Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—PAY—S.D. Ohio: Circle K director of operations, paid less than male colleagues, advances claims, (Sep 16, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Circle K asserted that job performance justified the differential but failed to proffer any performance evaluations for the male comparators, raising a genuine issue of material fact.

A regional director of operations for Circle K was largely able to advance her state-law claims asserting pay and sex discrimination, ruled a federal district court in Ohio. Four male comparators proffered by the employee all received different—and higher—salaries. Circle K argued that the pay disparities existed because the comparators were higher performers, but it did not bring forth any performance evaluations for the comparators that could be viewed alongside the employee’s evaluations, creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a factor “other than sex” could explain the pay differences (Elba v. Mac’s Convenience Stores, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-4108 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 15, 2025)).

The employee’s career with Circle K began when it acquired her then-employer, Dairy Mart. She started as a market manager in the Great Lakes business unit.

Promotions. In June 2010, the employee received a promotion to category manager. Along with her promotion, she received a salary increase of more than $10,000. However, her salary was significantly less than that of two male category managers. In 2015, she was promoted to regional director of operations (RDO), with a starting salary of $83,000.

According to the vice president of the company, the pay range for RDOs is between $80,000 and $160,000. Within that range, the salary depends on the employee’s level of experience and annual performance evaluations. The employee received a performance evaluation and merit-based pay increase each year, with her salary increasing to more than $129,000 in 2023. The vice president asserted that the employee was one of the highest paid RDOs in her business unit.

Pay disparities. Despite the vice president’s assertions, the record showed that several male RDOs commanded a higher salary than the employee, with one topping out at close to $160,000. According to Circle K, these differences were based on each RDO’s performance, not their sex. The vice president referred to one of the comparators as “one of the best in the business” and that another produced “top-notch operational results.”

In contrast, in 2019 the employee received a performance rating of 3.33 and her performance was described as “good.” Her performance reviews did significantly improve after this time. However, the vice president explained that she still struggled to develop talent within the organization. Subsequently, the employee filed this suit asserting claims of pay and sex discrimination.

Continuing violations. First, the court explained that, under Ohio law, wage discrimination claims must be brought within one year. However, each paycheck of unequal pay is considered a continuing violation. According to the employee, she has received unequal pay since her career began with Circle K in 2004. The court was not prepared to look back quite that far, noting that the earliest evidence of unequal pay offered by the employee was from 2010, after she was promoted to category manager.

The court rejected Circle K’s arguments that the employee’s respective promotions severed the connection between her current and prior pay inequities, explaining that such inequities compound over time. Thus, her promotions did not start the statute of limitations, said the court. However, without evidence that she received unequal pay before 2010, the court found Circle K was entitled to summary judgment on its statute of limitations defense and that the wage discrimination claim, as it related to the employee’s time as a market manager, was untimely, limiting her claim to 2010 onward.

Laches. Next, Circle K raised a laches defense to the wage discrimination claim. According to Circle K, the employee unreasonably delayed asserting her claims despite knowing full well what she was being paid. In her deposition, the employee asserted that she first became suspicious that she was making less than her male counterparts when she became a category manager. However, she never saw anyone’s paycheck and could not be certain that this was the case.

For the court to award summary judgment to Circle K on its laches defense, it would have to make a credibility determination on the employee’s deposition testimony, and to do so would be inappropriate on a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court denied summary judgment on these grounds.

Prima facie case. Turning to the merits of the employee’s wage discrimination claim, the court found that she had established her prima facie case. She offered several male comparators who she contended were paid higher salaries. Circle K did not dispute the pay differentials but rather argued that the comparators were not “equal in all material respects” to be valid comparators.

The court agreed with Circle K that one of the proffered comparators was not relevant, as he was employed by a different business unit. However, the other comparators all hold the same position, in the same business unit, and receive different—and higher—salaries. Thus, the employee had established her prima facie case, and the burden shifted to Circle K to justify this wage differential.

Job performance. Circle K argued that a factor “other than sex” explained the reason for the pay disparity. Specifically, the employee’s job performance and her struggles with developing talent at the company. According to the vice president, two of the comparators excelled at developing talent and produced multiple people for next level promotion. However, the court noted that it was without the male RDOs’ performance evaluations and thus could not compare the feedback they received to the feedback received by the employee.

The employee’s performance evaluations, and purported failure to develop next level talent, could explain the salary disparity between her and her male colleagues, said the court, but without performance evaluations to compare, the court could not find that there was no genuine issue that Circle K paid the male RDOs higher salaries based solely on their performance. As such, Circle K failed to establish its affirmative defense and the court found that it was not entitled to summary judgment on the employee’s Ohio wage discrimination claim.

Sex discrimination. Next, the court considered the employee’s Ohio sex discrimination claim, noting that, since 2021, Ohio law has required plaintiffs to exhaust their administrative remedies before suing for sex discrimination. However, this was not a requirement prior to 2021, and the law makes no mention of retroactive application.

In this instance, the employee has put forth evidence that she has received an unequal wage since 2010. Her claims first accrued before 2021 and were therefore not barred by her failure to exhaust her administrative remedies, said the court. To the extent that her sex discrimination claim was based on discrimination suffered after April 2021, she was required to exhaust her administrative remedies but did not. Therefore, Circle K’s motion for summary judgment as to any claims occurring after April 2021 was granted.

Statute of limitations. Turning to Circle K’s argument that the applicable two-year statute of limitations for claims of sex discrimination barred her claim, the court noted that prior to April 2021, Ohio had a six-year statute of limitations for sex discrimination claims. The court again pointed to the fact that the employee had argued that she had been subject to workplace discrimination in the form of unequal pay since at least 2010.

Because the employee’s claims accrued before April 2021, the six-year statute of limitations applied. The complaint in this case was filed in November 2023. To the extent that the sex discrimination claims alleged discrimination from before November 2017, those claims were barred. However, the court found she may proceed on allegations for claims of sex discrimination occurring within the six-year statute of limitations.

Merits. With regard to the merits of the employee’s claim of sex discrimination, the court noted that, in general, when a claim for wage discrimination under the Equal Pay Act and a sex discrimination claim under Title VII arise out of the same set of underlying facts, both stating a charge of wage discrimination, the standards of liability are sufficiently similar that the disposition with respect to the two claims should be the same. The court found no exception here to that general rule, and Circle K’s motion failed for the same reasons it did as to the employee’s wage discrimination claim.

The case is No. 2:23-cv-4108.

Judge: Sargus, E., Jr.

Attorneys: Donald Michael Gallick (Law Offices of Donald Gallick) for Nirmin Elba. James P. Smith (Littler Mendelson) for Mac's Convenience Stores, LLC dba Circle K.

Companies: Mac's Convenience Stores, LLC; Circle K

Cases: Discrimination PayDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Procedure StateLawClaims OhioNews