ”) , and bypay i ng herl es s than a mal e empl oy ee w ho per form ed s ubs t ant i al l yequal w or k i n vi ol at i on of the Equal PayA ctof 1963, 29 U . S. C . § 206( d) (“ E P A ” ). M i kul a w as hi r ed as the gr ant s coor di nat orforthe A l l eghenyC ountyPol i ce D e p a rtm e n t o n M a rc h 1 9 , 2 0 0 1 . H e r p o sitio n g a v e h e r “ re sp o n sib ili tyf o r th e c o m p lete fi nanci al m anage m entof gr antfunds , as w el l as gr antcompl i ance , pr oj ectover s i ght , gr ant cl os eout , and gr antaudi t s . ” She w as r es pons i bl e forgr ant s thatr anged f r om $1 t o $3 m i l l i on dol l ar s pery ear . A ft ers t art i ng ata s al aryof $35, 500 pery ear , M i kul a r ece i ved a s i x- m onth per form ance i ncr eas e thatr ai s ed hers al aryt o $38, 110 pery ear . She r ece i ved tw o ad dit i on al rai ses— a t hree- percent m eri trai se i n July20 03 and a po l i ce ci vil i ans’ r ai se in M arc h 2 0 0 6 . T h e 2 0 0 6 p ayincre ase b rou g h t her sa laryto $ 4 0 , 4 2 9 p er y ea r. O n S e p tem b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 4 , M ik u la d ra f ted a m e m o ra n d u m to P o lice S u p e rin ten d e n t, C h arles M o ff

att , req u esti n g that h er job ti tl e b e c h an g ed to “G ran ts an d P rojec t M an ag er” a n d th a th e rs a l a r yb e i n c r e a s e d “ t o b e e q u a l o rg r e a t e rth a n o u rFi s c a l M a n a g e r[ Ed P rz b y la ].” P rz b y la ’s s a la ry w a s a p p ro x im a te ly $ 7 ,0 0 0 p e r ye a r h ig h e r t h a n w a s M ik u la ’s .3

M ik u la b e liev e d th a t th e c h a n g e in jo b tit le a n d sa lar yin c re a se w e re n e c e ss a ryto “conf or m t o the dut i es that[s he] r out i nel yper form [ed] . ” A l though M offa t tforw ar ded the re q u e s t to th e H u m a n R e s o u rc e s d e p a rt m e n t, M ik u la n e v e r r e c e iv e d a re s p o n s e . I n O ct ober2005, M i kul a aga i n l obbi ed fora s al aryi ncr eas e and a change i n j ob t i t l e, and the fol l ow i ng m onth s he t ol d a H um an R es our ces empl oy ee that“s he w as not p aid e n o u g h fo r w h at sh e d id.” In M arc h 2 0 0 6 , sh e f il ed a c o m p lai n t w ith the C o u n ty ’s H um an R es our ces depart m entcompl ai ni ng of gende rand age di s cr i m i nat i on. T he c o m p lain t as se rte d , am o n g o th e r th in g s, th a t a c o m p a ra tiv e m a le e m p lo y e e w a s p a id $7, 000 m or e than s he w as pai d and thatthe di s cr i m i nat i on s t art ed atthe t i m e s he w as hi r ed. I n M ar ch 2006, M i kul a al s o fi l ed the curr entcaus e of a ct i on, w hi ch, atthatt i m e, in c lu d e d o n ly an E P A c la im . M ea n w h il e, on A u g u st 23 , 2 0 0 6 , M iku la rece ived a lett er f rom the C o u n ty ’s H um an R es our ces depart m enti nform i ng heri thad conc l uded thatheral l egat i ons of di s cr i m i nat i on w er e unfounde d and thather“curr entt i t l e and r at e of pa yar e fa i rw hen c o m p a re d w ith sim ilar jo b s.” T h e re a f ter , o n A p ril 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 , M ik u la f iled a c h a rg e w ith th e E q u a l E m p lo ym e n t O p p o rtu n ityC o m m iss io n (“ E E O C ” ) c laim in g th a t th e C o u n ty vi ol at ed Ti t l e V I I bypay i ng herl es s than a mal e i n herpos i t i on w oul d r ece i ve. A ft er re c e iv in g a rig h t-to -su e lette r, sh e a m e n d e d h e r D istric t C o u rt c o m p lain t to in c lu d e a T itl e VI I c l a i m. M ik u la’ s la w su it rev o lv e s a ro u n d h e r c o n ten tio n th a t th e C o u n tysh o u ld h a v e p a id4

heras m uch as , orm or e than, i tpai d Pr zby l a. Pr zby l a w as hi r ed bythe C ountyi n 1986 as a se rg e a n t at th e C o u n tyjail. H e b e c a m e th e f isc a l m a n a g e r o f

th e A lleg h e n yC o u n ty Pol i ce i n 1989. T hi s pos i t i on gave Pr zby l a r es pons i bi l i tyoveran oper at i ng budgetthat w as , i n 2004, $21 m i l l i on and, i n 2006, $23 m i l l i on. H i s pos i t i on ent ai l s , among ot her thi ngs , form ul at i ng and managi ng the oper at i ng budgetand col l abor at i ng w i th the B udget O ffi ce t o pr epar e a pr oj ect i on of futur e budgetneeds . I n 1989, Pr zby l a’ s s al aryw as $ 3 1 ,6 2 0 p e r y e a r. H e re c e iv e d v a rio u s ra ise s o v e r th e y e a rs, in c lu d in g a 9 .2 % in c re a se in 2 0 0 2 . H e a lso re c e iv e d th e sa m e 3 % m e rit ra ise in 2 0 0 3 a n d p o lice c iv ili a n s’ r a ise in M a rc h 2 0 0 6 a s d id M ik u la . In M a rc h 2 0 0 6 , P rz b y la ’s s a la ry w a s $ 4 7 ,7 4 0 p e r ye a r. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the C ounty ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . R el y i ng on L edbett erv. G oody earT i r e & R ubberC o. , 127 S. C t . 2162 ( 2007) , s uper cede d by s ta tu te , L ily L e d b e tte r F a irP a yA c t o f 2 0 0 9 , P u b . L . N o . 1 1 1 -2 , a m e n d in g 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -5 (e ) (J a n . 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 ) (“ F a ir P a yA c t”) , the D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t M ik u la’ s T itl e V I I cl ai m w as nott i m el yfi l ed. A ddr es s i ng the mer i t s of M i kul a’ s E PA cl ai m , the D i s tr i ct C our thel d thatM i kul a fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e bec aus e s he coul d not d em o n str ate tha t she an d P rzb y la pe rfo rm ed su b stan ti all yeq u al w o rk. T h e D istri ct C o u rt hel d that , even i f thei rw or k w as s ubs t ant i al l yequal , the C ountys ucce eded i n es t abl i s hi ng th a t th e p a yd is p a ri ty w a s b a s e d o n a “ f a c to r o th e r t h a n s e x .” 2 9 U .S .C . § 2 0 6 (d )( iv ). M i kul a t i m el yappea l ed.5 II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291, and ourr evi ew of the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti s pl enary . Sal dana v. K m artC orp. , 260 F. 3d 228, 231 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e onl yw hen no genui ne i s s ues of m a te ri a l f

a c t e x is t a n d th e m o v in g p a rt yis e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . C el ot ex C orp. v. C atr ett , 477 U . S. 317, 322- 23 ( 1986) . W e r es ol ve al l fac tual doubt s and dr aw al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n favorof the nonmovi ng party . D L R es . , I nc. v. F ir s tE n e rg yS o lu tio n s C o rp ., 5 0 6 F .3 d 2 0 6 , 2 1 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). T i t l e VI I r e q u i r e s a c l a i ma n ti n P e n n s y l v a n i a t o f i l e a c h a r g e wi th th e E E OC w i thi n 300 day s of the al l egedl yunl aw ful empl oym entpr act i ce. 42 U . S. C . § 2000e5 (e )( 1 ); W a ts o n v . E a s tm a n K o d a k C o ., 2 3 5 F .3 d 8 5 1 , 8 5 4 -5 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). A ccor di ngl y , beca us e M i kul a fi l ed herE E O C char ge on A pr i l 17, 2007, anychal l enged act s that occurr ed b efore June 2 0, 20 06 are t i m e-barred. M i ku l a argues t hat the A ug ust 23, 2006 l ett erfr om H um an R es our ces cons t i tut es an ac t i onabl e, di s cr et e paydeci s i on th a t f a lls w ith in th e 3 0 0 d a ytim e lim ita tio n . T h is a rg u m e n t f a ils . Al th o u g h a “ f

r e e s t a n d i n g v i o l a t i o n ” o f T i t l e VI I ma yb e c h a r g e d “ wi th i n i t s o wn chargi ng peri od , ” L edb et t er, 12 7 S . C t . at21 74 , the C ou ntydid not, as M i ku l a argues, m a k e a p a yd e c isio n in its A u g u st 2 3 rd lette r. It m e re lyp ro v id e d M ik u la w ith th e re su lt of i t s i nves t i gat i on i nt o herdi s cr i m i nat i on compl ai nt . M i kul a’ s r eques t s fora r ai s e w ent unans w er ed i n 2004 and i n 2005. T hes e i nci dent s ar e the al l egedl ydi s cr i m i nat oryact s ofT h e n e w lye n a c ted F a ir P a yA c t, w h ich su p e rc e d e s L e d b e tter, 1 2 7 S .C t. 1 2162, does notchange the r es ul tr eac hed i n thi s opi ni on. A ppl i cat i on of the Fai rPayA ct r equi r es the adopt i on o f a d isc rim in a to ryc o m p e n sa tio n d e c isio n ra th e r th a n , as in th is cas e, a requestf

or a rais e thatw as neverans w er ed. 42 U . S. C . § 2000e- 5( e) ( 3) ( A ) ( as a m e n d e d ). M ik u la n o w a rg u e s th a t T itl e V II’s sta tu te o f lim itatio n sh o u ld b e e q u itab ly 2 t ol l ed. B eca us e, how ever , s he di d notr ai s e thi s i s s ue bef or e the D i s tr i ctC our t , the arg u m en t i s w aive d . B row n v . P h il ip M o rri s Inc . , 2 5 0 F . 3 d 7 8 9 , 7 9 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). 6 w h i c h s h e c o m p l a i n s . H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e th e s e e v e n t s a l l o c c u rr e d m o r e th a n 3 0 0 d a ys 1 befor e M i kul a fi l ed herE E O C char ge, herT i t l e V I I cl ai m i s t i m e- barr ed. 2 W e nex trevi ew the m eri t s of M i ku l a’s E P A cl ai m . T o est abli sh a pri m a facie cas e u n d er the E P A , a p lai n ti ff m u st de m o n str ate “ that em p loy ee s o f th e o p p o sit e se x w ere p a id d if f e re n tlyf o r p e rf o rm in g ‘e q u a l w o rk ’— w o rk o f su b sta n tiallye q u a l sk ill , ef f o rt, and r es pons i bi l i ty , unders i m i l arw or ki ng condi t i ons . ” St anzi al e v. J ar gow s ky , 200 F. 3d 1 0 1 , 1 0 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). T h e c ru c ial f in d in g in th is a n a ly sis is w h e th e r th e c o m p a ra b le jo b s “ h a v e a ‘c o m m o n c o re ’ o f ta s k s , i . e. , w h e th e r a sig n if ica n t p o rtio n o f

th e tw o jo b s is i dent i cal . ” B r obs tv. C ol um bus Ser vs . I nt ’ l , 761 F. 2d 148, 156 ( 3d C i r . 1985) . I f the j obs s har e a c om m on cor e of t as ks , the courtthen i nqui r es as t o “w hetherthe di ffe r i ng or addi t i onal t as ks m ake the w or k s ubs t ant i al l ydi ffe r ent . ” I d. A nd “[g] i ven the fa ct i nt e ns i ve na tur e of

the i nq ui r y , s umm a ryj ud gmen tw i l l of t e n b e i na pp r op r i a t e ” i n EPA a c tio n s . Id . T he D i s tr i ctC our tas s um ed thatM i kul a’ s and Pr zby l a’ s pos i t i ons ent ai l ed a

“ c o m m o n c o re o f

tas k s” b u t th e n c o n c lu d e d th a t th e a d d iti o n a l d u ties w h ich M ik u laW e not e that , i n i t s appel l at e br i ef, the C ountyar gues onl ythatthe D i s tr i ct 3 C o u rt c o rre c tlyd e c id e d th a t M ik u la’ s a d d iti o n a l d u ties m a d e h e r jo b su b sta n tially di ffe r entthan Pr zby l a’ s . I tdi d notas s ertthatthe j obs di d nots har e a c om m on cor e of ta s k s . 7 cl ai m ed t o per form nece s s ar i l ym ade the w or k s ubs t ant i al l ydi ffe r ent . T he D i s tr i ct 3 C our t ’ s anal y s i s i s fl aw ed, as addi t i onal dut i es per form ed bya pl ai nt i ff w i l l not n e c e s s a ri ly m a k e h e r w o rk s u b s ta n tia lly d if f e re n t f ro m h e r c o m p a ra to r’ s . 2 9 C .F .R . § 1620. 14( b) ( W hen “a n empl oy ee of one s ex [M i kul a] i s r equi r ed t o per form s om e dutyor dut i es i nvol vi ng a hi ghers ki l l w hi ch an e m pl oy ee of the others ex [Pr zby l a] i s not re q u ire d to p e rf

o rm , the f

a c t th a t th e d u ties a re d if f e re n t in th is re sp e c t is in su f f icie n t to r emove t he j obs fr om the appl i cat i on of the equa l pays t andar d i f i tal s o appea r s thatt he em p loy er is pa y ing a low er w ag e to th e e m p loy ee p erf o rm ing the a d d it ion al du ti es. . . . ”); H ei n v. O r . C ol l . of Ed. , 718 F. 2d 910, 917 ( 9th C i r . 1983) ; B r i nkl ey - O bu v. H ughes T r ai ni ng, I nc. , 36 F. 3d 336, 342 n. 12 ( 4th C i r . 1994) . A s expl ai ned i n H ei n, “[i ] f an i ndi vi dual ’ s [EP A ] cl ai m coul d be def eat ed bys how i ng thatthe pl ai nt i ff ha s addi t i onal d u ties th a t ar e n o t p e rf

o rm e d b ye m p lo y e e s o f th e o p p o site se x , em p lo y e rs c o u ld e a sily s ubvertthe i nt entof the A ctbyas s i gni ng addi t i onal dut i es t o pot ent i al pl ai nt i ffs . ” 718 F . 3 d a t9 1 7 . Th e Di s tr i c tCo u r te r r e d i n c o n c l u d i n g th a tM i k u l a d i d n o te s t a b l i s h a p r i ma f a c ie c a s e b a s e d o n th is re a s o n in g . T h e p arti es in this case d isag ree as to w h ethe r M iku la’s “ad d it ion al” d u ti es w ere s uffi ci ent l ydi ver gentfr om thos e of Pr zby l a s o as t o defe atM i kul a’ s pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, or8

w h e th e r th e d isp a rities f a ll w ith in th e a m b it o f

2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 2 0 .1 4 (b ). In d e e d , M ik u la ar gues thatPr zby l a per form s al l of the addi t i onal dut i es thats he per form ed, s ave f or w r i t i ng gr antpr opos al s . ( M i kul a’ s B r . at5. ) T hi s confl i cti s a fa ctual di s put e ce nt er ed upon the addi t i onal j ob funct i ons of the part i es . W e have hel d that“[g] i ven the fa ct i nt e ns i ve na tur e of

the i nq ui r y , s umm a ryj ud gmen tw i l l of t e n b e i na pp r op r i a t e ” i n EPA act i ons . B r obs t , 761 F. 2d at156. W e thus hol d thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed by concl udi ng thatM i kul a di d notes t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e. B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our taddr es s ed the C ounty ’ s aff i r m at i ve def

ens es — and b ec au se w e a re rem an d ing this m att er— w e w il l add ress the m as w ell . T h e D istri ct C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t, ev e n if M ik u la h a d e sta b lish e d a p rim a f a c ie c a se , the C o u n ty d e mo n s tr a t e d th a tth e p a yd i f f e r e n t i a l wa s b a s e d o n a f a c t o ro th e rth a n s e x . S e e 2 9 U. S . C. § 206( d) ( 1) . I n E PA cas es , upon s at i s fac t i on of pl ai nt i ff’ s pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, the bur den of per s uas i on s hi ft s t o the empl oy ert o demonstr at e the appl i cabi l i tyof one of four aff i r m at i ve def

ens es . St anzi al e, 200 F. 3d at107. T he af fi r m at i ve def

ens es r equi r e the d e f e n d a n t to d e m o n stra te th a t th e p a yd if f e re n tial d e riv e s f

ro m : (1 ) a b o n a f

id e se n io rity s y s t em, ( 2) a mer i ts y s t em, ( 3) a s y s t em w hi ch meas ur es earni ngs byquant i tyorqual i tyof pr oduct i on, or( 4) a fa ct orotherthan s ex. 29 U . S. C . § 206( d) ( i ) - ( i v) . T o pr evai l on su m m a ryju d g m e n t, “th e e m p lo y e r m u st p ro v e a t lea st o n e a f f irm a tiv e d e f

e n se so c lea rly thatno r at i onal j urycoul d fi nd t o the contr ary . ” St anzi al e, 200 F. 3d at107 ( i nt ernal c i t a t i o n a n d q u o t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . T h e e m p l o ye rm u s ts u b m i te v i d e n c e th a tn o to n l y “ c o u ldT he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o det erm i ned thatPr zby l a’ s over s eei ng a much gr eat er 4 amount of m oneythan di d M i kul a cons t i tut ed a “ fac t orotherthan s ex” thatexpl ai ned the p a yd if f e re n tial. T h e C o u n tyd id n o t, ho w e v e r, ra ise th is a s a n a f f irm a tiv e d e f

e n se in its sum m aryj ud gm ent m oti on or i n it s bri ef i n sup po rtthereof. (See J. A . 74 , 86 . ) B ecause 29 U . S. C . § 206( d) r equi r es the empl oy ert o bearthe bur den of pr ovi ng thati t s w age di s par i tyw as j us t i fi ed byone of the af fi r m at i ve def

ens es , the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed by det erm i ni ng thatthe C ountyw as j us t i fi ed i n pay i ng M i kul a l es s than Pr zby l a bec aus e the g ra n t b u d g e t w a s le s s th a n th e f is c a l b u d g e t.

9 expl ai n the w age di s par i ty , butthatthe pr offe r ed r eas ons d o in fa c t expl ai n the w age d is p a ri ty.” I d . a t 1 0 8 (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) . T he C ountyr el i es on Pr zby l a’ s l ength of empl oym entas an af fi r m at i ve def

ens e, ar gui ng thatthe paydi ffe r ent i al betw een M i kul a and Pr zby l a der i ved fr om a “f act orother than s ex. ” 29 U . S. C . § 206( d) ( 1) ( i v) . I tci t ed t o Super i nt endentM offa t t ’ s depos i t i on tes tim o n yin w h ich h e sta ted th a t “th e m a in re a so n [ th a t P rz b y la is p a id m o re ] is h is r es pons i bi l i t i es i s gr eat erj us tbythe fa ctthatthe amountof the budgeti s m any , m any tim e s h ig h e r t h a n M s . M ik u la a n d th e f a c t th a t h e h a s b e e n th e re f o r a g re a t d e a l o f

tim e .” T he C ountythen as s ert ed thatM i kul a had a l s o r ece i ved payi ncr eas es due t o herl ength of empl oym ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our tr eas oned thatM i kul a di d notdi s put e thatPr zby l a had been a C ountyempl oy ee f orl ongerthan s he, and, on thos e fa ct s , det erm i ned thatthe C ountyhad es t abl i s hed thatthe paydi ffe r ent i al w as bas ed on a f act orotherthan s ex. 4 T h e C o u n ty m a d e it c le a r t h a t it d id n o t c la im to h a v e a b o n a f id e s e n io ri ty syste m . S e e 2 9 U .S .C . § 2 0 6 (d )(i). W e h a v e d o u b ts a s to w h e th e r a n e m p lo y e r c a n a p p ro p ria tely assertan af

fi rm at i ve d efen se based o n longev i tyw i tho ut dem on strat i ng that i tem ploy s as eni or i tys y s t em. W e nee d not , how ever , r eac h thati s s ue her e bec aus e the C ountydi d not

e s ta b lis h th a t th e p a yd is p a ri ty w a s a c tu a lly b a s e d o n P rz b y la ’s le n g th o f e m p lo ym e n t. T he onl yevi dence thatthe C ountypr ovi ded w as the l es s than unequi vocal t es t i m onyof M offa t tand the fa ctthatboth Pr zby l a and M i kul a have r ece i ved occ as i onal r ai s es . T he rec o rd, th o u g h , d o es n o t dem o n str ate tha t anyo f th e ra ises that P rzb y la rece ived w ere bas ed on hi s l ength of s ervi ce. Fur therm or e, ther e i s nothi ng i n the r ecor d i ndi cat i ng t hat the C ountyr ew ar ds i t s empl oy ees forl ength of s ervi ce. T hus , w e ca nnotagr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatthe C ountym eti t s bur den of pr ovi ng thatPr zby l a’ s gr eat erl ength of s e rv ic e a c tu a lly m o tiv a te d th e d is p a ri ty in w a g e s . Forthe r eas ons s t at ed above , w e w i l l aff i r m i n partand vac at e i n partthe D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s j udgm ent , and w e w i l l r emand t he mat t erforfur therpr ocee di ngs focus ed on w hetherM i kul a s t at ed a pr i m a fa ci e cl ai m forvi ol at i on of the EP A and w hetherthe C ountyhas m eti t s bur den of pr ovi ng i t s aff i r m at i ve def

ens es . T he def

endanthavi ng fi l ed no oppos i t i on, M i kul a’ s M ot i on t o C orr ectthe R ecor d i s gr ant ed.

10