Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, REMEDIES, DAMAGES—N.D. Ill.: Employee granted liquidated damages following jury determination that employer violated Equal Pay Act, (Sep 15, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The court concluded that actions taken by decisionmakers showed only that the decisionmakers considered the employee’s qualifications and determined what position and pay they believed were appropriate, not that they considered whether their decisions complied with the EPA.

Following a trial in which a jury returned a verdict in favor of an employee on her claim of wage discrimination, a federal district court in Illinois awarded the employee liquidated damages in an amount equal to her unpaid wages claim. The court concluded that the actions of decisionmakers showed only that they considered the employee’s qualifications and determined what position and pay they believed were appropriate, not that they considered whether their decisions complied with the EPA. Thus, the employer did not meet its burden to show that it acted in good faith and reasonably believed its conduct was consistent with the law. However, the jury did rule in favor of the employer on the employee’s retaliation claim (Miller v. City of Aurora, No. 22 C 2964 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 10, 2026)).

Equal pay claim. The employee worked for the City of Aurora as a Systems Analyst I in its IT department from March 2018 to December 2021, when she quit and accepted a lower-paying position as a Digital Evidence Custodian in a different department.

The employee sued the employer for wage discrimination and retaliatory constructive discharge. She alleged the city violated the Equal Pay Act (EPA) by paying her less than her male colleagues when she was a System Analyst I and for constructively discharging her in retaliation for filing an EEOC charge.

During a five-day trial, the parties presented evidence that, while the employee was hired as a System Analyst I, she did the same work as a male colleague who was paid more than her as a System Analyst II. On February 3, 2026, the jury returned a verdict finding in favor of the employee on the wage discrimination claim and in favor of the city on the retaliation claim. It also found that the city’s violation was not willful. The jury awarded the employee $150,000 in damages on her wage discrimination claim, which was ultimately reduced on remittitur to $27,765.40.

Liquidated damages. Currently pending before the court is the employee’s request for liquidated damages and post-judgment interest.

The EPA is part of the FLSA, and, as such, is subject to the same remedial provisions as the FLSA. Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), an employer who violates the EPA may be liable for liquidated damages in an amount equal to the employee’s total unpaid wages.

Good faith. Liquidated damages are mandatory under the EPA unless the district court finds that the employer was “acting in good faith and reasonably believed that its conduct was consistent with the law.” To avoid liquidated damages, an employer bears a “substantial burden” of showing they acted reasonably and in good faith. An employer’s subjective belief that it was complying with the EPA does not establish good faith unless that belief was objectively reasonable.

Here, the employee argued that the city cannot show that it acted in good faith or had reasonable grounds to believe that its conduct complied with the EPA. The city pointed to actions taken by its Chief Information Officer, an HR officer, and the Director of HR as evidence of its reasonable and good-faith efforts. However, the court concluded that those actions showed only that the decisionmakers considered the employee’s qualifications and determined what position and pay they believed were appropriate, not that they considered whether their decisions complied with the EPA.

Next, the employer argued that it acted reasonably and in good faith when it hired the employee as a System Analyst I because it worked with third-party consultants to create positions in the IT Department and set compensation. However, the court concluded that the city’s reliance on these actions did not establish reasonable good faith. Rather, the court pointed out that the consultant never made an assessment as to what title, salary, or step any individual person should be in. Neither of the consultants retained by the city evaluated whether its compensation practices complied with the EPA.

Further, the court rejected the city’s argument that the public nature of its employee pay plans and budget-setting process counsels against imposing liquidated damages. The transparency of the city’s pay practices did not, by itself, demonstrate that it considered whether those practices complied with the EPA when it paid the employee less than her male colleague for equal work.

Willfulness of violation. Finally, the city argued that the jury’s finding that it did not act willfully was relevant to the court’s liquidated damages analysis. If a defendant willfully violated the EPA, the statute of limitations period is extended from two years to three. The Seventh Circuit has explained that the standards for the statute of limitations and liquidated damages operate independently. For awarding liquidated damages, double damages are the norm and single damages the exception, and the employer bears the burden of avoiding liquidated damages. Thus, a finding of that an employer did not act willfully does not establish that the employer acted with the good-faith and reasonable grounds necessary to avoid liquidated damages.

Consequently, the city did not meet its burden to convince the court that its actions were reasonable in good faith. The city did not demonstrate that it took sufficient steps to investigate whether it was complying with the EPA. Therefore, the employee was entitled to liquidated damages.

The case is No. 22 C 2964.

Judge: Kendall, V.

Attorneys: Andrew C. Porter (Salvatore Prescott Porter & Porter) for Lauren Miller. John B. Murphey (Odelson, Murphey, Frazier & McGrath) for City of Aurora.

Companies: City of Aurora

Cases: Discrimination PayDiscrimination WageHour SexDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation RemediesDamages IllinoisNews