Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—PAY—M.D. Ala.: Female department director survives motion to dismiss equal pay claim, (Jul 23, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

By asserting the elements of a disparate pay claim, she pleaded an adverse employment action.

A municipal employer was not entitled to dismissal of a suit brought by a female department director who alleged she was paid “a much lower salary than male department directors,” and denied a travel stipend, ruled a federal district court in Alabama. As an initial matter, the court rejected that employer’s contention that the director failed to show that she suffered an adverse employment action. Rather, it observed that the Eleventh Circuit has held that “disparate pay is an adverse employment action under Title VII.” Further, the court determined that at this stage, the facts pleaded plausibly alleged that the male directors were performing “substantially similar” work to the work that the female director alleged she was performing. Accordingly, the employer was denied its motion to dismiss her equal pay claim (Porter v. City of Montgomery, No. 2:25-CV-213-KFP (M.D. Ala. July 17, 2025)).

The employee was hired as the City of Montgomery’s Grants Department Coordinator in July 2021, and was promoted to the Grants Department Director the following year in March 2022. She claims that she is paid “a much lower salary than male department directors,” who also receive a monthly travel stipend.

Although the employee acknowledged that the male directors who work for the city perform “different assignments,” she pointed out that they have “similar authorities, including the responsibilities to oversee staff, manage meetings, prepare reports, hire, supervise and discipline employees, review budgets, [and] manage expenses,” among other responsibilities.

According to the employee, when she questioned the difference in pay and benefits paid to male department directors, she was informed that she would not be paid at the pay grade similar to any male director. She additionally claimed that male officials and employees have attempted to interfere and/or restrict her from performing certain duties under her job description.

Discrimination claims. The employee asserted three claims against the city. First, she asserted gender discrimination under Title VII. She also alleged that the city committed a “negligent, willful and/or intentional” violation of the Equal Pay Act and Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by failing to pay her equally to her male comparators. Further, she asserts a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged that the mayor in his individual capacity violated the Fourteenth Amendment by setting, authorizing, and approving the discriminatory rate of pay and denial of the employee’s work-related travel stipend.

Title VII claim. As an initial matter, the employer argued that the employee failed to allege an adverse employment action for relief under Title VII. “[T]o establish a prima facie case of disparate pay, a plaintiff must show she occupies a position similar to that of a higher paid employee who is not a member of her protected class.”

The employee identified herself as a “director” of one of the city’s departments and asserted that other male “directors” who are also employed by the city are in positions of “similar” responsibility. She further alleged that the male department directors were “paid substantially more” than she was paid. Additionally, she alleged that each department director had “similar authorities, including the responsibilities to oversee staff, manage meetings, prepare reports, hire, supervise, and discipline employees, review budgets, [and] manage expenses.”

Taken together, the facts alleged were enough at this stage for a plausible disparate pay claim because the female department director alleged that she is a member of a protected class, that she is in a similar role to the male directors, yet she is receiving a lower rate of pay than the male directors. The Eleventh Circuit has held that “disparate pay is an adverse employment action under Title VII.” Thus, by asserting the elements of a disparate pay claim, the female employee has pleaded an adverse employment action.

Equal pay claim. The employer next argued that the female employee failed to state a claim for relief under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act because she did not include “sufficient factual matter” that would allow for “the reasonable inference that the relevant employees’ job content was substantially equal.”

“Under the Equal Pay Act, a plaintiff must prove that he or she performed substantially similar work for less pay than employees of the other gender.” “The Supreme Court applying the Equal Pay Act has required a showing that the employer pays ‘different wages to employees of opposite sexes for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.’”

The court determined that at this stage, the facts pleaded plausibly allege that the male directors were performing “substantially similar” work to the work that the female director alleged she was performing. She listed that all directors were engaging in oversight of employees, managing meetings, and preparing reports, among other activities. Although the female director acknowledged that “each Department Director has different assignments for the efficient operation of the City,” the facts as pleaded show that those different assignments also include “similar authorities” and oversight responsibilities. Accordingly, the employer was denied its motion to dismiss the EPA claim.

The case is No. 2:25-CV-213-KFP.

Judge: Pate, K.

Attorneys: Kyle David Sawyer (McPhillips Shinbaum) for Kelbrey Porter. Aaron Matthew Mann, City of Montgomery Legal Department, for City of Montgomery.

Companies: City of Montgomery

Cases: Discrimination PayDiscrimination SexDiscrimination WageHour AlabamaNews