UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF …

1 Case 1:10-cv-07462-NRB Document 40 Filed 05/17/12 Page 1 of 17. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. ---------------------------------------- X. equal employment opportunity commission , Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. - against - PORT authority OF NEW YORK AND NEW 10 Civ. 7462 (NRB). JERSEY, Defendant. ---------------------------------------- X. NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. The equal employment opportunity commission (the EEOC ). brings this action against the Port authority of New York and New Jersey ( Port authority ), alleging violations of the equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 206(d)(1) (the EPA ), among a class of non-supervisory female attorneys in Port authority 's in-house law Presently before us is Port authority 's motion for judgment on the 1.

2 The EEOC is also asserting violations of the Age Discrimination and employment Act, 29 623, but Port authority is not here moving on those claims. 2. Although styled as a motion for summary judgment, the motion is properly considered made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Port authority recognized the applicability of this rule but moved for summary judgment under Rule 56 so that we could consider documents outside the pleadings. (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. on the Pleadings for Pl.'s Failure to State a Claim Under the equal Pay Act 9 ) However, except for the EEOC's responses to Port authority 's contention interrogatories (Aff.)

3 Of Konrad Batog in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. and in Supp. of EEOC's Rule 56(d) Cross-Mot. for Discovery, Ex. 8. (the Responses )), no discovery has yet been exchanged. With the parties'. consent (Tr. of Oral Arg. 1:15-2:6), we construe the answers to those interrogatories as a functional amendment to the complaint and treat the motion as one for judgment on the pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(B), (E) (a COURT may take appropriate action on amending the pleadings and 1. Case 1:10-cv-07462-NRB Document 40 Filed 05/17/12 Page 2 of 17. For the reasons stated herein, Port authority 's motion is granted.

4 BACKGROUND3. In 2007, a female attorney employed in Port authority 's law department filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging that she was paid a lower salary than comparably situated men in the department. The EEOC commenced a three-year investigation into those and similar allegations before issuing a determination letter that Port authority had violated the EPA. in 2010. Port authority did not engage in conciliation, and the EEOC commenced the instant lawsuit on September 29, 2010. The complaint and Responses allege that, since at least January 1, 2006, Port authority has violated the EPA with respect to a class of fourteen non-supervisory female attorneys in Port authority 's law department.

5 The complaint alleges that these attorneys are paid less than male attorneys who have substantially similar lengths of service and experience and who hav[e] the same job code for jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. (Compl. 10(a)- determining the appropriateness and timing of summary adjudication under Rule 56 ); cf. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc. v. Sale, 823 F. Supp. 1028, 1033- 34 ( 1993) ( COURT granted leave to amend complaint in light of new claims disclosed by contention interrogatories). The EEOC's cross-motion for discovery under Rule 56(d) is thus denied as procedurally improper.

6 3. These facts are derived from the complaint, the Responses, and, only where necessary for context, the COURT 's files and the undisputed facts in the parties' Statements of Material Fact pursuant to Local Civil Rule 2. Case 1:10-cv-07462-NRB Document 40 Filed 05/17/12 Page 3 of 17. (c).) The complaint does not identify any male comparators or provide further detail with respect to the job comparison. Port authority filed its answer to the complaint on January 21, 2011. and amended it ten days later. In May of 2011, Port authority requested leave to move for judgment on the pleadings. At a June 7, 2011 conference, the COURT denied the request, noting that, at most, such a motion would simply result in the EEOC filing an amended complaint.

7 Rather, the COURT directed the EEOC to respond to contention interrogatories so that Port authority could better determine the grounds of the EPA claim. Port authority served its interrogatories ten days later, and the EEOC responded on July 18, 2011. The Responses include a list of potential comparators for the relevant female attorneys and attempt to substantiate the EEOC's determination that the claimants and comparators are similarly situated because their jobs involve equal skill, effort, and responsibility. In particular, Response 13 contends that the claimants' and comparators' jobs involve the same level of skill because they do not require different experience, training, education, or ability.

8 Rather, they involve the same professional degree and admission to the bar, problem-solving and analytical skills to identify, research, analyze, evaluate, and resolve legal issues clearly and persuasively, the use of professional judgment and 3. Case 1:10-cv-07462-NRB Document 40 Filed 05/17/12 Page 4 of 17. legal skills to draft, review and implement legal documents, . the ability to understand and comply with department, agency, and legal instructions and procedures, the ability to consult with and provide legal advice to the same client, the ability to interact and consult with outside legal staff or other Port authority attorneys on client matters, the same degree of diligence and persistence, and the ability to manage time, meet deadlines, and prioritize assignments.

9 Response 15 makes similarly broad statements about the effort required of all attorneys in the law department. It notes that the jobs are performed under time pressures and deadlines . and require the same problem-solving and analytical efforts, the same efforts to draft, review, and implement legal documents, the same efforts to consult with and provide legal advice to the Port authority , and the same efforts to interact and consult with outside legal staff or other Port authority attorneys on client matters.. With respect to the responsibilities afforded the claimants and comparators, the EEOC provided a somewhat more tailored response.

10 It contended in Response 16 that their jobs require the same degree of accountability and supervision because they are all non-supervisory and have substantially the same reporting structure and the same level of supervision. It further noted that the jobs are of equal significance to Port 4. Case 1:10-cv-07462-NRB Document 40 Filed 05/17/12 Page 5 of 17. authority , all requiring the attorneys to be able to respond to and act on behalf of the General Counsel and exercise independent judgment and discretion subject to the same level of oversight, and that the decisions resulting therefrom affect the Port authority 's rights and liabilities.