Meeks v. Computer Associates Intern.

Decision Date07 March 1994
Docket NumberNo. 92-2926,92-2926
Parties64 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 258, 63 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,883, 127 Lab.Cas. P 33,065, 1 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1544 Jessica Lind MEEKS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Christopher K. Kay, Richard A. DuRose, Orlando, FL, for defendant-appellant.

Patricia L. Strowbridge, Sharon Lee Stedman, Deciccio & Associates, P.A., Orlando, FL, for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and MORGAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

CARNES, Circuit Judge:

In this sex discrimination case, Computer Associates appeals from a judgment based upon a jury verdict finding it liable under the Equal Pay Act (EPA), 29 U.S.C.A. Sec. 206(d)(1), and upon a district court finding of liability for sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. Secs. 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3(a). We affirm the part of the judgment based upon the EPA claim and reject Computer Associates' contention that the district court erred by limiting the evidence of comparators' salaries to those of the plaintiff's colleagues in the specific office where she worked. We also reject Computer Associates' contentions that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on liability and damages. As for the two-component Title VII portion of the judgment, we affirm insofar as the retaliation claim is concerned. We reverse, however, on the sex discrimination claim, because the district court made no finding of intentional discrimination, and because it erroneously held that the jury's EPA verdict compelled it to enter a Title VII discrimination judgment for the plaintiff.

I. BACKGROUND
A. FACTS

Jessica Meeks was hired as a technical writer at Computer Associates' Maitland, Florida, facility in September 1988. The Maitland facility develops computer software for the banking industry and the technical writers prepare manuals to accompany the software. During 1988, Computer Associates added four technical writers and a supervisor at the Maitland facility. Of the four writers, two, Peter George and J.R. Arth, are male and two, Meeks and Susan Cain, are female. George transferred from a Computer Associates facility in Massachusetts, and the other three writers were new hires. In March 1989, Meeks inadvertently learned the salaries of her three co-workers. George was earning $35,000 per year (the same as his salary in Massachusetts); Arth $28,500; Cain and Meeks $24,500 each. Meeks' initial salary had been $23,500, but she had received a $1,000 raise in February 1989. Meeks believed the salaries to be discriminatory and complained to her supervisor, Laverne Peter.

According to Meeks, her complaint resulted in ongoing harassment from Laverne Peter, including a series of fierce verbal confrontations. Meeks was placed on thirty days probation in September 1989, allegedly because of declining work performance and absenteeism. At the end of the probationary period, Peter asked Meeks to set out her goals for the ensuing thirty days. Meeks characterized the request as "obviously a continuation of harassment."

In November 1989, Meeks filed a complaint with the EEOC. In December, because she was pregnant and experiencing difficulties with her pregnancy, Meeks began to work at home. In March, she initiated this suit. In May 1990, Meeks returned to work after her maternity leave. Meeks maintains that shortly after her return to the office she was given an unjustified work evaluation, rating her performance as unsatisfactory. Later, Meeks decided to take some of her work product for use in her pending lawsuit. Apparently she had a change of heart and left the materials under a public stairwell at work, where they were found. Meeks was also absent on one occasion and failed to call until hours after she should have reported. After these events, Meeks was summoned to a meeting with Peter and Ron Nall, the general manager. Computer Associates issued Meeks a written warning but claims to have taken no other action. Meeks testified that she was called into Nall's office where Nall and Peter "proceeded to yell and scream. And, I mean, Ron was so close, he was in my face, his spit was flying in my face. He was leaning over, this big guy. I thought he was going [to] hit me." Meeks resigned in June 1990, shortly after this meeting. Meeks alleged a pattern of harassment that constituted constructive discharge in retaliation for complaining about the disparities in the technical writers' salaries, in violation of Title VII. 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2000e-3(a).

B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

With the consent of the parties, the action was referred to a Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 636(c) (1993). The case went to trial on Meeks' claims that Computer Associates violated the Equal Pay Act by paying her less than her male colleagues and by retaliating against her for filing her claim with the EEOC and that Computer Associates had violated Title VII by discriminating against her on the basis of her gender and her pregnancy and by retaliating against her for having complained of the pay disparities. The EPA claim was tried to a jury while the Title VII claim was tried to the court simultaneously.

At trial, Computer Associates sought to introduce evidence of the salaries of the 116 technical writers it employs at its various offices. Meeks objected that the only relevant salaries were those paid to the Maitland technical writers. The district court sustained Meeks' objection, ruling that only Meeks' three colleagues at the Maitland facility were proper comparators.

The jury returned a special verdict:

Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff and member or members of the opposite sex have been employed by the defendant on jobs the performance of which requires substantially equal skills, effort and responsibilities? Answer, Yes.

Do you find from the preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff and member or members of the opposite sex have been employed by the defendant on jobs which were performed under similar working conditions? Answer, Yes.

Do you find from the preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff was paid at a lower salary than a member of the opposite sex working as a technical writer at the Maitland office? Answer, Yes.

Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has shown that the difference in salary between plaintiff and the male technical writer(s) in the Maitland office was based upon a factor other than the plaintiff's sex? Answer, No.

Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant retaliated against the plaintiff for filing a complaint or charge for violation of the Equal Pay Act? Answer, Yes.

Do you find that the defendant constructively discharged the plaintiff? Answer, Yes.

What do you find from a preponderance of the evidence is the amount of damages plaintiff sustained, that is the amount plaintiff should have been paid less the amount she was actually paid by reason of her wage disparity from the date she was hired until her termination of June 13, 1990? Damages, $14,388.00.

The district court remitted the EPA damages to $13,371. The court held that Computer Associates had failed to show that it had acted in good faith and therefore awarded Meeks an equal amount ($13,371) in liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C.A. Secs. 216(b) and 260. The court further found that Computer Associates had retaliated against Meeks for lodging her EPA complaint and awarded her another equal amount ($13,371) in liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C.A. Sec. 215(b). Thus, Meeks' total award under the EPA was $40,113.

The court "consider[ed] itself bound by the jury's" EPA findings to conclude that Computer Associates had violated Title VII by engaging in gender-based wage discrimination. The court also specifically found that Computer Associates had retaliated against Meeks in violation of Title VII. The district court credited Meeks' expert's uncontroverted testimony that she had lost approximately $16,829 between the date of her constructive discharge and the date of judgment. The court also concluded, based on the expert's uncontroverted testimony, that Meeks "continues to suffer wage diminution, as a result of Defendant's pay discrimination, at an amount equal to $5,000 per year." The court awarded Meeks two years front pay differential or $10,000, for a total Title VII recovery of $26,829. The district court also ruled that Computer Associates did not discriminate against Meeks on the basis of her pregnancy; Meeks has not appealed this ruling.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We will affirm a jury's verdict if " 'the state of the proof is such that reasonable and impartial minds could reach the conclusion the jury expressed in its verdict.' " Deakle v. John E. Graham & Sons, 756 F.2d 821, 827 (11th Cir.1985) (quoting American Cas. Co. v. Myrick, 304 F.2d 179, 182 (5th Cir.1962)). "[T]he jury's verdict should not be disturbed if there is competent evidence in the record to support it." Id.

We will affirm the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Moreover, when, as here, those findings "are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, Rule 52(a) demands even greater deference to the trial court's findings." Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1512, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985).

III. DISCUSSION
A. THE EQUAL PAY ACT CLAIM
1. The Definition of "Establishment": The Pay Comparators Used

The Equal Pay Act provides, in part:

No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees...

To continue reading

Request your trial
459 cases
  • LaFleur v. Wallace State Community College
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • June 18, 1996
    ...698 F.2d 1138, 1142 (11th Cir.1983), as they "must merely proffer [race-neutral] reasons, not prove them." Meeks v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, 15 F.3d 1013, 1019 (11th Cir. 1994). The proffered reason for the employer's action, however, must be reasonably specific and clear. Burdine, 450 U.S. ......
  • Anderson v. Dunbar Armored, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • August 18, 2009
    ...1564 (11th Cir.1997). "The defendant must merely proffer nondiscriminatory based reasons, not prove them." Meeks v. Computer Assocs. Int'l., 15 F.3d at 1013, 1019 (11th Cir.1994). If the defendant meets this light burden, then the inference of discrimination is erased, and the burden shifts......
  • Holston v. Sports Authority, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • September 29, 2000
    ...is irrelevant to the retaliation claim whether the plaintiff can prove an underlying claim of discrimination. Meeks v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, 15 F.3d 1013, 1021 (11th Cir.1994). Defendant does not dispute that plaintiff engaged in statutorily protected when she allegedly complained about r......
  • Brandon v. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • September 29, 2005
    ...some causal relation between the two events. Olmsted v. Taco Bell Corp., 141 F.3d 1457, 1460 (11th Cir.1998); Meeks v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, 15 F.3d 1013, 1021 (11th Cir.1994); see also Gregory, 355 F.3d at 1279. The causal link element is construed broadly so that "`a plaintiff merely ha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Minding the Pay Gap: What Employers Need to Know as Pay Equity Protections Widen (UPDATED)
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • September 6, 2022
    ...Discrimination, available at https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-10-compensation-discrimination. 9 Meeks v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, 15 F.3d 1013, 1017 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding that evidence did not “demonstrate the level of centralization necessary to justify treating all of the com......
5 books & journal articles
  • Theories of liability
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Sexual Harassment & Sex Discrimination Cases The substantive law
    • May 6, 2022
    ...that it was unlawful to be subjected to sexually o൵ensive remarks at a required seminar); Meeks v. Computer Associates International , 15 F.3d 1013, 1021 (11th Cir. 1994). §1.4.3.2 Adverse Employment Action The plainti൵ must prove that he or she su൵ered an adverse employment action. The cou......
  • Sex Discrimination Claims Under Title Vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXII-2, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...of sex discrimination by showing that she occupies a job similar to that of higher paid males.”) (quoting Meeks v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, 15 F.3d 1013, 1019 (11th Cir. 1994)); EEOC. v. Reichhold Chems., Inc., 988 F.2d 1564, 1569 (11th Cir. 1993). But see Adams v. CBS Broad., Inc., 61 F. Ap......
  • Employment Discrimination - Peter Reed Corbin and John E. Duvall
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 46-4, June 1995
    • Invalid date
    ...Sec. 206(d) (1988). See discussion infra, Mulhall v. Advance Security, Inc. 19 F.3d 586 (11th Cir. 1994); Meeks v. Computer Assoc. Int'l, 15 F.3d 1013 (11th Cir. 1994). 8. 113 S. Ct. 2742 (1993). 9. 411 U.S. 792 (1973). 10. 450 U.S. 248 (1981). 11. 411 U.S. at 802; 450 U.S. at 252-53. 12. P......
  • Employment Discrimination - Peter Reed Corbin and John E. Duvall
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 59-4, June 2008
    • Invalid date
    ...58. Id. at 1309. 59. Id. 60. 506 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2007). 61. Id. at 1363. 62. Id. at 1363-64 (quoting Meeks v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, 15 F.3d 1013, 1021 (11th Cir. 1994)). 63. Id. at 1364 (quoting Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273 (2001) (per curiam)). 64. Id. 65. I......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT