Equal Pay Discrimination Yes or No?

Me: Work for a niche management consulting firm that concentrates solely on specific industry segment (architecture/engineering firms). Have MBA, PMP, relevant industry experience and prior consulting experience. Hired five years ago, worked way up and promoted to Principal January 2009.

January 2009: Though I received a raise with promotion, male colleague in same office (also Principal) was still making $30k more than me. He was four yeas younger and by solid accounts, had less experience both in years and relevancy.

When I negotiated for more, I was denied and told that was all they could afford. When I asked what the difference was between me and colleague, I was told that was none of my business and that we couldn't compare. Was told I should be happy to have the job and that the firm has no set salary ranges for Principals (ie $100k or more). Male colleague employee was laid off three months later for not selling enough work to cover his salary and other purported performance reasons.

March 2009: All Principals were given 20% pay cuts. I was spared because I was "a new Principal and that wouldn't be fair".

August 2009: 10% staff wide pay cuts were instituted (Principals omitted since they already took a hit). I was spared again because I was per CEO "already underpaid".

October 2009: CEO had voluntary conversation with me saying the pay differential would be rectified come new year and raved that my work, attitude, dedication, and results were stellar.

November 2009: I am only remaining member of my team(layoffs and resignations driving the other five out) and have the second highest consulting sales in the firm. We hire another male Principal (12 years older than me), with no MBA and though has Fortune 500 firm exposure in consulting, does not have any in our "niche". And admits lacks knowledge of our industry dynamics (arch/eng/construction). He reports to me and I objected to his salary before he was given the offer. CEO made him the offer despite my objection. He is being paid $15k more than me. I expected to get a raise and have since been told "we cannot afford it at this time".

I have read a lot on this subject and realize I could get hung up on the "other than sex" thing. Does economic situation (pay cuts, financial position of firm, bad economy) stand as a legit reason to not pay a woman as much as the man? Does this violate the EPA?

4 answers  |  asked Jan 23, 2010 2:54 PM [EST]  |  applies to Illinois

Answers (4)

Ryan Nalley
It appears that your CEO admitted to you that you were paid less because you are a female when he spoke of the "pay differential." Simply rectifying it is not enough, they must also remedy the past wrong.

Sincerely,

Ryan Scott Nalley

posted by Ryan Nalley  |  Jan 26, 2010 7:32 PM [EST]
Alejandro Caffarelli
If you are interested in speaking with an attorney, please do not hesitate to contact me directly to arrange a date and time for an over the phone screening.

If you have any questions, or if you would like to schedule a screening, I may be reached at (312) 540-1230

posted by Alejandro Caffarelli  |  Jan 25, 2010 12:25 PM [EST]
Peter LaSorsa
I would have to know more information. Are you in Illinois and how long ago did this take place. There are strict time limits also known as statutes of limitations that would apply. I handle employment issues in Illinois and if in Illinois call my office to discuss. Pete

posted by Peter LaSorsa  |  Jan 24, 2010 10:13 AM [EST]
John Otto
I take it you're a woman? I don't think economic situation is a legitimate reason to not pay a woman as much as a man in a comparable job. The trick is to be able to say their situation is comparable, except for sex. I had a case similar to yours where the man had less experience than the woman, but was supposedly hired at a higher salary because he was getting more in the job he left. I lost that case. As a practical matter, if you're the only one left standing out of five, I would think very hard about filing a complaint while you're still employed. You have a lot to lose. If you get laid off, you might want to look at it again, although you can only go back two years, three in cases that are wilfull.

posted by John Otto  |  Jan 23, 2010 4:40 PM [EST]

Answer This Question

Sign In to Answer this Question

Related Questions with Answers

Have an Employment Law question?