Opinion ID: 64041
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Comparison of Qualifications

Text: Next, Stover argues that the jury should not have been permitted to consider Oubre's qualifications. Stover argues in her brief, however, that an issue at trial was whether Ms. Stover and Mr. Oubre were similarly situated. The district court properly instructed the jury that to prevail on the Title VII discrimination claim, Stover had to show by a preponderance of the evidence that, inter alia, others similarly situated were treated more favorably because of their race or gender. Further, Stover's claim under the EPA required a comparison of Stover's and Oubre's skill, effort, and responsibility for the performance of their jobs. The EPA requires that an employer not discriminate between employees on the basis of sex ... 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). To determine whether an EPA violation occurred, the district court properly permitted evidence demonstrating the skill, effort, and responsibility required of the jobs performed by Oubre and Stover. The district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting this evidence at trial.