Opinion ID: 4574284
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Smith’s Second Lawsuit

Text: In July 2018, Smith filed the instant action against FAMU in Florida state court, and FAMU removed the case to federal court. She claimed that FAMU 8 USCA11 Case: 19-12560 Date Filed: 10/08/2020 Page: 9 of 18 violated the Equal Pay Act because her current salary was lower than that of other full professor comparators who are male. Smith also claimed that FAMU violated Title VII and the FCRA because “actions” taken by FAMU with regard to pay discriminated against her on the basis of sex. Lastly, she claimed that FAMU retaliated against her “for her 2014 lawsuit” in violation of the Equal Pay Act, Title VII, and the FCRA because she “was negatively treated with regard to the salary increases.” The parties eventually filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to FAMU. The court first concluded that the Smith I judgment, which was entered on July 22, 2015, collaterally estops Smith from asserting that her pay as of that date resulted from sex discrimination. The court then denied Smith’s Equal Pay Act, Title VII, and FCRA discrimination claims. In doing so, the court concluded that any current disparity between Smith and her alleged comparators predated the Smith I verdict or is explained by completely objective, nondiscriminatory factors. The district court also concluded that FAMU’s decision to not raise Smith’s salary to match “outliers” such as Brown was consistent with the way it treated other professors of like tenure and rank. Lastly, the district court denied Smith’s retaliation claims because there was no affirmative evidence of retaliation in FAMU’s post-Smith I changes to Smith’s pay, but rather, Smith’s one-time adjustment to $125,000 could 9 USCA11 Case: 19-12560 Date Filed: 10/08/2020 Page: 10 of 18 even be said to be “more generous” than the salary adjustments of some others. After being denied a motion to reconsider, Smith timely appealed.