Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—E.D. La.: Salesperson, terminated after alleged performance issues, fails to advance various claims, (Jan 7, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

With regard to her wage discrimination claim, the employer had argued that because she worked remotely while her male coworkers worked in office, they were not similarly situated.

Granting summary judgment against a former salesperson’s claims alleging wage discrimination and retaliation under the Equal Pay Act, unpaid overtime under the FLSA, Title VII and ADA retaliation claims, and unpaid wage claims, a federal district court in Louisiana determined that a reasonable factfinder could not find in favor of the employee on some of the claims or that she had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. In an issue of first impression for the court, the employer had argued that the employee was not similarly situated to her male coworkers because she worked remotely instead of in the office. Ultimately, the court was not persuaded that the “hazards” faced by the in-office workers were substantial enough to constitute dissimilar working conditions (Flannigan v. Universal Steel America, Inc., No. 22-3080 (E.D. La. Jan. 6, 2026)).

The employee began working for the employer as an inside sales representative (ISR) in June 2016, after having worked for one of the employer’s competitors in the steel sales industry. Although she reported to the employer’s Houston office, she worked remotely from her home in Louisiana. She was offered a starting salary of $65,000 plus commission.

Medical leave. In early October 2020, the employee went on medical leave which she and her physician had initially assumed was COVID-19. However, it was later determined that she had suffered at least one stroke during this time. She returned to work on December 21, 2020.

Performance issues. According to the employer, the employee suffered performance issues from the time of her hire. The employer alleged that she was prone to mistakes, leading to “Non-Conformance Reports” and significant costs to the company. Her employment was terminated in early June 2021. Subsequently, the employee filed this lawsuit.

Similar working conditions? First, the court addressed the employee’s Equal Pay Act claim with regard to her base salary. Based on the employee’s summaries of the employer’s payroll data, she earned a lower base salary than the four male coworkers she presented as comparators. The employer did not dispute this. However, the employer argued that because the employee worked from home, she did not perform her job under “similar working conditions” as the ISRs who worked in the Houston office. Thus, according to the employer, no proper comparator existed.

More specifically, the employer claimed that the employee was not subject to the same industrial “hazards” as the ISRs in the Houston office because they allegedly visited the manufacturing facility multiple times a day to perform the essential functions of their job. When visiting the facility, they were required to don Personal Protective Equipment and were exposed to hazards such as “heavy machinery and welding fumes,” whereas the employee “worked from the friendly comforts of her home.”

Whether working remotely constitutes dissimilar working conditions when compared to performing the same job in-office was a legal issue of first impression. In this instance, the court was not persuaded that the “hazards” faced by in-office ISRs were substantial enough to constitute dissimilar working conditions for purposes of the Equal Pay Act.

In addition, the employee pointed out that a consideration of workplace hazards takes into account physical hazards regularly encountered by employees. Presumably, if the employee could remotely check the status of orders in the manufacturing plant, so too could the in-office ISRs. As such, the court was doubtful that the in-office ISRs regularly encountered workplace hazards of such a nature to make their working conditions significantly different from those of the employee.

Book of business. Having established her prima facie case of wage discrimination, the burden shifted to the employer to assert that its salary determinations were based on something other than gender.

To support its defense, the employer pointed to a male employee who began working for the company in 2010 and later transitioned to working remotely. The comparator came to the company in 2010 with “15 years experience and a large book of business.” He negotiated his starting salary to $77,000. The employee, on the other hand, had nine years of experience in the steel sales industry and did not have a book of business.

Salary reduction. Further bolstering the employer’s argument that salary decisions were based on factors other than gender, the comparator had requested to work remotely in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The employer told him he would have to take a pay cut, offering him a $65,000 base salary, a number that he ultimately negotiated up to $73,150.

Under these facts, the court found the employer had provided sufficient evidence to support an affirmative defense under the Equal Pay Act, and a reasonable factfinder could not find in favor of the employee on this claim. Accordingly, summary judgment was entered in favor of the employer.

Unpaid overtime. Next, the court turned to the employee’s FLSA unpaid overtime claim. The employer had incorrectly designated the employee as “exempt,” but neither party disputed that she was in fact non-exempt and was thus entitled to overtime pay for every hour worked over 40 in a week.

According to the employee, she estimated that she worked 10 hours of overtime per week from June 2016 through February 2021, and 20 to 25 hours of overtime per week from February 2021 up until her termination. To support these claims, she proffered work emails sent to her supervisor outside of her regular work hours. The court found this evidence was insufficient to support her claim, and thus summary judgment was granted in favor of the employer.

Retaliation. Turning to the employee’s retaliation claims, she noted that she had filed a claim with the EEOC on or about April 7, 2021. She also alleged that she engaged in protected activity when she complained of pay discrimination to her supervisor, and alleged discrimination based on her disability after going on medical leave.

According to the employee, she was subjected to several adverse employment actions, the most recent one being her termination. She pointed to the fact that she had received a “baseless” disciplinary notice in March 2021, and she had notified the employer that she had begun the process of filing a complaint with the EEOC. She was terminated on June 2. The court found the timing to be sufficient to support a prima facie case for retaliation.

Poor performance. Shifting the burden to the employer to show a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its termination decision, it cited the employee’s alleged poor performance, noting the employee was placed on a PIP in July 2017, had been issued Non-Conformance Reports, and her mistakes had cost the company money. It was also undisputed that the employee received a disciplinary notice on February 15, 2019, for excessive Non-Conformance Reports, and again on August 5, 2020, for “unsatisfactory job performance.”

The employee contended that these proffered reasons for her termination were baseless but failed to support her claims with sufficient factual evidence to show pretext. As such, summary judgment was again granted in favor of the employer.

Unpaid wages. Finally, the employee argued that the employer failed to pay her the full amount she was entitled to under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA) and wages due under the Louisiana Wage Payment Act (LWPA).

While the employee was on medical leave, she alleged that she was only paid half of what she was owed under EPSLA, receiving wages for only 40 hours. To support this claim, the employee proffered an earnings statement for the pay period ending October 31, 2020, which indicated she received 40 hours of EPSLA pay. In addition, according to a December 31, 2020, earnings statement, this was the full amount of “COVID Sick Self” pay she received for the year.

To explain the discrepancy, the employer pointed to the fact that it changed payroll systems on November 1, 2020, and the only way to get a full picture of the payroll information was to look at the year-end summary provided by both systems. Further, the employer’s old payroll system did not have an option to designate COVID pay and was instead designated as PTO. Because the five days of COVID pay the employee received in October were designated as PTO, this explained the EPSLA discrepancy on the end of year statement.

The court found this evidence sufficient to support the employer’s assertion on this issue, and summary judgment was granted to the employer. Further, because the court concluded the employer paid the employee for the total amount to which she was entitled under the EPSLA and all of the PTO allowed by company policy, her claim under the LWPA also failed.

The case is No. 22-3080.

Judge: Barbier, C.

Attorneys: Christopher Minias (The Minias Law Firm) for Carol Flannigan. Connor Harris Fields (Jones Walker) and David Ellis Watkins (Jenkins & Watkins) for Universal Steel America, Inc.

Companies: Universal Steel America, Inc.

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination PayDiscrimination EmployeeLeave EmployeeStatus Retaliation WageHour Exemptions Overtime Covid19 LouisianaNews