Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—PAY—N.D.N.Y.: Employer granted summary judgment against female assistant product manager’s equal pay claims, (Jan 21, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The employee did not offer any evidence identifying any specific male PM to use as a comparator, providing salaries paid to specific male PMs, or providing the salary range for male PMs during the relevant time period.

A medical devices company was granted a motion for summary judgment against an employee’s federal Equal Pay Act claim, ruled a federal district court in New York. The employee alleged that as an assistant product manager, she performed the work of two product managers and was not paid as much as male product managers. However, the employee did not offer evidence identifying any specific male PM to use as comparator. Thus, the evidence cited by the employee was not sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude she did work equal to a specific or generic PM or that she was paid less “than any employee whose work was equal to her own” (LeBlanc v. Angiodynamics, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-229 (ECC/PJE) (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2026)).

Job responsibilities. The employer provides medical devices to treat “cancer and peripheral vascular diseases.” The employee began working for the employer in March 2013 as an Exhibits and Events Manager, and in December 2014, she became a Senior Executive Administrative Assistant to the Chief Executive Officer. In June 2017, she became an Associate Product Manager (APM) on the Vascular Access Marketing Team (VA).

During the employee’s employment, she and the other PMs on her team reported to managers at levels higher than PM. Another female APM on the employee’s team was promoted in August of 2018 to product manager. Notwithstanding the other woman’s promotion, the employee’s salary was still higher than that of the new PM. While the employee worked as an APM, three other female APMs were on her team at various times.

According to the employee, her direct supervisor told her that she would likely be promoted to product manager in approximately six months because of her previous experience at the company. The employee was assigned products related to dialysis in the United States, and she managed these products without the management and guidance of a PM. Approximately three months later, the employee began handling accessories, and she managed that “on her own, without a PM to guide her.” In September 2017, she received the global dialysis market. In addition, according to the employee, within the first few months in her new role, she was assigned PM responsibilities and “was expected to determine her own marketing strategy.”

In November 2017, the employee began reporting to a new direct supervisor. By November 2017, the employee was managing 65 of the 98 products in the VA portfolio, and that was more than either of the other two APMs.

In May 2018, the employee began reporting to a new direct supervisor. On August 8, 2018, the new supervisor completed a formal performance evaluation stating that the employee “exceeds expectations” or “meets expectations” in all categories except one, “collaboration,” where the rating was “needs development.”

Pregnancy announcement. On October 30, 2018, the employee met with her supervisor and a human resources representative to discuss her performance, and, at the end of this meeting, she told them that she was pregnant. On December 6, 2018, the employee began a performance improvement plan (PIP).

The employee emailed HR on December 9, 2018, regarding a separation package with an attached EEOC document. The parties did not agree on a separation package. On approximately December 13, 2018, the employer began an investigation regarding the employee’s allegations of discrimination. The investigation concluded that none of the employee’s allegations of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation were substantiated.

On January 28, 2019, the employee successfully completed the PIP. The parties disagreed about whether she had performance issues after she completed the PIP.

Discrimination charge. The employee filed a discrimination charge with the New York State Department of Human Rights on February 1, 2019, and on February 14, she notified the employer about the charge. The next day, the employer terminated her employment.

Equal pay suit. On January 31, 2022, the employee filed a complaint in state court against her employer and certain individual defendants alleging violations of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), the Equal Pay Act, and the New York Equal Pay Act. According to the employee, she “performed the work of two PMs,” and she was not paid as much as male PMs. She did not offer any evidence identifying any specific male PM to use as a comparator, providing salaries paid to specific male PMs, or providing the salary range for male PMs during the relevant time period.

Comparators. The employee alleged that the employer violated the federal EPA. The employer countered that the employee was the “highest paid APM in the company.” The employee responded that her comparators should be PMs at the company, not just those working on her team, and that she “was not paid equally with men in product management roles who performed substantially equal jobs with that which Plaintiff performed.” The employer replied that the employee made more than any APM or PM on her team, and that “unidentified PMs” in other departments “are not proper comparators” because “they held different titles, were not in the same department, had different supervisors, and performed different functions.”

“To establish a claim under the [Equal Pay Act], a plaintiff must demonstrate that ‘i) the employer pays different wages to employees of the opposite sex; ii) the employees perform equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility; and iii) the jobs are performed under similar working conditions.” A plaintiff must establish that the jobs compared entail common duties or content, and do not simply overlap in titles or classifications.

Here, the employee did not offer sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the employer paid higher wages to male employees who were performing equal work. The parties agreed that the employee was the highest paid APM at the company during her employment. As a result, there was no evidence that male APMs were paid more than her, and there is no comparator at that level.

Generic PMs. Further, the employee’s attempt to compare herself to a generic PM also failed. The employee had not offered sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that male PMs were paid more than her. She offered no supporting evidence for her statement she was not paid as much as male PMs, such as the identification of specific male PMs to use as comparators, the amount of salaries paid to specific male PMs, or even the salary range for male PMs at that time.

Finally, the employee had not offered sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that that she was performing equal work as a generic PM. According to the employee, she received assignments that were normally handled by a PM, she did not report to or support a PM but instead reported to a marketing director, and she was given little to no oversight on her assignments and was expected to determine her own marketing strategy. However, she cited no evidence about the education and experience of any specific or generic male PM. She also cited no detailed evidence about the work any specific or generic male PM did other than the PM job description.

Volume of products. Further, the employee pointed to the higher volume of products she handled compared to other APMs on her team. But she did not cite any legal authority for the proposition that a higher volume of work is a factor in determining the equality of positions. At any rate, other APMs on her team were women, and she earned more than any other APM, and she earned more than the APM who was promoted to PM. Accordingly, the volume of her work compared to other APMs on her team did not create a genuine dispute of material fact.

Accordingly, the employer was granted its motion for summary as to the employee’s federal EPA claim.

The case is No. 1:22-cv-229 (ECC/PJE).

Judge: Coombe, E.

Attorneys: Megan Goddard (Goddard Law) for Lauren LeBlanc. Michael D. Billok (Bond, Schoeneck & King) for Angiodynamics, Inc.

Companies: Angiodynamics, Inc.

Cases: Discrimination PayDiscrimination SexDiscrimination NewYorkNews