Opinion ID: 782985
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pay Equity Study

Text: 22 Dr. Cullen contends that the district court erred by failing to consider the Pay Equity Study as evidence to prove her prima facie case under the EPA. She argues that, because she has identified a specific male comparator, Dr. Quillen, this court should adopt the Second Circuit's rationale in Lavin-McEleney v. Marist College, 239 F.3d 476, 481 (2d Cir.2001), and permit her to rely on statistical evidence to support her prima facie case. In Lavin-McEleney, the Second Circuit held that statistical evidence of a gender-based salary disparity among comparable professors properly contributed to plaintiff's case in conjunction with her identification of a specific male comparator. 4 Id. The court specifically declined to decide whether statistical evidence alone would be sufficient to establish a prima facie case under the Equal Pay Act. See id. at 482. As we have discussed above, in Dr. Cullen's case, Dr. Quillen is not a comparable male. Therefore, if she is to prevail, she must rely on statistics alone to support her prima facie case. We have noted that, in the Title VII context, statistical evidence of discrimination may be very useful, but it will likely not be sufficient in itself. Adams v. Ameritech Servs., Inc., 231 F.3d 414, 423 (7th Cir.2000). 5 We need not decide today whether Dr. Cullen could base her prima facie EPA case solely on statistical evidence because the Pay Equity Study could not establish discrimination alone on these facts. 23 The study was designed as the initial step in a two-part process of evaluating faculty for raises, not as a single quantitative measure of appropriate salaries. In fact, in order to ensure thoroughness, the University characterized Dr. Cullen as an outlier even though generally accepted principles of statistical modeling suggest that a figure less than two standard deviations is considered an acceptable deviation. See R.71, Ex.D at 28-29. 6 Although the study sought to account for market forces by considering average national salaries for a given position, see R.71, Ex.D at 26-28, the study could not consider the significance of detailed individual facts such as those surrounding the University's need to pay a premium to attract Dr. Quillen to accept a position as the director of a distressed program. Because of such particularized factors, the University determined that the Pay Equity Study would serve as a rough starting point to be followed by committee review. The Pay Equity Study was instructive in identifying faculty members deserving further review, but it cannot support a prima facie case of discrimination under the EPA. 24 As a second step in the reevaluation of faculty pay, the University directed each school to establish a review panel to consider the individual characteristics of all outliers. In the SOAHS, the ad hoc review panel consisted of four women and one man, and it strongly recommend[ed] that an adjustment to [Dr. Cullen's] base salary be made to rectify the salary inequity. R.71, Ex.11. The committee also found that Dr. Cullen's salary increments were not significantly less than the averages for the SOAHS or Respiratory Therapy Program faculty and concluded that her salary increments reflected the school's history of small salary increases. See id.