Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

-------------------------

Brinkley v. Harbour Recreation Club, 180 F.3d 598 (4th Cir. June 14, 1999)

Keywords: Title VII (sex discrimination, wrongful termination) and Equal Pay Act (factor other than sex)

Introduction: Elizabeth Brinkley sued the Harbour Recreation Club (HRC) under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. The district court granted summary judgment on behalf of HRC. The Fourth Circuit affirms.

Facts: HRC is a country club. Brinkley was hired as HRC's business manager in 1993 at a salary of $30,000. In 1995, HRC's Board promoted her to General Manager. One employee, Dick Brandel, expressed a reservation about working for a woman -- but Brinkley was promoted anyway. Her salary was $50,000.

Brinkley was eventually terminated, in large part due to her inability to form a cohesive management team. She had problems getting along with Brandel and the golf pro.

Brinkley's replacement, James Paschal, was someone with eleven years of country club management experience. Paschal's starting salary was significantly higher than Brinkley's salary. This difference was based on Paschal's salary history, his experience and on information concerning the salaries of similar positions at other county clubs of similar size.

Law:

1. Title VII
   1. The Fourth Circuit reviews the factual allegations in detail and determines that Brinkley failed to present sufficient direct or indirect evidence to survive summary judgment.
   2. Under the McDonnell Douglas (indirect) method, Brinkley failed to establish the third and fourth prongs of the prima facie case. She failed to show that she was meeting her employer's legitimate job expectations (third prong) and that the position was filled by a similarly qualified applicant from outside the protected class (fourth prong). Paschal's qualifications were far superior to Brinkley's qualifications.
2. Equal Pay Act
   1. Failure to raise affirmative defense
      1. HRC relied on the "factor other than sex" affirmative defense set forth in the Act. But it failed to raise the affirmative defense in its answer as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
      2. The Fourth Circuit holds that absent unfair surprise or prejudice to the plaintiff, a defendant's affirmative defense is not waived when it is first raised in a pre-trial dispositive motion. There was no unfair surprise in this case.
   2. Factor other than sex
      1. HRC presented undisputed evidence supporting its non-discriminatory reasons for paying Paschal significantly higher than Brinkley.
3. Click here to see actual case. Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz dissents.