Opinion ID: 712765
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Siemens' Affirmative Defense

Text: 4 Siemens countered that the pay disparity was based on a factor other than sex. 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1)(iv). Siemens has the burden of proof on this issue. Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 196-97 (1974). 5 We have carefully reviewed Ritzert-Smith's performance evaluations, in which she received consistently unfavorable reviews for teamwork and cooperation. We have also scrutinized Siemens' employment policies, including its job classification system and its decision to red-circle some employees' salaries, its employee evaluation system, and its promotion and compensation policies. These legitimate, gender-neutral policies, along with Ritzert-Smith's evaluations, explain fully the pay disparity. See Kouba v. Allstate Ins. Co., 691 F.2d 873, 877 (9th Cir.1982) (Equal Pay Act preserves bona fide job evaluation systems); see also Strecker v. Grand Forks Cty. Social Svc. Bd., 640 F.2d 96, 101-03 (8th Cir.1980) (employer who demonstrated that wage disparity was due to neutrally applied job classification system was entitled to summary judgment), overruled on other grounds, Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (1982); see also Aldrich v. Randolph Central Sch. Dist., 963 F.2d 520, 525 (2d Cir.1992) (to be valid defense, job classifications must be based on legitimate, business-related concerns). Assuming that Ritzert-Smith's annual evaluations are untainted by sex discrimination, the difference between her pay and her comparators' pay is due to factor[s] other than sex.