Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—PAY—D. Mont.: Female energy trader has pay discrimination case tossed, (Apr 18, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

Plaintiff failed to show that the sole higher-paid male performed substantially equal work, and employer provided sufficient evidence of legitimate, non-discriminatory practices.

An employer was granted its motion for summary judgment against the claims of a female energy trader who alleged that male employees received higher salaries, were given larger raises, and received additional training, despite performing the same duties. A federal district court in Montana sided with the employer, noting that the employee earned a higher annual salary than most male employees in the same position. She had received higher raises than at least one male employee in multiple years and continued to have the highest real time scheduler salary. Further, the court held that she failed to show that the sole higher-paid male performed substantially equal work (Mattila v. NorthWestern Company dba NorthWestern Energy, No. 23-79-BU-SPW (D. Mont., April 15, 2025)).

“Old boys network”. The employee began working for the employer in 2008 as a real time scheduler, trading energy in the hourly market on behalf of the company. In 2022, she came to believe that male employees received higher salaries, larger raises, and more training opportunities, despite performing the same duties. The employee believed her pay increases—under 3% in several years, compared to up to 5% for male employees—lagged behind those of male colleagues, and that the workplace functioned as an “old boys’ network.” She also believed that the male employees received preferential treatment because they had gone to Butte Central Catholic High School, played on the football team, and had personal connections growing up.

Based on these concerns, the employee filed a charge of discrimination with the Montana Human Rights Bureau and later with the EEOC, both of which found no reasonable cause. She then filed suit under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, and sought punitive damages, alleging pay disparities, unequal access to training, and intentional discrimination by her supervisor. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment.

Equal Pay Act claim. The employee pointed to specific comments and disparities, including one supervisor’s remark (“We all do the same job; therefore, they deserve to make the same pay”) as evidence of equal work. The employer countered by stating that the employee was paid more than all but one male real time scheduler, who had a different background and more relevant experience. Moreover, the employer argued the pay and training disparities stemmed from legitimate, non-discriminatory factors including education, certifications, performance ratings, and role-specific responsibilities. The asserted that these justifications were pretextual.

The court sided with the employer, noting that the employee earned a higher annual salary than most male employees in the same position. The court held that she failed to show that the sole higher-paid male performed substantially equal work. The court accepted the employer’s justifications—the comparator’s engineering degree, license, and energy imbalance market experience—as a legitimate basis for the pay difference.

Further, the court rejected the employee’s assertions that other male employees received better training or raises due to gender. The employer provided documentation showing that pay increases were based on a published guidepost structure tied to performance evaluations. Notably, the employee had received higher raises than at least one male employee in multiple years and continued to have the highest real time scheduler salary. Regarding training, the court found the employee had, in fact, received specialized opportunities, some not offered to any male real time scheduler employees, including selection for Leadership NorthWestern and industry conferences. As the employee could not establish a prima facie claim of wage discrimination, the court granted summary judgment on this claim.

Title VII claim. Here, the court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The court held that, even assuming the employee had met the prima facie case of disparate treatment, the employer met its burden with clear, performance- and qualification-based reasons for its decisions. The employee failed to present evidence that these reasons were pretextual or rooted in gender bias. Accordingly, summary judgment was appropriate on this claim as well.

The case is No. 23-79-BU-SPW.

Judge: Watters, S.

Attorneys: Lawrence E. Henke (Henke Law Office) for Bambi Mattila. Harlan B. Krogh (Crist, Krogh, Alke & Nord) for NorthWestern Co.

Companies: NorthWestern Co.

Cases: Discrimination PayDiscrimination SexDiscrimination MontanaNews