Kassman v. KPMG LLP

Background

C. Anne Macedonio, proceeding without a lawyer, was a former KPMG employee who asserted a claim under the federal Equal Pay Act. The case began in 2011 as a proposed class and collective action. After the collective was decertified, the remaining claimants used Verified Fact Sheets, or VFSs, which the court treated like complaints. Other claims were resolved or dismissed, leaving Macedonio as the only plaintiff with unresolved claims.

Macedonio’s VFS described work on seven projects and alleged that KPMG discriminated against her based on sex and age. Her Equal Pay Act theory depended on comparing her pay and work with those of male employees. She identified a male senior associate who led one project and two men who worked in a data-analytics area on another project. For several other projects, she did not know the names of male employees or did not describe their duties. She later submitted an addendum and additional information in opposition to KPMG’s motion.

KPMG moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a pleading does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Legal standard

To plead an Equal Pay Act claim, a plaintiff must allege that the employer paid different wages to employees of opposite sexes, that the employees performed equal work requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that the work occurred under similar conditions. At the pleading stage, the allegations must contain enough factual detail to make it reasonable to infer that the jobs were substantially equal. Job titles or general descriptions alone are not enough; the comparison must concern the employees’ actual job content.

Because Macedonio was self-represented, the court read her papers liberally, meaning it considered the strongest arguments reasonably suggested by them. But the court stated that the basic pleading requirements applied to self-represented and represented parties alike.

Court’s reasoning

For Projects 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, the VFS did not identify male comparators and did not describe the work those potential comparators performed. Macedonio’s assertion that KPMG could provide the information did not substitute for pleading enough facts to state a claim before obtaining discovery. A list of possible male comparators, without information about their job duties, was also insufficient.

For Project 3, the alleged comparator was a male senior associate who led the project. The court concluded that his leadership role indicated different work and a different level of responsibility from Macedonio’s work. Their shared job title did not establish substantially equal work. The court also found that allegations about Macedonio’s education, experience, and ability did not adequately describe equal job content. Assertions that assignments were “near identical” were too conclusory because they were not supported by factual details about the duties or working conditions.

For Project 7, Macedonio alleged that the two male employees worked in data analytics while she was “not an IT person” and contributed in a “unique way.” The court viewed those allegations as showing that the employees performed different work rather than substantially equal work. A general list of audit tasks did not cure the problem because it was generic and was not tied to the projects or the alleged comparators.

Leave to amend

The court denied leave to add separate sex- or age-discrimination claims because those claims were outside the scope of the Equal Pay Act claim that had been the only claim in the action since 2011.

The court also denied further leave to amend the Equal Pay Act claim. It relied on Macedonio’s repeated failure to correct the central deficiency—her failure to provide sufficient factual allegations identifying comparable male employees and their work. She had already been allowed to amend or supplement her VFS twice, after receiving pre-motion letters and an explanation at a conference of the problems KPMG would raise.

Disposition

Judge Schofield granted KPMG’s motion to dismiss. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The Clerk was asked to mail the opinion to Macedonio and close the motion, and KPMG was directed to report on the status of settlement payments and whether the case could be closed.