Buboltz v. County of Blue Earth

Background

Emmy Buboltz sued her former employer, the County of Blue Earth, under the Equal Pay Act, alleging that male assistant county attorneys were paid more than female assistant county attorneys from March 2015 through February 26, 2018. The Equal Pay Act prohibits paying employees of one sex less than employees of the other sex for equal work requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions.

In 2015, the County placed seven assistant county attorneys on a new step-based salary schedule based on the length of time they had worked in any county attorney’s office. The County did not count Buboltz’s state judicial clerkship when placing her on the schedule. Buboltz and male colleague Christopher Rovney were placed lower than they expected. Buboltz challenged her placement through the County’s grievance process, but the County denied the grievance, and mediation was unsuccessful.

The County’s exhaustion argument

The County argued that Buboltz could not bring her claim in court because she had not completed the grievance and arbitration process in the collective-bargaining agreement. Judge Magnuson rejected that argument. The agreement required arbitration for matters involving its interpretation or application, but it excluded matters governed by statutes unless the agreement expressly provided otherwise. The court found that the agreement did not address the placement of assistant county attorneys on the salary schedule and therefore did not require Buboltz to pursue arbitration before litigating her Equal Pay Act claim.

Statute of limitations

The County argued that Buboltz’s claim accrued when the state court accepted the salary-schedule stipulation on May 6, 2015. The court instead held that a separate claim accrued each time Buboltz received an allegedly inadequate paycheck. Because she filed her complaint on April 15, 2019, the court stated that, if she otherwise prevailed, she could potentially recover for unequal paychecks dating back to April 15, 2017, or April 15, 2016, if she proved a willful violation.

Equal Pay Act claim

To establish an initial Equal Pay Act case, Buboltz had to provide sufficient evidence that female employees were paid less than male employees for equal work under similar conditions. The court determined that the assistant county attorneys performed equal work under similar conditions, so Buboltz needed to show that male assistant county attorneys were paid more than she was. If she made that showing, the County would have to prove one of the statute’s defenses, such as a seniority system or another factor other than sex.

Buboltz identified Steven Kelm and Michael Hanson as male comparators. Kelm did not qualify because he and Buboltz were placed at the same step, and he was paid the same or slightly less because his step anniversary occurred later. Hanson did not qualify because his higher placement reflected more than four additional years of experience working in a county attorney’s office. Hanson also moved to a different salary schedule after being promoted to a supervisor position on June 1, 2015.

The court acknowledged that the County’s method of valuing experience may have been narrow or misguided because it did not credit judicial-clerkship experience or other legal experience. But Buboltz presented no evidence that a male assistant county attorney received credit for such experience when she did not. The court therefore concluded that she had not shown unequal pay based on sex and that no genuine dispute of material fact existed.

Disposition

Judge Magnuson granted the County’s Motion for Summary Judgment and ordered that judgment be entered for the County.