United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019-03-18
42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; Title VII sex wage discrimination and Equal Pay Act; summary judgment for university affirmed by CA4; result: claimant-lost; claim: (a)
Uncertainty
Element adverse-action: basis: the court says the pay disparity is "establishe[d]" (expressly so for the Equal Pay Act's first element); the Title VII section never separately discusses the adverse-action prong, so [conceded] = undisputed is an inference
Misfit
The opinion also disposes of a Title VII retaliation claim (§ 2000e-3) in one paragraph (no prima facie case: actions neither shown material nor caused by the pay complaints); not recorded here as peripheral to § 2000e-2.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 33
| Case | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | Discriminatory causation ("because of" protected trait) | adverse-action-a2 statutory route or exception | employment-agency-route statutory route or exception |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spencer v. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY — 919 F.3d 199 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 33
| Case | labor-organization-route statutory route or exception | training-program statutory route or exception | Impermissible motivating factor in mixed-motive cases (§ 2000e-2(m)) | Bona fide occupational qualification (§ 2000e-2(e)(1)) | Severe or pervasive hostile or abusive working environment | Particular employment practice causing a disparate impact on a protected group |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spencer v. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY — 919 F.3d 199 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–18 of 33
| Case | Bona fide seniority/merit system or professionally developed ability test (§ 2000e-2(h)) | Failure to reasonably accommodate religious observance or practice (§§ 2000e-2(a)(1), 2000e(j)) | Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) | communist-organization statutory route or exception | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | indian-preference statutory route or exception |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spencer v. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY — 919 F.3d 199 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ✓ satisfied · concededNot counted: applied/alternative | · not addressed |
Elements 19–24 of 33
| Case | Subsection (n) limits challenges to covered litigated or consent judgments or orders | judgment-order-scope statutory route or exception | k2-intentional-limit statutory route or exception | k3-controlled-substance statutory route or exception | labor-organization-causation statutory route or exception | national-security statutory route or exception |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spencer v. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY — 919 F.3d 199 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 25–30 of 33
| Case | no-preference-imbalance statutory route or exception | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations | religious-institution statutory route or exception | test-score-discrimination statutory route or exception | Rejected "bottom-line" racial or gender balance defense to a discriminatory pass/fail barrier (Connecticut v. Teal) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spencer v. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY — 919 F.3d 199 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | ✗ not · no-evidenceNot counted: applied/alternative | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 31–33 of 33
| Case | Strong-basis-in-evidence defense for race-conscious action taken to avoid disparate-impact liability (Ricci v. DeStefano) | Rejected defense that an adverse CBA arbitration precludes a Title VII action (Alexander v. Gardner-Denver) | Mixed-motive same-decision partial affirmative defense (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B)) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spencer v. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY — 919 F.3d 199 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spencer v. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY — 919 F.3d 199 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a) | professor-paid-less-than-two-former-administrators | Spencer earned about $ 70,000 per year-a median salary when compared to the men who were also full professors in the Department of Sociology, Social Work, and Criminal Justice.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [234:410] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c.But Spencer's lawsuit proposes comparing her pay to that of two former University administrators, Drs. Michael Shackleford and Cortez Dial, who each earned over $ 100,000 per year as professors in other departments.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [411:626] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c.Though Spencer establishes a pay disparity, she fails to present evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact that Shackleford and Dial are appropriate comparators.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [1035:1209] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c. |
| Spencer v. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY — 919 F.3d 199 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Discriminatory causation ("because of" protected trait) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a) The comparator facts are found in the Equal Pay Act section; the Title VII section adopts them by reference ("for the same reasons we discussed above"). | professors-in-other-departments-who-were-former-administrators | Where, as here, the prima facie case of wage discrimination is based on comparators, the plaintiff must show that she is paid less than men in similar jobs.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [15432:15588] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c.First, Shackleford and Dial taught in different departments than Spencer did.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [7374:7451] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c.Spencer taught mainly undergraduate courses, while Shackleford and Dial taught more graduate courses.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [8543:8644] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c.Nor did the professors work equal hours, as the record shows that Shackleford and Dial worked more than Spencer did week to week.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [8970:9099] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c.While a plaintiff may use statistics to suggest a discriminatory motive, Spencer's expert found no statistical evidence that the University paid women less than men.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [22978:23143] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c.For the same reasons we discussed above, Spencer's broad generalizations cannot even show sufficient similarity to meet her burden under Title VII.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [16926:17073] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c. |
| Spencer v. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY — 919 F.3d 199 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: conceded; claim: (a) Alternative ground: "Even if we concluded that Spencer had established a prima facie case". | nine-twelfths-of-prior-salary-for-former-administrators | In practice, the University generally paid former administrators who became professors "9/12ths" of their administrator salary.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [12128:12255] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c.Indeed, Spencer admits that her comparators' pay during their short stints as University professors was set according to the 9/12ths practice.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [12388:12530] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c.Here, the University satisfies this requirement through its practice of paying administrators 9/12ths of their previous salary.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [17535:17662] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c. |
| Spencer v. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY — 919 F.3d 199 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: no-evidence; claim: (a) | claimed-misapplication-of-salary-policy-without-evidence-of-sex-based-use | But again, even if the University "erroneously or even purposely misapplied the ... policy, it is not proof of unlawful discrimination."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [18648:18784] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c.Instead, Spencer merely argues that the University misapplied the 9/12ths policy to Shackleford and Dial.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [18542:18647] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c.And there is another flaw, though immaterial given the report's other shortcomings: Rosenberg's expert report does not account for Spencer's comparators' prior work in the administration, even though everyone appears to agree that their prior administrative experience determined their salaries.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [22335:22630] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c.Spencer cannot supply any evidence of this.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [18259:18302] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c. |
| Spencer v. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY — 919 F.3d 199 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a) | female-professor | Dr. Zoe Spencer, a sociology professor at Virginia State University, sued the University under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII for paying her less than two male professors, allegedly because she is a woman.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [27:233] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c. |