[V]ermont’s top court heard an appeal Tuesday in a lawsuit by female Department of Corrections employees who allege that they were paid as much as $10,000 less than a male colleague who held the same job.
The case has been in development for several years, following the 2010 discovery by Lynne Silloway, a food service worker with the DOC, that her male colleague had been hired 12 steps above the entry-level step at which she had been hired.
The Vermont Human Rights Commission, also a plaintiff in the case, argues that the salary of the male employee, referred to in the suit as Mr. Doe, is a violation of the Equal Pay Act.
The state, however, says that the salary of the male employee reflects his experience and qualifications — not his gender.
The Washington County Superior Court in October ruled in the state’s favor, but the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the high court.
Karen Richards, executive director of the Vermont Human Rights Commission, told the five justices of the Supreme Court on Tuesday that this would be their first opportunity to rule on the Equal Pay Act.
Assistant Attorney General David Groff, representing the DOC, told the court that there is nothing in the Equal Pay Act that requires the state to prove that they made the best hiring decision, just that the hiring decision was gender neutral.
Groff argued that Mr. Doe was the best candidate for the job and that his salary was determined by merit and experience — not by gender.
“The objective fact is, he was more qualified,” Groff told the court.
The state can make an exception to the practice of hiring new employees at the entry-level step if there is particular need to fill a position or if the candidate has exceptional qualifications, Groff said. Doe had 23 years of experience in food services in the private sector as well as two degrees, and the state was in need of someone to fill the post.
“The state was in a bind,” Groff said after the hearing Tuesday. “He was ideally qualified for the position.”
But the Human Rights Commission, which took up Silloway’s case after an investigation into her claims led them to believe that there was evidence of gender discrimination, says that the salary difference is unfair.
The plaintiffs question why Doe was hired as a step 13 employee when the women hired for that position before and after him were hired as step one employees, Richards said after the hearing.
“They handed him a whopping bunch of salary when he walked in the door,” Richards said.
