Maria Andreu v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Case: 16-14885 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-14885
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-23270-FAM
MARIA ANDREU,
an individual,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 3, 2017)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-14885 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 Page: 2 of 4
Maria Andreu appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in an
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against her former employer
Hewlett-Packard Company. Andreu argues that the district court erred by granting
summary judgment on (1) her claim of sex discrimination under 29 U.S.C.
§ 206(d) of the FLSA and (2) her claim of retaliation under § 215(a)(3).
We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.,
376 F.3d 1079, 1085 (11th Cir. 2004). Summary judgment is appropriate when
there is no genuine issue of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
I.
Section 206(d) prohibits an employer from paying, without justification,
different wages to employees of different sexes (1) who perform equal work on
jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility (descriptive component) and
(2) who work at the same establishment (geographic component). The plaintiff has
the initial burden to establish these two components. Mulhall v. Advance Sec.,
Inc., 19 F.3d 586, 590 (11th Cir. 1994). Andreu’s only evidence in support of the
descriptive component is a list of male employees who share her job title (Finance
Manager II) and the job description for a Finance Manager II. “Application of the
equal pay standard is not dependent on job classifications or titles but depends
rather on actual job requirements and performance.” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.13(e).
2
Case: 16-14885 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 Page: 3 of 4
Andreu’s sex discrimination claim fails because she submitted no evidence that the
job description accurately reflected the actual work by a male Finance Manager II.
In other words, Andreu submitted no evidence of a male Finance Manager II who
performed comparable work. Because Andreu fails to establish the descriptive
component, we need not discuss the geographic component.
II.
Section 215(a)(3) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an
employee for asserting a right under the FLSA. A prima facie case of FLSA
retaliation requires a showing of (1) an activity protected under the statute; (2) a
subsequent adverse action by the employer; and (3) a causal connection between
the protected activity and the adverse action. Wolf v. Coca-Cola Co., 200 F.3d
1337, 1342–43 (11th Cir. 2000). In demonstrating causation, the employee must
prove that the adverse action would not have occurred “but for” the protected
activity. Id. at 1343. Andreu’s only argument in support of causation is temporal
proximity (approximately two months) between an internal complaint about her
salary and her termination. And Hewlett-Packard offers evidence that,
approximately two months before the internal complaint, it placed Andreu on
administrative leave; conducted an investigation of her accounting practices; and
contemplated her termination. Andreu’s retaliation claim fails because she
3
Case: 16-14885 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 Page: 4 of 4
submitted no evidence establishing a causal connection between her internal
complaint and her termination.
III.
The district court correctly granted summary judgment for Hewlett-Packard
and against Andreu. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4