Opinion ID: 2981284
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Title VII and the ELCRA

Text: Mallison also appeals the district court’s dismissal of her Title VII and ELCRA claims based on the same facts. She raises no arguments particular to these claims, only urging this court to follow the principle that an employer found liable under the EPA is liable under Title VII and ELCRA, as well. See Kovacevich v. Kent State Univ., 224 F.3d 806, 829 (6th Cir. 2000) (“In this Circuit, a finding of liability under the Equal Pay Act requires a similar finding of liability under Title VII where both claims present the same conduct and evidence.”). Because we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed Mallison’s EPA claim, we also affirm its dismissal of Mallison’s Title VII and ELCRA causes of action.3 3 While Mallison quickly moves to her argument that establishing a meritorious case under the EPA means that she has also done so for her Title VII and ELCRA claims, she begins her analysis with the assertion that Title VII and ELCRA liability automatically flow from the establishment of a prima facie claim under the EPA. As Mallison’s own case demonstrates, this is not legally accurate. Indeed, on these facts, Mallison loses her EPA claim to Haworth’s unrebutted 11