Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—PAY—E.D. Tex.: Female employee of state agency fails to raise jury issue in pay discrimination suit, (Feb 19, 2025)

By Nadine E. Roddy, J.D.

The agency’s evidence established the “factor other than sex” defense as well as legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the pay disparity between the employee and her male counterparts.

A female employee of a state health and human services agency failed to identify “similarly situated” male comparators in her sex/pay discrimination suit against the agency brought under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) and the federal Equal Pay Act (EPA), ruled a federal district court in Texas. The employee also failed to rebut the agency’s legitimate reasons/factor-other-than-sex defense for the pay disparity, which reasons included differences in experience, education, and geographic locations (Langham v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission, No. 6:22-cv-00057-JDK (E.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2025)).

A female registered nurse brought suit against her employer, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, asserting claims of sex discrimination under the TCHRA and the EPA. She had an associate’s degree in nursing and nearly 20 years of work experience, 17 of which were with the employer. Two years after being hired, she became a Nurse III-Nurse Surveyor, which required conducting on-site surveys of medical facilities to determine compliance with state and federal law, regulations, and rules. She alleged pay discrimination under both statutes and identified as comparators four male Nurse III-Nurse Surveyors who were paid higher salaries than she received. She had not shared a supervisor with any of the four, and job responsibilities differed.

After approximately 30 months of discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment.

TCHRA claim. As an initial matter, the court noted that Texas courts look to Title VII to guide their analysis of TCHRA claims. The court then determined that the employee had not established a prima facie case of sex discrimination based on pay disparity because her male comparators were not similarly situated to her. According to the Texas Supreme Court, employees are “similarly situated” if their circumstances are comparable in all material respects, including similar standards, supervisors, and conduct. In this case, the summary judgment evidence demonstrated that each of the comparators had unique characteristics and qualifications, including differing education levels and specialized knowledge. They also worked on different teams, served at different types of facilities, and had different travel requirements.

Further, the employer identified a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its salary decisions which the employee failed to rebut. The employer’s evidence showed that the differences in experience, education, supervisors, and geographic locations—not gender—were the reasons the employee’s male counterparts received higher salaries than she did. Indeed, the employee’s own deposition confirmed that she neither witnessed nor heard anything suggesting that her supervisors believed women should be paid less, or that they held any bias against women.

EPA claim. The court noted the Fifth Circuit’s prior holding that “the EPA has a higher threshold” than that of Title VII, and thus an employee who fails to qualify as a comparator under Title VII in a case of gender-based wage discrimination also fails under the EPA. Because the employee’s male counterparts in this case failed to qualify as comparators under the TCHRA, which is interpreted in the same manner as Title VII, they also failed to qualify as such under the EPA.

Further, the employer demonstrated that the pay disparity was justified by one of the EPA’s exceptions—“a differential based on any other factor other than sex.” As the court had found in its analysis of the TCHRA claim, factors other than gender, including differing education levels, experience, and job requirements, accounted for the pay disparity. Thus, the employer successfully established the “factor other than sex” defense of the EPA.

For these reasons, the court denied summary judgment for the employee and granted it for the employer.

The case is No. 6:22-cv-00057-JDK.

Judge: Kernodle, J.

Attorneys: Colin William Walsh (Kherkher Garcia,) for Susan Langham. Landon Allen Wade, U.S. Attorney’s Office, for Texas Health and Human Services Commission.

Companies: Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Cases: Discrimination PayDiscrimination SexDiscrimination StateLawClaims TexasNews