Plaintiff S. Mirza sued defendant UWorld, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas raising claims of violations of the Equal Pay Act, gender discrimination, race discrimination, and sexually hostile work environment.
Factual Overview
S. Mirza, a South Asian female of Pakistani descent, began working for UWorld, LLC as a sales director in Kansas City, Kansas, on August 10, 2020. Her starting base salary was $65,000, which was increased to $70,000 in 2021. Mirza discovered that UWorld had hired several new sales directors in 2022 at higher salaries, including some white male employees who received $80,000 starting salaries.
Mirza experienced several incidents that she perceived as harassment from a coworker, Eric Kang. These incidents included Kang sending her a picture of a poster with a nude image, rubbing her back at a group dinner, and making comments about her appearance. Mirza eventually asked Kang to stop commenting on her appearance, which he did.
In February 2022, Mirza raised concerns about pay equity with UWorld’s management. She received a job offer from another company in June 2022. UWorld offered to increase her salary to $80,000, but Mirza resigned after receiving a $90,000 offer from the other company.
Legal Analysis
Equal Pay Act Claim: The court ruled that Mirza failed to establish a prima facie case under the Equal Pay Act. The court found that Mirza did not work under similar conditions as the male employees she compared herself to, as they worked in locations with significantly higher costs of living. The court held that geographic location is a legitimate basis for differential salary scales under the EPA.
Gender and Race Discrimination Claims: The court analyzed Mirza’s gender and race discrimination claims under the McDonnell Douglas framework. The court found that Mirza failed to demonstrate that she suffered an adverse employment action, which is a required element of a prima facie case of discrimination.
Adverse Employment Action: The court rejected Mirza’s arguments that various comments from coworkers constituted adverse employment actions, finding that they did not disadvantageously change any terms of her employment.
Constructive Discharge: The court concluded that Mirza was not constructively discharged, as her working conditions were not so intolerable that a reasonable employee would have felt forced to quit.
Compensation Discrimination: The court held that Mirza failed to show she was paid less than similarly situated employees of a different race or the opposite sex. The court found that the employees Mirza compared herself to were not similarly situated due to differences in hire dates, post-law school experience, and geographic locations.
Sexually Hostile Work Environment Claim: The court granted summary judgment on Mirza’s sexually hostile work environment claim, finding that the alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment. The court noted that the three isolated incidents over Mirza’s 22-month employment were insufficient to support a hostile work environment claim.
The court granted summary judgment to UWorld, LLC on all of Mirza’s claims.
Schrag on Law 