Opinion ID: 4329560
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pay Rate and Pay Raises

Text: Martinez and Lopez also claim that the district court improperly made a credibility assessment by weighing the testimony submitted by both sides regarding their unequal pay claim. They contend the district court erroneously concluded that the facts do not support that Martinez and Lopez were paid less, or received lower and fewer raises, than similarly situated, non-Hispanic employees. Thus, we consider whether any factual dispute exists as to whether Martinez and Lopez’s pay, including the amount and timing of their raises, was incommensurate with similarly situated non-Hispanic crew employees. Lakeshore’s pay policies, as well as the pay rates for crew employees at the Leonard Street restaurant, were put into the record. Martinez and Lopez do not contest the Pay Rate Spreadsheet submitted by Lakeshore; in fact, they use the data in support of their argument that “[t]here are 6 No 18-1489, Martinez, et al v. Lakeshore Staffing, Inc., et al various other employees of Lakeshore Staffing who work at the same location, and who make more than Plaintiffs.” Again, the evidence from the parties does not conflict;3 upon review of the Spreadsheet that both sides cite, we find the district court correctly concluded that Martinez and Lopez were among the highest-paid of all crew employees. Martinez and Lopez’s claim that they were underpaid in comparison to similarly situated non-Hispanic crew is “belied by ‘objective evidence in the record.’” Nelms, 513 F. App’x at 548 (quoting Coble v. City of White House, 634 F.3d 865, 869 (6th Cir. 2011)). Thus, the district court did not err when it determined that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Martinez and Lopez were paid in accordance with similarly situated crew. As to whether Martinez and Lopez received timely and comparable raises, the Spreadsheet includes the wage rates of the crew employees at the West Leonard Street restaurant, including the dates when they received pay increases and the amounts of the increases. Martinez and Lopez did not argue before the district court that this information is incorrect, and again, they used the Spreadsheet to point to similarly situated employees who had larger wage increases and shorter gaps between raises. The district court noted that although Martinez and Lopez “cite individuals that on occasion received larger raises than they did,” they “fail to address the fact that other employees received smaller raises and there were large gaps between raises.” On appeal, Martinez and Lopez argue that the district court engaged in a credibility determination, finding that Lakeshore was more credible when stating that Martinez and Lopez “cherry-pick[ed] employees’ pay data to fit their narrative.” However, the district court’s 3 Martinez testified that she was aware of two Hispanic employees, one of whom is not a crew employee, who were paid more than she was. The issue, however, is whether similarly situated non-Hispanic crew were paid more than Martinez and Lopez. Thus, it was not error for the district court to conclude that Martinez and Lopez were frequently paid more than non-Hispanic crew. 7 No 18-1489, Martinez, et al v. Lakeshore Staffing, Inc., et al assessment that Martinez and Lopez selectively pointed to certain employees while ignoring pay data of other non-Hispanic crew was not a credibility assessment; rather, it was a consideration of whether a proper factual dispute exists. The district court did not accord more weight to Lakeshore and Price’s evidence; instead, the court reviewed the Spreadsheet (relied upon by both sides) and determined that while some employees had larger wage increases and shorter gaps between raises, other non-Hispanic crew had smaller wage increases and longer gaps between raises. See Peeples v. City of Detroit, 891 F.3d 622, 630 (6th Cir. 2018) (“[T]he nonmoving party must present ‘significant probative evidence’ that will reveal that there is more than ‘some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.’” (quoting Moore, 8 F.3d at 340)). Upon a review of the record evidence, we find that the district court did not err when determining that it is undisputed, based on the objective record evidence, that certain non-Hispanic crew have smaller and fewer wage increases than Martinez and Lopez. Thus, Martinez and Lopez were not paid in a manner incommensurate with similarly situated, non-Hispanic crew.