05-3049 — Mickelson, Appellant v. New York Life Insurance Company; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
(April 12, 2006)


BRIEFS

Briefs require Adobe Acrobat Reader.

CASE SUMMARY (prepared at Washburn Law)

Nature of the Case
Jennifer Mickelson brought this action against New York Life Insurance Co. (NYL) claiming discrimination in violation of the Equal Pay Act provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (EPA), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Ms. Mickelson also claims NYL violated Title VII by retaliating against her after she made complaints of unequal pay. NYL was granted summary judgment by the District Court and Ms. Mickelson appeals from that order.

Issue Statement
Whether the District Court erred in granting NYL's motion for summary judgment for violation of the Equal Pay Act and dismissing Ms. Mickelson’s claim for retaliation.

Plaintiff/Appellant's Position
Ms. Mickelson claims that NYL failed to prove its affirmative defense that the discrepancies in pay between men and women was due to a factor other than sex. She claims the District Court mistakenly evaluated male and female employees' qualifications and that the District Court should have considered testimony of former employees about discrimination against women. Ms. Mickelson also claims that genuine issues of fact existed regarding her retaliation claim. Ms. Mickelson claims to be involved in a protected activity. Also, she claims issues of material fact exist on whether NYL's actions were in fact adverse employment actions. Ms. Mickelson claims a causal connection between her complaint of unequal pay, and defendant’s retaliation.

Defendant/Appellee's Position
NYL concedes that Ms. Mickelson established a prima facie case under the Equal Pay Act. It is claiming the affirmative defense that they did not violate the Equal Pay Act because differences in pay were based on factors other than sex. NYL claims Ms. Mickelson’s male counterparts had higher salaries because of experience and qualifications. It argues that testimony of former employees about discrimination should not be considered because the testimony is conclusory and hearsay. Further, the company claims the District Court was correct in holding NYL did not retaliate against Mickelson because none of their actions would constitute retaliation.

Amicus Curiae's Position
The amicus argues that the District Court was incorrect in finding that a factor other than sex led to the discrepancies in pay because the evidence would support a finding that NYL’s stated reasons were merely a pretext for sex discrimination. Further, the amicus contends that NYL violated Title VII if its refusal to allow Ms. Mickelson to return to work, part-time after medical leave, was in retaliation of her complaints of sex discrimination.

INFORMAL CASE SUMMARY

Please Note: This informal case summary is not intended for official use and does not purport to be exhaustive of the issues or defenses presented by the parties.

New York Life Insurance Company, the appellee here, hired the appellant, Jennifer Mickelson, as a Marketing Services Consultant. At the time, she had just finished law school. During college and law school, however, she worked part-time for Lincoln Benefit Life Insurance Company. Mickelson complained to management that despite having previous experience and a law degree, she was hired at a salary that was lower than men who started their employment at the same time. Management did not take any action on her complaints. Mickelson later requested and received Family Medical Leave Act time off. When she did not return after her leave was exhausted, she was terminated. Mickelson filed this suit, asserting claims of discrimination and unlawful retaliation. On New York Life's motion for summary judgment, however, the district court held that while Mickelson established a prima facie case on her claims, New York Life came forward with sufficient non-discriminatory reasons for its actions to justify the entry of summary judgment.