Federal Court Dismisses USWNT's Equal Pay Act Claims

Remember sports? It seems hard to believe, but it has been less than a year since the U.S. Women’s National Team (“WNT”) won the Women’s World Cup. As you may recall, the WNT made headlines in March of 2019 by filing a lawsuit in federal court, claiming that the United States Soccer Federation ("the “Federation”) violated the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) by paying them less than the Men’s National Team (“MNT”). In advance of a trial date next month, the court ruled against the WNT on their EPA claim late last week.

Claims under the EPA are evaluated under a burden-shifting framework. The employee first bears the burden of showing that the employer paid different wages to employees of the opposite sex for equal work on jobs which required equal skill, effort, and responsibility, all of which are performed under similar working conditions. In short, the employee must show that he/she was paid unequally for “substantially equal” work.

If the employee succeeds in making this showing, the burden shifts to the employer to establish an affirmative defense listed in the EPA. The employer must show that the difference in payment between opposite sexes is permissible if it is made pursuant to: (1) a seniority system, (2) a merit system, (3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or (4) a system based upon any other factor other than sex (i.e., the “catchall defense”). If the employer establishes an affirmative defense, the burden shifts to the employee to show that the employer’s explanation is pretextual.

In the WNT’s case, the judge ruled that the WNT could not meet its initial burden of showing that the Federation paid the MNT more. The judge reasoned that any difference in pay was the result of different compensation structures under each team’s collective bargaining agreement. Notably, the MNT players received a higher per-match bonus than the WNT players, but did not receive any guaranteed salaries, which the WNT players received. The judge noted that although the WNT players (who made more money overall than the MNT players) would have made more under the compensation structure the MNT players had with the Federation, they specifically rejected such a structure in collective bargaining. As such, the WNT could not claim that the arrangement that they bargained for violated the EPA.

This case serves to remind employers of the importance of ensuring that any differences in pay between male and female employees for “substantially equal work” must be justified by one of the reasons set forth in the EPA. For questions about equal pay issues, wage and hour claims, or any other labor and employment law, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at Hoffman & Hlavac. To stay on top of the latest labor and employment law developments, be sure to subscribe to our blog and follow us on social media.