Opinion ID: 425244
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Margaret Hiatt

Text: 34 Plaintiff Hiatt has been teaching at OCE since 1949, when she was hired at a salary of $3,500. In 1956, she was awarded an Ed. D., and in 1963 attained her present rank of full professor. She has a national reputation in the field of education. At the time of trial, Dr. Hiatt was the second-highest paid person in her department, earning $28,209. 35 Dr. Hiatt's comparator is Dr. Jesse Garrison, the highest-paid member of the Elementary/Secondary Education Department. The district court found that Dr. Garrison's work is the same as Dr. Hiatt's: teaching and advising students in the same or similar courses in the same department, and serving on committees. Slip op. at 15. 36 OCE concedes that Dr. Hiatt presents the strongest prima facie case among the Elementary/Secondary Education plaintiffs, but argues that deficiencies in Dr. Hiatt's proof require us to overturn the district court's finding. In particular, OCE argues that the district court's finding of a prima facie case can only be upheld if we determine that all teaching positions within an academic department are fungible for purposes of the Equal Pay Act. Rejection of that dubious proposition does not require us to reverse the finding of a prima facie case. Dr. Hiatt's testimony that Dr. Garrison has exactly the same assignment in the same department that I am in, 1 R.T. 55, stands completely unrebutted. OCE has pointed to nothing in the record that would cause us to doubt this conclusion. 37 OCE further argues that because Dr. Hiatt is the second-highest paid member of her department and, by implication, there were lower paid males in her department, the finding of a prima facie case of sex discrimination is plainly wrong. The flaw in this argument is that there is no evidence that Dr. Hiatt's job is substantially equal to any men in her department other than Dr. Garrison. As we have noted above, supra p. 916, we look critically upon the use of a single comparator to make out a prima facie case. However, use of a single comparator is not clearly erroneous unless an appropriate comparator is wrongly excluded from comparison with the plaintiff. See Heymann v. Tetra Plastics Corp., 640 F.2d 115, 122 (8th Cir.1981); Melanson v. Rantoul, 536 F.Supp. 271, 287 (D.R.I.1982). OCE has not suggested anyone other than Dr. Garrison with whom Dr. Hiatt should be compared. 38 The district court's finding that Dr. Hiatt and Dr. Garrison had substantially equal jobs is not clearly erroneous.