David v. Bd. of Trustees of Community College Dist. No. 508

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in ADEA, Title VII and Equal Pay Act action alleging that she was denied pay increase/change of title on account of her race, gender and age in year prior to her announced retirement. While plaintiff claimed that younger, non-African-American co-workers were paid more for equivalent work, plaintiff failed to show that either comparative co-worker was similarly-situated, where: (1) said co-workers performed different/more complex duties in addition to duties performed by plaintiff; and (2) unlike plaintiff, both co-workers held college degrees and performed tasks that required college degree. Ct. further rejected plaintiff’s discrimination claim stemming from defendant’s delay in processing her request for new job title and more pay arising out of her assumption of new duties, where: (1) plaintiff failed to present evidence that process for changing title could have been accomplished prior to her announced retirement date; and (2) plaintiff failed to present evidence to refute defendant’s claim that assumption of additional duties constituted only lateral change in jobs. Fact that decision-maker made comment regarding plaintiff’s impending retirement date did not constitute evidence of age discrimination, since: (1) under Hazen Paper, 507 US 604, comments about retirement eligibility are not necessarily age-based; and (2) decision-maker was merely commenting on plaintiff’s previously announced status as “short-timer.”