Johnson v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
| Decision Date | 29 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19-cv-3534 (CRC) |
| Parties | DANA JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
For a six-month period in 2018, Plaintiff Dana Johnson, then a financial analyst with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”), earned 10% less than a white, male co-worker. Johnson believes she was paid less because she is an African American woman. WMATA disagrees. It attributes the differential to the fact that Johnson's colleague had greater job responsibilities, and that his past union membership placed him on a higher salary trajectory. Because WMATA has proffered undisputed evidence supporting both explanations, it is entitled to summary judgment on Johnson's disparate pay claims under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The following facts appear to be uncontested unless otherwise indicated. Dana Johnson began working for WMATA in October 2010. Def.'s Stmt. Material Facts (“SMF”) ¶ 18 (citing Fletcher Decl. ¶ 12). Johnson started out as a Financial and Grants Analyst and in 2014 then became a Financial Officer. Id. ¶ 18; Pl.'s SMF ¶ 2. Neither position is covered by a union collective bargaining agreement. See Def.'s SMF ¶¶18-19 (citing Fletcher Decl. ¶¶12-13). WMATA divides non-union positions into six salary plan classifications corresponding to various functional responsibilities, including, as relevant here, Engineering (“EG”) and Business Operations (“BO”). Id. ¶ 12 (citing Fletcher Decl. ¶ 10). Johnson's Financial Officer position, which was later revised by her supervisors to Senior Financial Analyst, was classified at grade level BO-13. Pl.'s SMF ¶ 2; Garback Decl. ¶ 6; Garback Decl. Ex. A (Senior Financial Analyst position description).
Sometime in 2018, Johnson discovered that her salary was 10% lower than that of one of her co-workers, Aris Papapetrou. Pl.'s Cross-Mot. at 2. Despite their different titles and business areas-Papapetrou is a Project Coordinator with an Engineering salary classification- Johnson alleges that they performed substantially similar work. Id.; Pl.'s SMF ¶¶ 4, 7. The Court will return to the respective duties and responsibilities of the two positions below.
Papapetrou began his career at WMATA nearly two decades ago. Def.'s SMF ¶ 5 (citing Fletcher Decl. ¶ 3). At the beginning of his tenure, he joined a union-the Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 2 (“Local 2”). Id. ¶¶ 5-6 (citing Fletcher Decl. ¶¶ 3-4). Under the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between Local 2 and WMATA, union members receive mandatory step increases based on their tenure and performance. Id. ¶ 8 . Over his long career at WMATA, Papapetrou earned numerous step increases, and with each one came a bump in salary. Id. ¶¶ 9-10 (citing Fletcher Decl. ¶¶ 7-8).
On April 1, 2018, Papapetrou assumed his first non-union position at WMATA-with the title Project Coordinator-thereby ending his Local 2 membership. Def.'s SMF ¶ 6 (citing Fletcher Decl. ¶ 4). The position was classified as EG-13. Id. ¶ 13 (citing Fletcher Decl. ¶ 11). WMATA set Papapetrou's new salary by increasing his prior salary by 10%, resulting in annual pay of $133,764. Id. ¶ 22 (citing Fletcher Dep. 35:4-36:16; Fletcher Dep. Ex. 4). WMATA asserts that the 10% increase was dictated by a provision of its employee compensation policy governing promotions. Id. More on that later.
Meanwhile, in March 2018, Johnson filed an official complaint requesting “a salary [and] position realignment,” contending that her compensation was inconsistent with her job duties. Fletcher Decl. ¶ 18 (citing id. Ex. C). Johnson's supervisors reviewed her responsibilities, and ultimately revised her title to Senior Financial Analyst and adjusted her position description. Def.'s SMF ¶ 28 (citing Fletcher Decl. ¶ 19; Garback Decl. ¶ 6). WMATA's Office of Compensation and Benefits then determined “the appropriate salary grade level for the [revised] job description.” Id. ¶ 29 (citing Fletcher Decl. ¶ 20). Despite her new title and position description, the Office left her grade and salary unchanged. Id. ¶ 30 (citing Fletcher Decl. ¶ 21). Soon thereafter, however, Johnson received a promotion to Program Manager in a different department, along with her own 10% salary increase, effective October 1, 2018. Id. ¶ 38 (citing Johnson Dep. 42:12-43:20).
Johnson filed this lawsuit in November 2019. She claims that the differential between her and Papapetrou's pay during the period in which she held the Financial Officer and Senior Financial Analyst positions and he held the Project Coordinator position-which spanned the six months between April 1, 2018 and October 1, 2018-resulted from unlawful gender discrimination in violation of the Equal Pay Act (Claim I) and gender and race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Claims II and III). The parties have completed discovery and now cross-move for summary judgment.
A court must grant summary judgment if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the “absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). At this stage, courts should view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party” and must “draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Talavera v. Shah, 638 F.3d 303, 308 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); (Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). Non-movants cannot rely on “mere allegations” or conclusory statements to defeat summary judgment. Guillen-Perez v. District of Columbia, 415 F.Supp.3d 50, 57 (D.D.C. 2019) (Cooper, J.) (citing Veitch v. England, 471 F.3d 124, 134 (D.C. Cir. 2006)).
On cross-motions for summary judgment, each party “must carry its own burden under the applicable legal standard.” Mitchell v. Pompeo, No. 1:15-CV-1849 (KBJ), 2019 WL 1440126, at *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2019) (quoting Ehrman v. United States, 429 F.Supp.2d 61, 67 (D.D.C. 2006)). A “cross-motion for summary judgment does not concede the factual assertions of the opposing motion.” Id. (citing CEI Washington Bureau, Inc. v. Dep't of Just., 469 F.3d 126, 129 (D.C. Cir. 2006)).
Johnson brings two claims for pay discrimination, one under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1), and the other under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The Court takes each in turn.
The Equal Pay Act outlaws pay discrimination on the basis of sex, remedying the “ancient but outmoded belief that a man should be paid more than a woman for performing the same duties.” Perez v. D.C. Dep't of Emp. Servs., 305 F.Supp.3d 51, 56 (D.D.C. 2018) (cleaned up); 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1). The Act prohibits an employer from paying an employee of one sex a lower wage than it pays an employee of the opposite sex for “equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1). To establish an Equal Pay Act violation, a plaintiff first must allege (and later prove) a prima facie case.[1] “Once a prima facie case has been made out, the defendant may rebut the showing of [job] equality, or assert one of the Act's [four] affirmative defenses.” Goodrich v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, 815 F.2d 1519, 1523 (D.C. Cir. 1987). These defenses allow wage disparities due to: “(i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1).[2] Johnson has not established a prima facie Equal Pay Act violation because she has not shown that she and Papapetrou held jobs requiring substantially “equal skill, effort, and responsibility.” Goodrich, 815 F.2d at 1522. The “substantial equality” inquiry requires courts to consider not just selected aspects of the relevant jobs, but the positions in their totality; at the same time, courts focus on the “primary duties of each job, not those which are incidental or insubstantial.” Id. at 1524 (citation omitted).
Johnson and Papapetrou's respective positions have different titles, are subject to different pay scales based on their distinct functional responsibilities, and have different overall requirements. During the relevant time period, Johnson was a Financial Officer and then a Senior Financial Analyst, supporting WMATA's fare-collection modernization program. Pl.'s Ex. G (WMATA Position Statement to EEOC at 3). As these titles suggest, the overall focus of Johnson's job was financial: “monitor[ing] departmental operating and capital program financial performance.” Garback Decl. Ex. A (Senior Financial Analyst position description). Meanwhile, Papapetrou is a Project Coordinator, which has an Engineering salary classification. The overarching responsibility of that position is more operational: “assisting . . . in the planning, implementation and completion of highly complex[,] multi-discipline tasks related to managing the construction, rehabilitation, upgrade, or enhancement of [WMATA's] transit system.” Garback Decl. Ex. B (Project Coordinator position description).
The jobs are also subject to different pay ranges. Employees in Johnson's grade BO-13 position can earn between $80,359 and...
To continue reading
Request your trial