Sims-Fingers, Kim v. City of Indianapolis ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                              In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    ____________
    No. 06-2198
    KIMBERLY M. SIMS-FINGERS,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ____________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
    No. 1:04-cv-01952-VSS-SEB—V. Sue Shields, Magistrate Judge.
    ____________
    ARGUED FEBRUARY 15, 2007—DECIDED JUNE 27, 2007
    ____________
    Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and POSNER and KANNE,
    Circuit Judges.
    POSNER, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff, the manager of a six-
    acre park owned by the Indianapolis and Marion County
    park system, complains that she is paid less than some
    of the male managers in the park system and that the
    difference in pay violates the Equal Pay Act. (She also
    claims that it violates Title VII; we take up that claim at the
    end of our opinion.) The Equal Pay Act requires an em-
    ployer to pay his male and female employees at the same
    rate “for equal work on jobs the performance of which
    requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which
    2                                                No. 06-2198
    are performed under similar working conditions.” 
    29 U.S.C. § 206
    (d)(1). The district court granted summary
    judgment for the city on both the Equal Pay Act and Title
    VII claims.
    There are 32 parks in the park system and 27 park
    managers. The plaintiff concedes that some female manag-
    ers are paid more than some male managers; in fact, in
    2003 she herself was paid more than 7 of the 16 male
    managers and less than 7 of the female ones, while another
    of the female managers ranked second out of all the
    managers, which meant that she outranked 15 of the 16
    men. The average salary difference between the male and
    female managers is just a shade more than $100 in favor
    of the men, a difference of only one-third of one percent.
    Obviously these figures do not support an inference of
    sex discrimination. But the Equal Pay Act defines dis-
    crimination as paying at different rates for “equal” work,
    
    29 U.S.C. § 206
    (d)(1), and this implies that our plaintiff can
    complain about being paid less than a male manager for
    equal work and that any male managers in the Indianapolis
    park system who are paid less than female managers for
    equal work also can complain—equally. Corning Glass
    Works v. Brennan, 
    417 U.S. 188
    , 195 (1974); Fyfe v. City of
    Fort Wayne, 
    241 F.3d 597
    , 599-601 (7th Cir. 2001); Schwartz
    v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 
    807 F.2d 901
    , 902-03 (11th Cir.
    1987). But the plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie
    case of unequal pay for equal work.
    The Indianapolis park system is heterogeneous. There
    are large parks and small, parks that have swimming pools
    or ponds and parks that do not, parks that generate
    significant income and ones that do not, and parks that
    have greater or fewer employees than other parks or
    greater or fewer patrons. Because the parks are so different,
    the skills and effort required of the managers and the
    No. 06-2198                                               3
    amount of responsibility that they bear vary. Managing a
    park that has a swimming pool involves greater responsi-
    bility than managing a park that has no water, because of
    the danger of a patron’s drowning and the difficulty of
    proper maintenance of a large pool. Similarly, the more
    money the park takes in, the more responsibility the
    manager’s job entails, since he can get into serious trouble
    if revenue dries up or money is discovered missing from
    the till. Eight of the nine male managers who are paid more
    than the plaintiff manage larger parks than she that either
    have water facilities or generate significantly higher
    income and patronage than her small park.
    She focuses on the higher salary paid the ninth male
    manager, Robinson. At a time when she was paid
    $34,373.56 a year, he was paid $35,000.16—even though the
    park that he was assigned to manage had not opened yet.
    (It has since. www.indygov.org/eGov/City/DPR/Parks/
    List/Bethel+Park.htm (visited June 12, 2007).) However,
    during the waiting period he had to work with neighbor-
    hood associations to plan programs for the park. It was
    to be a large park—at least 100 acres, almost 17 times
    larger than her park, and to offer the following amenities
    not available at her park:
    Game Room
    Computer Room
    Fitness Center
    Horseshoe Pits (5)
    Baseball Diamond
    Playground
    Football Field
    Seasonal Swimming Pool
    4                                                   No. 06-2198
    In addition, Robinson has a master’s degree in human
    relations, a relevant credential for such an “outreach”
    effort. There is no basis on which a reasonable trier of
    fact could find that such a job involves no greater skill,
    effort, and responsibility than the plaintiff’s job of running
    a very small, established park having much more lim-
    ited facilities than were planned for Robinson’s park.
    Moreover, in determining whether equal pay is being
    paid for equal work, the size of the pay differential, though
    not determinative, Hodgson v. American Bank of Commerce,
    
    447 F.2d 416
    , 420 (5th Cir. 1971), is highly relevant.
    Brousard-Norcross v. Augustana College Association, 
    935 F.2d 974
    , 979 (8th Cir. 1991); Flockhart v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc.,
    
    192 F. Supp. 2d 947
    , 970-72 (N.D. Iowa 2001); compare
    Peltier v. City of Fargo, 
    533 F.2d 374
    , 375-76, 378-79 (8th Cir.
    1976). The smaller the differential, the more likely it is to be
    justified by a small difference in the work. The pay dif-
    ferential between the plaintiff and Robinson is less than
    2 percent, and we do not see how anyone could say that her
    work and his are so far equal that it should be inferred that
    he is overpaid relative to her.
    Furthermore, when jobs are heterogeneous a suit under
    the Equal Pay Act is in danger of being transmogrified
    into a suit seeking comparable pay—a theory of liability
    for sex discrimination under Title VII that has been re-
    jected by this and the other courts to consider it. Loyd v.
    Phillips Bros., Inc., 
    25 F.3d 518
    , 524-25 (7th Cir. 1994);
    American Nurses’ Association v. Illinois, 
    783 F.2d 716
     (7th Cir.
    1986); AFSCME v. Washington, 
    770 F.2d 1401
    , 1406-07 (9th
    Cir. 1985); Lemons v. City of Denver, 
    620 F.2d 228
    , 228-30
    (10th Cir. 1980). The comparable-pay movement asks that
    wages in different jobs be proportional to the differences
    between the jobs in the difficulty, required skill level,
    No. 06-2198                                                5
    amenities, and so forth. Paula England, Comparable
    Worth: Theories and Evidence 1 (1992); Washington County v.
    Gunther, 
    452 U.S. 161
    , 166 and n. 6 (1981); American Nurses’
    Association v. Illinois, 
    supra,
     
    783 F.2d at 719-20
    . The con-
    cern is that traditional women’s jobs, such as secretarial
    work, are paid less relative to traditional men’s jobs,
    such as driving a truck, than the objective differences
    between the jobs merit. Liability on the basis of a theory
    of comparable worth is even less tenable under the Equal
    Pay Act than under Title VII, because the former Act
    requires equal pay only for equal work, and the whole
    idea of the comparable-worth movement is that equal pay
    should sometimes be required for unequal work. Beavers v.
    American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 
    975 F.2d 792
    , 800-01 (11th Cir.
    1992); cf. Wernsing v. Department of Human Services, 
    427 F.3d 466
    , 467-70 (7th Cir. 2005); EEOC v. Madison Community
    Unit School District, 
    818 F.2d 577
    , 580, 582 (7th Cir. 1987).
    Managing a 100-acre park with a swimming pool and
    managing a six-acre park with a basketball court are not as
    different as working as a secretary and driving a truck,
    but they are sufficiently different that deciding how far
    the salaries for the two jobs “should” differ strains the
    competence of the litigation process. Managing a park
    with a pool is, as we said, a more responsible job than
    managing a park without one, other things being the
    same. How large a wage premium should that greater
    responsibility command? Who knows? Our society leaves
    such decisions to the market, to the forces of supply and
    demand, because there are no good answers to the norma-
    tive question, or at least no good answers that are within
    the competence of judges to give.
    The proper domain of the Equal Pay Act consists of
    standardized jobs in which a man is paid significantly
    6                                                 No. 06-2198
    more than a woman (or anything more, if the jobs are truly
    identical) and there are no skill differences. An example
    might be two sixth-grade music teachers, having the
    same credentials and experience, teaching classes of
    roughly the same size in roughly comparable public
    schools in the same school district. Buntin v. Breathitt
    County Board of Education, 
    134 F.3d 796
    , 797, 799 (6th Cir.
    1998); Brock v. Georgia Southwestern College, 
    765 F.2d 1026
    ,
    1032-35 (11th Cir. 1985). The jobs of the managers of the
    different parks in the sprawling Indianapolis park system
    are nonstandard, mainly because the parks are so differ-
    ent from one another.
    We turn last and briefly to the Title VII claim. Title VII
    does not require equal work, but neither does it allow
    for recovery on the basis of the theory of comparable
    worth. So merely showing that a man and a woman who
    perform different jobs for the same employer are paid
    differently does not get a Title VII plaintiff to first base. As
    that is all the evidence of sex discrimination that the
    plaintiff has presented, her Title VII claim was properly
    dismissed as well. Cullen v. Indiana University Board of
    Trustees, 
    338 F.3d 693
    , 704 (7th Cir. 2003); Loyd v. Phillips
    Bros., Inc., supra, 
    25 F.3d at 524-25
    ; Buettner v. Arch Coal
    Sales Co., Inc., 
    216 F.3d 707
    , 718-19 (8th Cir. 2000). We
    therefore need not consider the bearing of the Supreme
    Court’s recent decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire &
    Rubber Co., 
    127 S.Ct. 2162
    , 2165-69 (2007), on the timeliness
    of the plaintiff’s Title VII claim; the decision has no bear-
    ing on her claim under the Equal Pay Act. 
    Id. at 2165, 2176
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    No. 06-2198                                              7
    A true Copy:
    Teste:
    _____________________________
    Clerk of the United States Court of
    Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    USCA-02-C-0072—6-27-07
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-2198

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 6/27/2007

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/24/2015

Authorities (18)

equal-employment-opportunity-commission-cross-appellant-and-carol-cole , 818 F.2d 577 ( 1987 )

American Nurses' Association v. State of Illinois , 783 F.2d 716 ( 1986 )

William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor, Equal Employment ... , 765 F.2d 1026 ( 1985 )

Deborah Cullen v. Indiana University Board of Trustees , 338 F.3d 693 ( 2003 )

Brenda Buntin, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. ... , 134 F.3d 796 ( 1998 )

22-fair-emplpraccas-959-22-empl-prac-dec-p-30852-mary-lemons-v-the , 620 F.2d 228 ( 1980 )

american-federation-of-state-county-and-municipal-employees-afl-cio , 770 F.2d 1401 ( 1985 )

Patrick J. Fyfe v. City of Fort Wayne, Indiana , 241 F.3d 597 ( 2001 )

Diane Peltier, Appellants-Cross-Appellees v. City of Fargo, ... , 533 F.2d 374 ( 1976 )

linda-brousard-norcross-v-the-augustana-college-association-a-corporation , 935 F.2d 974 ( 1991 )

ray-wayne-beavers-terry-chaffin-oscar-jenkins-james-dollar-richard-l , 975 F.2d 792 ( 1992 )

Corning Glass Works v. Brennan , 94 S. Ct. 2223 ( 1974 )

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. , 127 S. Ct. 2162 ( 2007 )

Flockhart v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc. , 192 F. Supp. 2d 947 ( 2001 )

Jenny Wernsing v. Department of Human Services, State of ... , 427 F.3d 466 ( 2005 )

Louis Schwartz v. Florida Board of Regents , 807 F.2d 901 ( 1987 )

Sandra K. LOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHILLIPS BROTHERS, ... , 25 F.3d 518 ( 1994 )

Mary Buettner v. Arch Coal Sales Co., Inc. And Arch Coal, ... , 216 F.3d 707 ( 2000 )

View All Authorities »