Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—PAY—S.D. Tex.: OFCCP’s findings of sex discrimination bolsters female project manager’s Equal Pay Act claim, (Apr 4, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

In the notice to potential class members the OFCCP sent to the employee, the agency identified her as one of the “seven females in Project Engineering” impacted by the pay disparities.

A Black female project manager who claimed her former employer paid her less than her colleagues because of her sex and race defeated summary judgment on her Equal Pay Act claim since the OFCCP’s findings set forth in a conciliation agreement and its notice to affected class members sent to the employee provided undisputed evidence that she was paid less than her male colleagues, and her claim was also timely. However, a federal district court in Texas dismissed her Section 1981 claim since there was not enough information set forth in the OFFCP’s findings to suggest the agency compared her to non-Black colleagues (Celious v. Worley Limited, No. 4:22-cv-00811 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2025)).

In October 2006, the employee began working for the Worley Limited’s predecessor. Worley purchased the company in 2019, assuming all of the predecessor’s liabilities. From 2013 until 2020—when she terminated as part of a reduction in force due to the COVID-19 pandemic—the employee worked as a project engineer in the company’s Houston office. During all relevant times her annual base salary was $184,311.

OFCCP investigates predecessor. In 2017, the OFCCP began investigating Worley’s predecessor for alleged pay discrimination. In June 2020, after Worley had purchased the company, the OFCCP issued a pre-determination notice finding that, “based on a statistical analysis snapshot of compensation data from December 31, 2016, statistically significant disparities existed at the Houston facility which impacted females, blacks, and Hispanics in the following job families: 12 females, 11 Hispanics, and seven blacks in Controls Systems Engineering; seven females in Project Engineering; six females in Quality Control (Supplier Surveillance); and six females in Scheduling/Planning.”

2021 conciliation agreement. In June 2021 (after the employee’s termination), Worley entered into a conciliation agreement with the OFCCP to resolve the identified gender- and race-based pay disparities. Under the agreement, the company agreed to pay back wages to the employees whom the OFCCP identified as having been underpaid, but did not admit liability.

Class notice. In July, the employee received a “Notice to Affected Class Members” notifying her of the conciliation agreement and the OFCCP’s findings related to gender- and race-based pay disparities. In particular, the Notice stated that, “OFCCP’s analysis showed that since April 1, 2013, [the employer] has paid certain female, black, and Hispanic employees in Project Engineering significantly less per year than … males in similar roles at the same location.” The OFCCP also identified the employee as one of the “seven females in Project Engineering” impacted by the pay disparities and informed her that she “may be eligible to receive a payment representing back pay and interest.”

In September, Worley offered to pay her $3,200 as back pay. She did not accept the offer because it would require her to release the Worley and its predecessor from any liability and she believed that the $3,200 was not nearly as much as she had been underpaid. In March 2022, she filed this lawsuit alleging unequal pay based on gender and race under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Section 1981. Worley moved for summary judgment as to both claims.

The Equal Pay Act claim. To support her EPA claim, the employee presented evidence that she “performed work in a position requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility under similar working conditions” as her male colleagues in the Houston office. She also presented evidence that she was paid less than her male counterparts. Specifically, she pointed to the OFCCP’s undisputed findings set forth in the conciliation agreement and the class notice as evidence that she was paid less than male project engineers before January 1, 2017.

She also created a triable issue as to whether she was paid less than her male colleagues through her departure in June 2020. Though Worley argued that it was entitled to an inference that it corrected the pay disparity when it purchased the company in 2019, the court disagreed. The employee submitted evidence that her base annual salary did not change after the end of 2018, shortly before the Worley purchased the company, and there was no evidence of changes in her compensation to correct the pay disparity.

Indeed, the conciliation agreement stated that OFCCP shared its findings with Worley in June 2020, the month the employee was terminated, and there was no evidence that it was aware of the investigation before then. Moreover, the class notice sent to her in 2021 stated that pay disparities had existed “since April 1, 2013.” Thus, because the employee presented undisputed evidence that she was paid less than male project engineers for performing equal work, and Worley failed to offer any explanation for that pay disparity, summary judgment was denied on the merits.

Timeliness. The court also rejected the employer’s contention that the claim was untimely since sex-based wage payments constitute a continuing violation of the EPA. Thus, a claim accrues “each time an employer presents an ‘unequal’ paycheck to an employee for equal work.” Here, the employee has presented evidence of gender-based pay discrimination through June 2020, less than two years before she filed this lawsuit. Therefore, her claim was timely under either the two- or three-year statute of limitations.

Sec. 1981 claim. However, her Section 1981 claim failed since there was not enough information set forth in the OFFCP’s conciliation agreement for the court to assess whether the OFCCP’s analysis compared the employee to “‘nearly identical’ coworkers of a different race.” Thus, unlike her EPA claim, there was no evidence that the agency compared her to non-Black project engineers. Accordingly, because she could not make her prima facie showing that she was paid less than similarly situated non-black project engineers.

The case is No. 4:22-cv-00811.

Judge: Rosenthal, L.

Attorneys: David J. Quan (Law Office of David J. Quan) for Denise Celious. Ruth Ann Daniels (Gray Reed & McGraw LLP) for Worley Ltd.

Companies: Worley Ltd.

Cases: PayDiscrimination SexDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination Procedure TexasNews