H onor abl e Y vet t e K ane, C hi ef J udge of t h e U ni t ed * St at es D i s t r i ct C ou rt fo r t he M i ddl e D i s t r i ct of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on.

- 1- 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. 08- 3877

_____________ EM M AN UEL N OEL, A ppel l ant

v.
T HE BO E I NG C OM P ANY

___________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( N o. 06- cv- 2673) D i s t r i ct J udge: H onor abl e J

. C ur t i s J oy ner

___________ Subm i t t ed J anuar y 26, 2010 Be f o r e : FUEN TES, FI SHER, Ci r c u i t J u d g e s , a n d KA NE,

D i s t r i ct J udge *- 2- ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: O ct ober 1, 2010)

A l ber t J

. M i chel l , E s q. A l be r t J

. M i c he l l , PC 510 B ai nbr i dge St r eet Fi r s t Fl oor Phi l adel phi a, PA 19147 A t t or ney f

or Appel l ant
T hom as K

. J ohns on I I , E s q. L eor a F. E i s ens t adt , E s q. Dec h e r t LLP C ir a C en tr e 2929 A r ch St r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19104 A t t or neys f

or Appel l ees

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui t J udge:

Emm anue l Noe l a

ppe a l s fr om

the Di s tr i c t Court ’ s gr ant o f su mm ary j u d g m en t inT h e B o ein g C o m p an y ’s f av o r o nh is e m pl oy m e nt di s c r i m i nat i on c l a i m

b r ought unde r Ti t l e VI I of the Ci vi l Ri ght s Ac t

of 1964. O n ap p e a l Noe l ar gue s that theU nl es s ot her w i s e not ed, t he fol l ow i ng fac t s ar e der i ved 1 f ro m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s
.

- 3- rece ntly enac te d L il ly

Ledb ette r Fai r Pay

Act of 2 00 9 renders h i s o th e rw i s e o u t

- o f

- t i m e a d m i n i s tr at i v e f i l i n g t i m e l y, pr e s e rvi ng hi s fa i l ur e - t o- pr om ot e c l a i m
. For th e fol l owi ng reaso n s, w e w ill af

f irm th e D istrict C o u rt’s ru lin g
. I. A. Bac k gr ound Noe l i s abl a c k Ha i t i an nat i ona l , who be gan worki ng for Boe i ng i n 1990 a s as he e t m e t a l a s s e m

bl e r at i t s Ri del y

Park, Pe nns yl v an i af

a c i l i ty
. N o e l w a s h i r e dat L ab o r G r a d e 5 and 1 r e pa i r e d Chi nook 47 a i r c r a ft

. The t e rm s of Noe l ’ s e m pl oy m e nt were go verned by

a c olle ct ive bargai ning agre em ent ( “CBA ”) betwee n B oeing andthe I nter nati on al Un ion o f U nite d Aut om obi l e Ae r os pa c e and Agr i c ul t ur a l I m pl e m e nt W orke r s of A m erica L o cal 1 0 6 9 , as w ell as in tern al B o ein g p o licies. B oei ng empl oy ees w er e occ as i onal l y offe r ed an oppor t u n i t y t o wor k a t o f f s i t e l o c a t i o n s
. Be c a u s e e mpl o y e es w or ki ng offs i t e r ece i ved gr eat er pay , per di ems and a ddi t i onal tra in in g , o f

f site p o sitio n s w e re c o v e ted a n d in d iv id u a ls vol unt eer ed for t hes e as s i gnm ent s
. A ny p rom ot i ons and c o rre sp o n d in g ra ise s w e re lim ited to th e d u ra tio n o f th e o f f site assig n m en t. A cc o rdin g to th e C B A that g o v ern ed N o el’s empl oy m ent , s eni or i t y w as not t h e onl y fac t or t hat B oei ng cons i der ed w hen as s i gni ng w or ker s offs i t e. R at her , s ki l l and a b il ityw e re th e d e ter m in in g f a c to rs, a n d se n io rityw a s o n ly c o n s id e re d w h e n th o s e f a c to rs w e re e q u a l.- 4- N oel t ook hi s fi r s t offs i t e as s i gnm ent i n 1991 at a B oei ng f a c ili ty in S h re v e p o rt, L o u isia n a ; th is la ste d a p p ro x im a tely six
m ont hs

. A l t hough he s ought an off s i t e as s i gnm ent i n M ay2002, N oel w as not as s i gned off s i t e aga i n unt i l N ovember 2002, w hen he w as des i gnat ed an a i r craft m echa ni c t o w or k on
m o d if ica tio n s to th e V -2 2 O sp re y a t th e B e ll H e lico p ter f a c ili ty i n A m ar i l l o, T exas
. T hat as s i gnm ent resu lt ed i n N oel ’ s l abor gr ade r i s i ng fr om 7 t o 8; he al s o r ece i ved a $57 per di em. A ft er t w o w eeks of w or ki ng i n A m ar i l l o, N oel ’ s s al ar y w as i ncr eas ed f ro m $ 2 6 .1 1 p e r h o u r t o $ 2 8 .7 5 p e r h o u r. A r ound t he s ame t i m e, C hr i s C ar l i n and G ar y N ew m an, bot h w hi t e em pl oy ees , w er e al s o as s i gned t o A m ar i l l o fr om t he R i dl eyPar k fac i l i t y
. T h ey too w er e r ecl as s i fi ed fr om L abor G r ade 7 ai r cr aft as s embl er s t o offs i t e mechani cs at L abor G r ade 8

. Aft e r wor k i n g i n Am a r i l l o f o r s e v e n mon t h s , Ca r l i n and N ew m an w er e pr om ot ed t o O ffs i t e M ec hani c G ener al , L abor G rad e 1 1 , w h il e N o el re m aine d at th e low er p ay ing G rad e 8

. In Sept ember 2003, N oel compl ai ned about t hes e promot i ons t o a uni o n rep rese n tat ive a n d a B o eing labo r relat ion s rep rese n tat i ve. H is c o m p lain ts w e n t u n a n s w e re d . N o e l f iled a T itl e V II s u it agai ns t B oei ng and one of i t s m anage r s al l egi ng di s cr i m i nat i on bas ed on ra ce a nd nat i onal or i gi n. O n M ar ch 25, 2005, N oel fi l ed a f

or m al gr i evanc e w i t h t he Equal E m pl oy m ent O p p o rt u n ity C o m m is s io n (“ E E O C ” ). O n Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 , N o el fil ed a f o u r-co u n t T it le V II compl ai n t agai ns t B oei ng. H e t her eaf t er amended t he compl ai nt

. C ount I of t he A m ended C om pl ai nt acc us ed B oei ng of i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on and di s par at e t r eat m ent bas ed on N oel ’ s r ace and nat i onal or i gi n. C ount I I r ai s ed t he same i s s ue under t he Penns y l vani a H um an R i ght s A ct

. C o u nt I I I l evi ed aN oel’ s com plai nt i nclud ed seve ral add i t i on al adv ers e 2 empl oy m ent act i ons
. B eca us e N oel does not cha l l enge t he D istric t C o u rt’s r u lin g s re g a rd in g th o se c laim s, w e f in d it
u n n e c e s s a ry to d is c u s s th e m in f u rt h e r d e ta il.

- 5- r et al i at i on cl ai m agai ns t B o ei ng, and C ount I V demanded p u n iti v e d a m a g e s. T h e se c laim s w e re b a se d o n se v e ra l sp e c if ic in c id e n ts re f

e re n c e d b y N o e l in h is c o m p lain t. R e lev a n t to th is a p p e a l, N o e l co m p lain e d : (1 ) th a t B o e in g d id n o t se n d h im offs i t e t o A m ar i l l o i n M ay2002 w hen w hi t e, n o n -H ai t i an e m p lo y e e s w h o h e ld th e sa m e jo b a s N o e l b u t w e re ju n io r to h im
w er e s ent offs i t e; and ( 2) i n 2003, w hi l e off s i t e atA m ar i l l o, he
w a s p ro m o te d to L a b o r G ra d e 8 w h ile h is j u n io r, w h ite , U .S .- bor n co- w or ker s w er e pr om ot ed t o L abor G r ade 11. 2

B. The D i s t r i c t C our t ’ s R ul i ng A f ter a f o u r-d a y b e n c h trial, th e D is tr ict C o u rt ru led in B oei n g ’s f

av o r on al l count s
. T he D i s t r i ct C our t fi r s t gr ant ed D efe ndant ’ s s um m ar y jud g m ent m ot i on on N oel ’ s cl ai m t hat B o e in g v io la ted T itl e V II w h e n it fa iled to se n d h im o f f site to A m a rillo in M a y 2 0 0 2 a n d w h e n h e w a s n o t p ro m o ted to o f f site
m echa ni c Labor G r ade 11 i n 2003, hol di ng t hat t hi s cl ai m w as t i m e- bar r ed s i nce N oel di d n o t f i l e a c har ge of di s cr i m i nat i on w i t h t he EE O C unt i l M ar ch 2005, w el l out s i de the 300- day s t at ut or y t i m e per i od. T he D i s t r i ct C o u r t al s o gr ant ed D ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n s fo r Jud g m en t on P art i al Fi ndi ngs on N o el’s cl ai m t hat he s houl d have been pr om ot ed t o l ead mechani c upon h is re tu rn to R id ley P a rk . Ju d g m e n t w a s a lso a w a rd e d in B oei ng’ s favor r egar di ng N oel ’ s er r oneous pl ace m ent on B oei ng’ s offs i t e l i s t , w hi ch s t y m i ed hi s pr o m o ti o n, s i nceT hough not r el evant t o t hi s appea l , t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt 3 al s o gr ant ed j u d g me n ti n D efe ndant s ’ favor on N oel ’ s r et al i at i on a n d h o s tile w o rk e n v ir o n m e n t c la im s . (A p p . a t 5 7 .)

- 6- D e f e n d a n ts s u b s e q u e n tlyp ro m o ted N o e l an d a w a rd e d h im b a c k p a y
. N ext, t he D i st ri ct C ou rtgrant ed judgm ent i n D efen dan t s’ favor on N oel ’ s cl ai m t hat r ace - and nat i onal or i gin-b ased d isc rim in a tio n a n im a ted B o e in g ’s d e c isio n n o t to tra n sf e r h im t o t he pos i t i on of offsi t e mat er i al handl er w hi l e i t di d t r ans fer C ar l i n and N ew m an. A l t hough the D i s t r i ct C our t not ed t hat N o e l h a d e sta b lish e d a p rim a f a c ie c a se o f

d isc r im in a tio n , it
n o n e t heles s grant ed judgm ent i n D efen dan t s’ favo r because B oei ng s ucce s s ful l y r ebut t ed t hat cas e. Speci fi cal l y , t he D i s t r i ct C our t found cr edi bl e B oei ng’ s as s er t i on t hat t he s ol e r eas on C ar l i n and N ew m an w ere s ent offs i t e t o w or k as m at er i al ha n d l e r s was b e c a u s e t h e y wer e t h e “ o n l y e mpl o y e e s who di r ect l y ex p ress ed i nt er es t i n and vol unt eer ed for t he j obs and t hat i n doi ng s o, i t fol l ow ed t he C ol l ect i ve B ar gai ni ng A g r e e m e n t g u id e lin e s to th e lette r. . . . A s [ N o e l] h im se lf a c k n o w led g e s, h e n e v e r so u g h t to h a v e a n o th e r jo b in A m a rillo o th e r t h a n th e o n e w h ic h h e w a s th e n p e rf o rm in g – m e c h a n ic .” (A p p . at 3 9 -4 0 .) T h u s, th e D istric t C o u r t g ra n ted ju d g m e n t in D efe ndant s ’ favor beca us e N oel di d not “c o n v inc e” i t t hat B o e in g ’s s tate d re a so n f o r m o v in g C a rlin a n d N e w m a n o f f site was f a l s e a n d “ t h a t d i s c r i mi n a t i o n was t h e r e a l r eas on for t he deci s i on. ” ( Id

. a t 4 0 .) 3W e have j ur i s di ct i on over N oel ’ s appea l pur s uant t o 28 4 U

. S. C

. § 1291, and our r evi ew of a D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s gr ant of s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is p le n a ry. See M i kul a v. A l l egheny C nt y. of P a. , 5 8 3 F

. 3 d 1 8 1 , 1 8 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ) (pe r cu ri am ). S u m m ary ju d g m e n t is g ra n ted o n lyif th e re re m a in s n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to anym at er i al fac t and t he m ovi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm ent as a m a tte r o f la w
. S e e C e lo tex C o rp . v. C a tre tt , 477 U

. S. 317, 322 (19 8 6 ).
T he Fai r Pay A ct , codi fied at 42 U

. S. C

. § 2000e-

5 5( e) ( 3) ( A ) , w as s i gned i nt o l aw on J anuar y 29, 2009 and made re tr o a c tiv e to M a y 2 8 , 2 0 0 7

.

- 7- II. T he on l y as pectof t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s r ul i ng t hat N oel c h a llen g e s is its d e ter m in a tio n th a t h e f a iled to a d m in istra tiv e ly p re se rv e h is c laim th a t, i n 2 0 0 3 , D e f e n d a n ts f a iled to p ro m o te hi m t o O ffs i t e M echa ni c G ener al L abor G r ade 11 i n vi ol at i on of T it le V II. A cc o rdin g to N o el, b ec au se of th is d iscri m inato ry 4 empl oy m ent act i on, he r ece ived l es s payt han hi s w hi t e cow or ker s t hr oughout hi s t i m e att he A m ar i l l o p lant. N oel cont ends t hat t he L i l l y L edbet t er Fai r Pay A ct of 2009 ( “FPA ”) 5
m ak es cl eart hat “i n paydi s cr i m i nat i on m at t er s an unl aw ful empl oy m ent pr act i ce oc cur s eac h t i m e an i ndi vi dual i s aff ect ed b y a p p lic a tio n o f

a d is c ri m in a t o ry c o m p e n s a tio n d e c is io n .” A ppel l ant ’ s B r
. at 8. N oel ar gues t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t er r ed as a m a tter o f law w h e n it g ra n ted su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in D e f e n d a n ts’ f

a v o r sin c e B o e in g ’s f a ilu re to p ro m o te h im
r es ul t ed i n l ow er pay , and, t her efor e, eac h pay chec k he r ece i ved s ta rt e d th e a d m in is tr a tiv e c lo c k a n e w
.- 8- Ti t l e VI I of the 1964 Ci vi l Ri ght s Ac t m ake s i t unl awful f o r an em p lo y er “to

. . . d iscrim in ate ag ain st an y in d iv idu al w ith r e s pe c t t o hi s c om

pe ns at i on, t e rm s , c ondi t i ons , or pr i vi l e ge s of em p lo y m en t . . . o r . .
. to lim it

. . . o r classif y h is em p lo y ees . .

. i n any way whi c h woul d de pr i ve
. . . any i ndiv id u al of em p lo y m en t o p p o rtu n ities o r o th erw ise ad v ersely af f ect h is s t at us a s an e m

pl oy e e , be c aus e of s uc h i ndi vi dua l ’ s r a c e
. . . or nat i ona l or i gi n. ” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e

- 2( a ) ( 1)

- ( 2)

. Be for e fi l i ng a clai m i n fe de r a l c ourt , aTi t l e VI I pl a i nt i ff i n Pe nns yl vania m us t fi l e ac har ge of di s c r i m i nat i on wi th the EEOC wi thi n 300 d ay s o f th e alleg edu n law f

u l em p lo y m en t p ractice. Se e Mi k

ula, 5 8 3 F .3 dat 1 8 3 ; 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e-5 (e)(1 ). If a claim an t f ails to exhaust his or her c la im within the r equisi te ti m e per iod, that c l a i m i s a dm in istrat i ve l y

barr e d. Thi s s t at

ut e of l i m i t at i ons a ppl i e s t o di s c r e t e e m

pl oy m e nt a c t i ons , i nc l udin g pr om ot i on d ecisio n s. Se e Nat ’ l R. R. Pas s e nge r Cor p. v
. Mor gan , 536 U. S. 1 0 1 , 1 1 4 (2 0 0 2 ). Here , the adverse em

ploy m ent a ct ions No el com

plai ned of occurre d b etween July

and S epte m

ber 200 3. Beca

use Noel did no t f i l e hi s EE OC c har ge un t i l Mar c h 2 5, 20 05 , we l l a fter the 300 -day

ti m e per iod exp ir ed, the District C o urt r uled that an y c l a i m s of di s c r i m i nat i on s t e mm i ng fr om the 2003 e m pl oy m e nt de c i s i on s we r e barr e d a s am att e r of l aw. Neverthele ss , Noel argues that the FP A revives his c la im si nce e a c h payc he c k h e rec e i ve d dur i ng the r e qui s i t e t i m e pe r i od s t art e d the a dm i ni s tr at i ve c l oc k t i c ki ng ane w. C o n g r e s s p a s s e dth e F P A i nr e s p o n s e t o th e S up r e me Court ’ s de c i s i on i n L ed

b etter v. G o o d

yea r T ire & R u b b er Co ., Inc. , which h eld that

“ pay - s e tt i ng” wa s adi s c r e t e a c t and ther efore the peri odfo r fil ing an EE OC cl ai m comm ence s when- 9- th e u n law f

u l act o ccu rs. 5 5 0 U .S . 6 1 8 , 6 2 1 (2 0 0 7 ), s upe r s e de d, in p a rt, b y sta tu te , Fa i r Pay Ac t of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111- 2, 42 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e-5 (e)(3 ), a s reco gn ized in M iku la , 58 3 F

. 3d

at 1 8 3 -8 4 , 1 8 6

. L edb etter w o rk ed f o r G o o dy ear f

ro m 1 9 7 9 u n til 19 98 ; s he intr oduced evidence at t ri al that throug ho ut her em p lo y m en t, G o o d y e a r sup erv iso rs ev alu atedh er p o o rly be c aus e of he r

s e x, r e s ul t i ng i n l owe r

pay than i f he r

e va l uat i ons h adb een d iscrim in atio n -f ree. I d. at 62 1-22

. Sh e further proved that the dis cr im i na

t or y pay deci si on s negat ivel y

affecte d h er

pay throug ho ut the course of her em ploy m ent, re sult ing in a sa lary th at w as sig n if

ican tly lo w er th anth at o f

h er m ale p eers. I

d. at 62 2. Althou gh a j ury fo un d in Ledb ette r’ s f avor and awarded he r ba c kpay and dam a ge s , the Supr e m e Court a ffi rm e d the c i r c ui t c o urt ’ s r e ve r s a l , r

ul i ng that “ [t ]he EEOC c har gi ng pe r i od is trig g eredw h en ad iscrete u n law f u l p ractice tak es p lace. A new v iolati on do es no t o cc ur, anda new charging period do es not c o mm e n c e , up o nth e o c c u rr e n c e o f s ubs e que nt nondi s c r i m i nat ory

a c t s that e nt a i l a dve r s e e ffe c t s r e s ul t i ng fr om the past d is cr iminat ion.” I d. at 62 8. In so ho lding, the Cou rt no te d that “ it is no t our prer og at ive t o chang e the way in wh ic h T itle V II b alan ces th e in terests o f ag g riev edem p lo yees ag ain st the i nter es t i n encou ra ging the prom pt proces si ng of al l c harges of em ploy m ent disc ri m inat ion and the inte re st in re po se .” I

d. at 64 2 (inte rnal ci ta ti on & quo tati on m ar ks om itte d). That pr e r ogat i ve l i e s wi th Congr e s s , whi c h ans we r e d s wi ft l y by p assin g th e F P A

. The Li l l y Led b etter

Fa i r Pay Ac t am e nde d Ti t l e VI I by a ddi ng the fol l owi ng s e c t i on: [ A ] nu n law f

u l em p lo y m en t p ractice o ccu rs, w ith re s pe c t t o di s c r i m i nat i on i n c om pe ns at i on in- 10- vi ol a t i on of t hi s s ubc ha pt e r , whe n a disc ri m inat ory

com pensat ion d ec is ion or other prac ti ce is adop te d, wh en an individu al becom es s ubje c t t o a d iscrim in ato ry

co m p en sation de c i s i on o r o th er p ractice, o r w h en an in d iv idu al is affecte d b y

applic at ion o f a disc ri m inat ory com pensat io n d ec is io n o r o ther prac ti ce , incl ud ing e ac h t im e wages, benefits , oro th er co m p en s a t i o n is p aid , resu ltin g inw h o le o r in part from such a deci si on or other prac ti ce
. 4 2 U .S .C

. § 2 0 0 0 e-5 (e)(3 )(A ). T h e p u rp o se o f th e F P A “w as to r e i ns t at e the l aw r e gar di ng the t i m e l i ne s s of pay c om pe ns at i on cl ai m s a s i t was prior t o the Ledb et te r d ecisio n , w h ich C o n g ress be l i e ve d unde r

m i ne dstatu to ry

p ro te c t i ons a ga i ns t

c om pe ns at i on disc ri m inat ion b y

un du ly re stri ct ing t h e ti me peri odin wh ic h vi c t i m s c ou l d c ha l l e ng e andr e c ov e r fo r di s c r i m i nat ory com pensat ion dec is ions.” M i k u la , 5 8 3 F .3 dat 1 8 4 . T h u s, p u r s u an t t o th e F P A , e a c h p ayc h e c k th at s t e ms f r o m a d iscrim in ato ry

co m p en satio nd ecisio n o r p ay stru ctu re is a t a i nt e d, in de pe nde nt

e m pl oy m e nt

- a c t i on that

c omm e nc e s the ad m in istrativ e statu te o f

lim itatio n s. N o el co n ten d s t h a t th e F P A rev iv es h is o th erw ise adm inis tr at ivel y

ti m e- barr ed clai m s bec ause the “ Co urt’ s a s s e rt i on that

[hi s ] fi l i ng of hi s EEOC c har ge
. . . i s out s i de of the fil ing p er iod . . . is base d o n th e e rr on eous conclusi on that th e 3 0 0 d a y p erio dstartedup o nth e act o f f ailin g to g ran t h im a p ro m o tio n /raise in A m arillo . . . inth e sp rin g o f 2 0 0 3 .” Ap pell ant’ s Br. at

8-9. Acco rding to N oel, “Boeing’s di s c r i m i nat i on i n r e fus i ng t o gi ve [hi m ] ar a i s e t o Labor Gr a de 1 1 w h ile gi vi ng thi s gr a de t o s i m i l ar l y s i t uat e d whi t e c owo rker s .
. . was per

petuat ed ea ch ti me the r es ulti ng lower com pe ns at i on wa s the r e a ft e r

pa i d t o” hi m , br i ngi ng hi s c l a im squ arely w ith inth e F P A

. I

d. at 1 2

. Be for e a ddr e s s i ng Noe l ’ s ar gum e nt that the FPA- 11- r e tr oa c t i ve l y

re nd er s h i s Mar c h 2 00 5 E EO C f i l i ng t i m e l y , we m us t f ir st dete rm ine whether

he ac tual ly

al le ged p ay d iscrim in atio ninco n n ectio n w ith B o ein g ’s f ailu re to p ro m o te him in 20 03

. No el as si gn s er ror to the Distri ctCo urt’ s de t e rm i nat i on that the 300- day fi l i ng pe r i od c omm e nc e d “ upon th e act o f f

ailin g to g ran t h im a p ro m o tio n /raise in A m arillo

. . . inth e sp rin g o f

2 0 0 3 .” A p p ellan t’s B r. at 9 . H e styles h is fa i l ur e - t o- pr om ot e c l a i m

a s apay - s e tt i ng c l a i m

by c on n ecting “prom otion” an d “ra is e, ” andby as se rt ing that Boeing’s p u r p o rt e d l y d i s c r i m i n at o ry a c t w a s “ r e f u s i n g t o g i v e [ hi m ] a ra is e t o L abor Grade 11.” I d. Th i s c l a i m

i s unpe r s ua s ive, h o w ev er, sin ce N o el d idn o t p leado r claim a n ex u s b etw een h is pr om ot i on c l a i m

and the r e s ul t ant

l owe r s a l ary be for e the Distri ct Co urt. To the c on tr ar y , now here in No el ’s Am ended C o m p lain t d o es h e m ak e an y alleg atio n s o f

d isp arate co m p en satio n du rin g th e relev an t p erio d

. See Com pl

. ¶ ¶ 11- 13 (A p p . at 6 8 ) (d escrib in g th e d esirab ility o f o f f site assig n m en ts and accusi ng Bo ei ng in 20 02 of se nd ing w hite co-workers offs i t e and pa s s i ng hi m

ove r )

. Rathe r , hi s fa c t

u al a l l e gat i ons w ere f o cu sedo nB o ein g ’s alleg ed ly d iscrim in ato ry

f ailu re to p ro m o te h im

w h ile ad v an cin g h is w h ite co -w o rk ers. I nde e d, Noel d i d not

r a i s e the s pe c t e r

of c om pe ns at i on u n til h e reach es th e ev en ts o f 2 0 0 5

. See Com

pl

. ¶ ¶ 23- 26 ( App. at 69. ) And e ve n the n, he onl y di s c us s e d c om

pe ns at i on i n the context of d is parate pay

rate s for of

f si te vers us Ridley

Park jobs , and not

a s une qua l pay

for pe r form ance of the s am e job. Nor d id he att e m

pt t o c onne c t

hi s pr om ot i on c l a i m

t o a c om pe ns at i on c l a i m i n hi s oppos i t i on t o Boe i ng’ s m ot i o n f or summ ar y ju dg m ent. (App . at 132 -34.) Rather, No el ar gu ed that h is f ailu re to f

ile an E E O C co m

p lain t w i t h in3 0 0 d ay s o f h is pr om ot i on de ni a l wa s not fat a l pur s uant

t o the c ont i nui ng v io latio n s th eo ry . (

Id

. a t 131- 32. ) Aga i n, he c l a i m e d no ne xus be twe e n Boe i ng’ s de c i s i on not t o pr om ot e hi m

and a ny r e s ul t ant d isp arate co m

p en satio n
.- 12- N o r d idN o el a l l eg e th at h e receiv edless p ay th an h is wh it e pee rs fo r work p er fo rm ed at the sam e grade le vel. Rather , h e co ns i s t e nt l y

and for c e ful l y

ar gue d that

he wa s unl awful ly pass ed o ver for promot ion w hile his white co-workers wer e advanced. To b e sure , i n h is Federa l Rule of C ivil Procedure 52 (b) m otion, No el no te d that bec ause his white co -w orkers were prom oted to Labo r Gra de 11 , they re ce ived m ore pay

than h e d id . ( Id

. a t 4 4 4 -4 5 .) T h is d o es n o t, h o w ev er, tran sf o rm h is fa i l ur e - t o- pr o m o t e c l a i m

i nt o adi s c r i m i nat i on- i n- c om pe ns at i on c l a i m
. Be c aus e hi s whi t e c o- worke r s we r e at ahi ghe r pay gr a de th ey n ecessarily

receiv edan elev atedsalary . T h ro u g h o u t th is l i t i gat i on, Noe l ne ve r

arg u ed that

he wa s de ni e d e qua l pay for e qua l work. At

be s t he att e mp ts to c onne c t hi s l a c k of pr om ot i on wi th the r e s ul t i ng l owe r s a l ary f o r the fi r s t

t i m e on appeal . There fo re , we c o n cl ud e that des pite No el ’s p ro testatio n s to th e co n trary , h e g riev eda f ailu re-to -p ro m o te claim an dn o t a d iscrim in atio n -in -co m p en satio nclaim

. Havi ng de t e rm i ne d that

Noe l a c t ua l l y pl e d afa i l ur e - t op ro m o te claim , w e ad dress an issu e o f f irst im p ressio ni n th is circu it: w h eth er, u n d er th e F P A , a f ailu re-to -p ro m o te claim consti tute s “d iscr im inat ion in com pensat ion.” Only

on e other circu it h as ad dressedth is issu e. The D. C. Ci r c ui t

r e c e nt l y he l d that the F P A ’ s t e rm s do n o t co v er f

ailu re-to -p ro m o te g riev an ces. See S ch uler v. Pr i c e wate rhous e Coope r

s , LLP , 5 9 5 F.3d37 0, 37 5 (D.C. Cir. 2010)

. I n Schu le r , the pl a i nt i ff br ought an Age Di s c r i m i nat i on in Em ploy m ent Act (“ AD EA ”) com

plai nt agai nst his em

ploy er f o r f ailu re to p ro m o te h im t o p artn er. Id

. at 37 3. Th e dis tr ic t co u rt d ism issedit as ad m in istrativ ely b arred

. L i k e N o el, Sc hul e r on a

ppe a l ar gue d that

the FPA r e nde r e d hi s fa i l ur e - t op ro m o te claim s tim ely

. I d. at 37 4. Th e D.C

. C ir cuit

re ject ed th is arg u m en t, n o tin g f

irst th at “[ t] h ere can b e n o d isp u te th at in o rd er to b en ef

it f ro m th e [ F P A , p lain tif

f ] m u st b rin g a claim i nvol vi ng ‘ di s c r i m i nat i on i n c om pe ns at i on’ an d poi nt

t o a- 13- ‘dis cr im inat ory

com pensat ion d ec is ion o r oth er prac ti ce .’ ” I

d. The c ourt ne xt not e d that i n e m

pl oy m e nt l aw, “ ‘ di s c r i m i nat i on i n c om pe ns at io n’ m e ans payi ng di ffe r e nt wa ge s or pr ovi di ng di ffe r e nt be n e f i t s t o s i m i l a

r l y s i t uat e d e m pl oy e e s , not

pr om ot i ng o n e em p lo y ee b u t n o t an o th er to a m o re rem u n erativ e p o sitio n .” I d. ( c i t i ng A n d

erso n v. Z

u b ieta , 180 F.3d 3 2 9 , 3 38 (D.C. Cir

. 1 9 9 9 ) )

. Intu rn , th e D .C . C ircu it co n clu d edth at in“co n tex t, the r e f or e , we do not

unde r s t and ‘ c om

pe ns at i on de c i s i on or other pra ct ic e’ to re fer to the d ec is ion to p rom ote one em ploy ee bu t not another t o a m ore r em un er at ive posit ion.” Id

. at 3 7 5

. We no te , as did t

he D.C. Circ uit, that the FP A w as enac te d with the speci fic intent to ov er rule the S up re m e Cou rt ’s Ledb et te r d ecisio n , an dth e iss u e inth at case w as co n f in edto pay di s c r i m i nat i on. The FPA’ s foc us on c omp e ns at i on deci si on s i s e videnced by the “ find ings” sec ti on of the s tatute , w h ich states: The Supr e m e Court [’ s de c i s i on i n Ledb ette r ] sig n if ican tly im p airs statu to ry

p ro tectio n s ag ain st d iscrim in atio n i n co m

p en satio nth at C o n g ress es ta blis hed andthat

have been bedrock p ri nciple s of Am e r i c an l aw f

or de c a de s
. The Ledb et te r de c i s i on unde rm i ne s thos e s t at ut ory p ro t e c t i ons by un du ly re stri ct ing t

he ti m e peri od in w h ich vi c t i m s of di s c r i m i nat i on c an c ha l l e nge and r e c ove r for di s c r i m i n ato ryco m p en s a t i on de c i s i ons or othe r pr a c t i c e s , c ontr ary t o the i nt e nt of C o n g r e s s
. . . . T h e l i m i t at i o n i m p o s e d by t he Co urt on the fi ling of disc ri m inat ory c om pe ns at i on c l a i m s i gnor e s the r e a l i ty of wa ge d iscrim in atio n
. . . . Li l l y Le dbe tt e r

Fair P ay A ct of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111- 2, § 2, 123 St at

. 5 ( 2009)

. I n our vi ew , C o n g r e s s ’ m ot i vat i on for e n a c t i n g th e F P A w a s t o o v e rt u rn th e p e r c e i v e d h ar s h n e s s of L ed b etter and t o pr ovi de gr e at e r pr ot e c t i on a gain st wa geTh is inte rpre tati on do es no t r ender the ph ra se “or other 6 p ractice” sup erf

lu o u s. T h e s e w o rd s m erely in d icate th at in order t o f al l wit hin the am

bit o f th e F PA , the disc ri m inat ory “o the r pr a c t i c e , ” whi l e not

a c t ua l l y s e tt i ng adi s par ate rem u n eratio nlev el, m

u st relate to p ay

d isp arity

. See Schuler , 595 F. 3d at

375 ( not i ng th at “g ivi ng an e m pl oy e e apoor pe r form anc e e va l uat i on ba s e d upon he r s e x
. . . and the n us i ng th e [ u n l aw f

u l ] e v a l u at i o nt o d e t e rm i n e h e r r at e o f p ay” consti tute s “ an other prac ti ce ” within t he m eaning of the FPA ).

- 14- di s c r i m i n a t i o n b u t n o t o t h e r t y pe s of e mpl oym e nt di s c r i m i nat i on. Thi s i nt e nt i on i s e vi de nc e d by Congr e s s ’ us e of the t e rm “ c om pe ns at i on, ” r e pe at e d f

iv e ti m e s thr oughout

the Act, in d ic at ing that t

he driving f

orce behindthe FPA was r e m e dyi ng wa ge di s c r i m i nat i on. 6 On the ba s i s of a pl a i n and nat ur a l r e a di ng, we c onc l ude that the FP A d oe s no t

a pp l y t o f a i l ur e - t o- pr om ot e cl ai m s. As not e d above , the FPA s t at e s that “ [f]or pur pos e s of thi s s e c t i on, an u n law f

u l em p lo y m en t p ractice o ccu rs, w ith resp ect to disc ri m inat ion in com

pensat ion in violat ion o f this s ub chapte r, wh en a dis cr im inat ory

com pensat ion d ec is ion o r other prac ti ce i s a dopt e d. ” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e

- 5( e ) ( 3) ( A)

. Thi s fi r s t c l aus e of § 2 00 0e-5(e) (3)( A) li m it s the s cope of the Lil ly

Ledb ette r Am endm ent by

defining “unlawfu l e m

pl oy m e nt pr a c t i ce ” vis -a vis “ disc ri m inat ion in com pensat ion” violat ions. It t hen f urther conf ines it s a

pp li ca bili ty to si tuat ion s in wh ic h “a d iscrim in ato ry

co m p en sati o nd ecisio no r o th er p ractice is adop te d.” Th us, the plai n langu age of the FP A cov er s c om pe ns at i on de c i s i ons and not othe r di s c r e t e e m

pl oy m e nt d ecisio n s. Thi s t e xt ua l ana l y s i s i s rein for c e d by our tr e atm e nt

of com pensat ion-re late d cla im s andfail ure- to-prom ote c la im s a s dist inct grie vances that ar e n ot coexte nsive. To m ai ntai n a pay d isp arity claim , a p lain tif

f m u st d em o n strate th at “em p lo y ees .- 15- . . we r e pa id d if

fe r e nt l y for pe r form i ng ‘ e qua l work’ –work of substantia ll y equal s kill , e ff ort andre spon si bili ty , und er si m il ar wo rking con diti on s. ” Stan zi ale v. Ja rgowsk y , 200 F. 3d 101, 1 0 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (citatio no m itted ). A f ailu re-to -p ro m o te cl ai m , how ever , r equire s a Titl e VII plai ntiff to sh ow “( i) that he belong s t o a [p rote ct ed cate go ry]; (i i) that he applie d andwas qua l i fi e d for

ajob for

w hi c h the e m

pl oy e r wa s s e e ki ng a ppl i c ant s ; ( i i i ) that , de s pi t e hi s qua l i fi c at i ons , he wa s r e je c t e d; and ( i v) that , a ft e r

hi s r e je c t i on, the pos i t i on r e m a i ne d ope n and the e m pl oy e r c ont i nue d t o s e e k a

pp lican ts fr om

pe r s ons of com plai nant’s qu al ific at ions.” F u en tes v. P erskie , 32 F. 3d 759, 763 ( 3d Ci r
. 1994)

. Our

s i s t e r c i r c ui t s a l s o tr e at the s e ty pe s of di s c r i m i nat i on c l a i m s as d ist i nc t c aus e s of a c t i on, r e qui r i ng d if f eren t elem en ts. See Schuler , 595 F. 3d at 374- 75 ( c ol l e c t i ng c a s e s )

. I t

i s we l l un de r s t oo d that “Con gr e s s i s awar e of

a ju di c i a l i nt e r

pr e t at i onof

s t at ut or y l ang ua ge
. ” Nequ si e v
. H o ld er, 12 9 S

. Ct. 11 59 , 11 81 , – U.S. –, (200 9); see al so P ope by P ope v. E

. B r uns w i ck Bd. of E duc. , 1 2 F. 3 d 1 2 4 4 , 1 2 4 9 ( 3d C i r
. 1993) ( “C ongress [i s ] pr es um ed t o know t he meani ngs of t he w ords and ph ras es i t uses i n d raft i ng st at u tes .”). C on gress w a s u n d o u b t e d l y a w a r e t h a t c o u r t s h a v e u n i v e r s a l l y t r e a t e d p a ys et t i ng and fa i l ur e- t o- pr om ot e c lai m s as di ffe r ent caus es of act i on. H ad C o n g ress i nt ended t he FPA t o covert ypes of empl oy m ent d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i ms a p a r tf r o m pa yd i s c r i m i nat i on c la im s , it w o u ld h a v e d o n e s o e x p lic itly. L ik e th e D .C . C i r c u i t , w e also n o te th at o u r d ecisio nis consis te nt with Co ng re ss ’ i ntent wh en it pass ed the FP A. In her di s s e nt i ng opi ni on i n Ledb et te r , Justi ce Ginsbu rg dist ingu is hed be twe e n c om

pe ns at i on de c i s i ons and othe r e mp loy m e nt d ecisio n s, n o tin g th at “ [ p ] a y d isp arities are . . . sig n if ican tly d if f eren t f ro m ad v erse actio n s su ch as te rmi n a t io n , f ailu re to prom ote,

. . . or r efusal to hire , al l invo lving fully comm un ic at ed disc re te ac ts , e as y

to identi fy as disc ri m inat ory .” Ledb et te r , 550 U. S. at 645 ( Gi ns bur g, J

. , di s s e nt i ng) ( i nt e rna l quot at i on m arks om i tt e d)

. Unl i ke th e d i s c r e t e e m pl oy m e nt a c t s i de nt i fi e d by- 16- Just ic e Ginsburg, wh ic h are re adil y apparent si nce an ind ividual wi l l know whe n (s)he ha s be e n hi r e d, fi r e d, or pr om ot e d, com pensat ion d ec is ions ar e often clo ak edin se cr ec y , andan e m pl oy e e m ay not know how m uc h hi s or he r c o- worke r s e arn. S ee id

. at 64 9 ( Gi ns bur g, J

. , di s s e nt ing) ( “ A w or ke r kn ow s i mm e di at e l y

i f s he i s de ni e d a pr om ot i on
. . . . And pr om ot i ons

. . . are general ly public events , kno wn to co-workers. When an e m pl oy e r m ake s a de c i s i on of s uc h ope n and d ef in i t i ve c har a c t e r , ane m

p l oy e e c an i mm e di at e l y

s e e k out an e xpl anat i on an dev alu ate it f

o r p retex t. C o m

p en sat i o n d isp arities, in con tr ast, ar e often hidd en fromsi gh t. ”) . Thu s, the FPA was e na c t e d t o a ddr e s s apart i c ul ar ty pe of e m

pl oy m e nt disc ri m inat ion, com

pensat ion deci si on s, wh ic h are of te n c onc e a l e d and not di s c ove r e d unt i l l ong a ft e r the 180- or

300- day a dm i ni s tr at i ve pe r i od e xpi r e s
. T h ere is no i ndi c at i on, h o w ev er, th at C o n g ress in ten d edth e F P A to ap p ly to d iscrete em ploy m ent dec is ions, like prom otion d ec is ions, andNo el ci te s n o au th o rity

f o r th at p ro p o sitio n
. Noe l ’ s r e l i anc e on our

hol di ng i n M

iku la do es no t a lt er th i s c o n c l u s i o n
. I n M

i ku la the pl a i nt i ff s ue d the Al l e ghe ny County Pol i c e De partm e nt

for ge nde r di s c r i m i nat i on ba s e d on its f a i lu re to g iv e h er a p ay

raise. 5 8 3 F .3 dat 1 8 2 . M iku la al le ged that s he re peat edly as ked for pay incr ea se s but re ce ived no r e s pons e fr om

he r e m pl oy e r
. W hi l e we i ni t i a l l y uphe l d the gr ant of s um m ary ju dg m e nt

i n the de fe nd ant ’ s favo r

s i nc e he r su it w as ad m in istrativ ely

tim e-b arred , w e g ran tedreh earin g to de t e rm i ne the e ffe c t

of the FPA on Mi kul a ’ s c l a imand u ltim ately

rem an d edto th e d istrict co u rt. I d. at 18 2, 18 6. In d o in g so , w e h eldth at “th e f ailu re to an sw er a requ est f o r a raise qua l i fi e s a s ac om

pe ns at i on de c i s i on be c aus e the r e s ul t i s the sam e a s i f the re qu es t had been explici tl y deni ed .” Id

. at

186. No el contends that

the s am e l og ic applie s her e, si nce Bo eing ’s fail ure t o p rom ote him re sult ed in lower com pensat ion. Th is ar gu m ent m is se s the m ar k. We re cogn iz e- 17- that m any e m pl oy m e nt

- r e l at e d de c i s i ons , not s i m p l y p ay - s e tt i ng d ecisio n s, u ltim ately h av e so m e ef f ect o nco m

p en satio n . B u t to incl ud e these my

ri ad em ploy m ent decisions within the “ other prac ti ce ” l angu age of the FP A w ou ld weaken Titl e VII ’s a dm i ni s tr at i ve e xhaus t i on r e qui r e m e nt

. I nde e d, the e xpans i ve in terp retatio no f

“o th er p ractice” a d v a n cedb y N o el w o u ld po te ntia ll y

sweep al l e m

ploy m ent dec is ions un der the “other prac ti ce ” r

ub ri c. Fu rtherm ore, ther e i s wel l- es ta blis hed S up re m e Cou rt pr e c e de nt hol di ng that

di s c r e t e e m

pl oy m e nt a c t s tr ig g er the a d m i n i s tr at i v e c l o c kat

th e t i m e th e e m

p l o y m e n t d e c i s i ons o ccu r. Se e Mor

gan , 5 3 6 U .S . at 1 1 3

- 1 4

. H adC o n g ress i nt e nde d t o abr ogat e § 2 0 00e

- 5( e ) ( 1) and ove rt urn Mor gan , it w o u ldh av e d o n e so ex p licitly an dn o t b y im

p licatio n
. See A s to r i a F e d

. S a v
. a n d L o a n A s s ’n v
. S

o l i m i no , 501 U. S. 104, 1 0 9 (1 9 9 1 ) (r e a f

f i rmi n g “ th e k i n dr e dr

u l e th at l e g i s l at i v e rep eals by im plic at ion w il l not be re cogn iz ed, i nsof ar as two statute s are ca pable of coexist ence , a

bsent a cl earl y expres s e d c on gr e s s i on al i nt e nt i on t o the c ontr ary” ) ( c i t at i on & i nt e rna l quot at i on m arks o m itted )). In d eed , in§ 2 o f th e F P A , C o n g ress e x p l i citly m enti on ed that

the Ledb et te r

deci si on was th e d ri ving fo rc e be hi nd e na c t i ng the Li l l y Le db e tt e r Am e ndm e nt t o Ti t le VII. Congr e s s di d not , howe ve r , c i t e t o Mor gan with disple as ure. We will ther efore not expandthe m eaning of “other prac ti ce ” s uc h that i t s wa l l ows whol e Ti t l e VI I ’ s e xha us t i on r e qui r e m e nt an do v ertu rn s settledS up rem e C o u rt p reced en t. In su m , b ecau se N o e l f iledh is f

ailu re-to -p ro m o te disc ri m inat ion charge with the EE OC o utsi de of the 300 -day p erio d , a n db ecau se a f ailu re-to -p ro m o te claim

is n o t a di s c r i m i nat i on- i n- c o mp ens at i on c har ge wi thi n the m e ani ng of the FPA, we a ffi rm the Di s tr i c t Court ’ s Or de r

gr ant i ng Boe i ng su mm ary j u d g m en t.- 18- III. Fo r the fo re go ing r ea sons, we will affirm th e D is tr ic t C o u rt’s g ran t o f

Ju d g m en t o nP artial F in d in g s inD ef en d an ts’ favo r.