PITTSBURGH - The lawsuit brought by men who claim they were paid less than fellow Moon Area School District teachers because they are men will continue, as on April 16 a federal judge denied each sides' motion for summary judgment.
A trial would be the next major event in the case unless it is settled. Moon Area School District, near Pittsburgh, is facing nine counts of Equal Pay Act violations from nine of its male public school teachers who claim they are being paid less than their female coworkers of similar qualifications.
The court is no closer to a final decision than when the suit began in 2016. Each side has stated their case with oral argument in September 2019 and the court has viewed status reports, briefings, record evidence and a vast amount of supporting material.
Though there were been a motions for summary judgment, Chief United States District Judge Mark Hornak denied each.
The school district did not definitively show its salary decisions were made for nondiscriminatory reasons and the male teachers could not establish they were unequally paid on the basis of their sex as a matter of law.
The teachers, who each held at least one educational certificate and had prior public-school teaching experience, are Barry Barthelemy, Christopher D’Eramo, Joseph Espey, Jason Ferri, Christopher Herman, Timothy Hrivnak, Eric Jacoby, Jason Persing and Sidney Wood.
Teachers in the Moon Area School District are hired using a salary schedule, which follows a Collective Bargaining Agreement. Using a “step” and “lane” system, a teacher is placed based on the number of years worked in the district and their education level. The higher the step and lane a teacher is placed, the higher the starting salary he or she may make.
There are also unwritten guidelines for placing lateral hires, created between 2000 and 2001, which may hire those with experience outside of the district at a higher step.
Though information on 18 comparator women who are teachers in the same district was brought before the court, the men failed to show that they were paid any differently for equal work.
The district claimed several “what might have been” reasons for the difference in pay including differing hiring philosophies of different superintendents, hiring teachers with specific certifications and skillsets, a sudden need to fill vacancies, selecting ‘rock star’ teachers and matching previous salaries, credentials and experience, and time of hiring.
Depositions, resumes, notices of hiring, job applications, interview notes, hiring contracts and records were among the vast majority of materials for the court to review.
Hornak concluded that the case will proceed to trial before a jury.