Kelee Williams v. Robert Half International, Inc.

Background

Kelee Williams brought four claims against Robert Half International Inc. (RHI): retaliation under the Equal Pay Act, wage discrimination under the Equal Pay Act, gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and retaliation under Title VII. Williams worked for RHI beginning in 2013, became a branch manager in 2015, and accepted a newly created vice president position at a $150,000 base salary beginning in early 2019.

In January 2020, Williams applied for a newly created regional vice president position but was not selected. Thomas Young, a male candidate, was selected instead. Williams's vice president position was eliminated the following month, and RHI offered her a senior client service director position at the same base salary. Williams contended that her variable compensation and earning potential decreased and that the move was a demotion. She had also complained that women were paid less than men for equal work.

Williams later took leave related to her mental health and sought short-term disability benefits. The benefits request was denied for lack of supporting documentation, although her therapist submitted paperwork. RHI and the benefits administrator disputed aspects of her leave status, and RHI classified her as a “no call no show” for a period. Williams resigned on January 15, 2021, and testified that she believed she had been forced out by the workplace conditions and events surrounding her leave.

Equal Pay Act wage-discrimination claim

The court granted summary judgment on this claim. To proceed under the Equal Pay Act, Williams had to provide evidence that she and male employees performed substantially equal work, meaning the jobs shared a common core of tasks. The court recognized evidence of wage differences, including differences between Williams's pay and the pay of male branch managers and other male employees.

But the court found that Williams had not identified enough specific information about the comparison employees' actual duties. Job titles and general descriptions were not enough to show that the jobs required similar skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. The evidence also indicated that some managers had different responsibilities, supervised different numbers of employees, or worked in different markets. The court therefore held that Williams had not established the required initial showing of wage discrimination.

Retaliation claims

The court denied summary judgment on Williams's retaliation claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which includes the Equal Pay Act. The court found that Williams had evidence that she complained to RHI beginning in 2017 about women being paid less than men for the same work. Those complaints did not have to be written to qualify as protected complaints.

Viewing the evidence in Williams's favor, the court concluded that a jury could find that RHI did not promote her to regional vice president because of her history of complaints. The court specifically relied on evidence concerning statements about raising issues and the circumstances surrounding the rejection of her candidacy. It found a material factual dispute and denied summary judgment on this claim.

Title VII discrimination and retaliation

The court also denied summary judgment on Williams's Title VII gender-discrimination and retaliation claims. It found that Williams had presented enough evidence for a jury to find that she was qualified for the regional vice president position, that a male candidate was selected, and that the decision may have been influenced by her gender or her prior complaints.

RHI offered nondiscriminatory explanations: that Young had better skills and attributes and that Williams's vice president position was eliminated because of redundancies created by the new regional position. The court held, however, that Williams's evidence created a genuine dispute about whether those explanations were a pretext, meaning a cover story for unlawful discrimination or retaliation. Resolving the conflicting testimony would require credibility determinations for a jury.

The court likewise found a factual dispute about whether Williams was constructively terminated. Constructive termination occurs when working conditions become so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. The court concluded that a jury could consider Williams's treatment after she went on leave, the handling of her disability claim and leave, RHI's “no call no show” classification, and information that she was no longer employed before her expected return.

The court also held that earlier events could potentially be considered as part of a continuing violation because they may have contributed to a hostile work environment.

Punitive damages and final disposition

The court denied summary judgment on punitive damages. It held that Williams's Title VII claims and evidence concerning alleged discriminatory conduct and possible pretext were sufficient to keep her request for punitive damages in the case. The court also held that punitive damages were available for the Equal Pay Act retaliation claim, noting that the Ninth Circuit had not definitively ruled otherwise and that decisions in the district had allowed them.

The court's final order granted in part and denied in part RHI's motion for summary judgment. It granted the motion only as to Williams's Equal Pay Act wage-discrimination claim and denied it in all other respects.