## Facts

- Susan A. King worked for Acosta Sales & Marketing, Inc. as a “business manager” (representing product manufacturers to large purchasers) from 2001 until she resigned in 2007.
- King alleged sex discrimination under Title VII, asserting (1) a hostile work environment and (2) discriminatory pay; she also alleged unequal pay under the Equal Pay Act (EPA).
- For hostile environment, King described multiple gender-related incidents (e.g., sexually explicit materials and inappropriate conduct), many occurring well before she filed an EEOC charge.
- For pay discrimination, King produced comparative pay data for business managers showing men generally started at higher salaries and, by 2007 (or final salary), nearly all men earned more than all women.
- Acosta acknowledged King’s sales performance was comparable to at least one male business manager who earned almost triple her salary.
- Acosta’s national management provided recommended pay ranges and medians, while a local general manager set individual salaries “subjectively” within those ranges.
- Acosta argued pay differences reflected education and experience (including that King lacked a college degree), but offered limited concrete evidence tying those factors to the pay outcomes, including why many women were paid below recommended minimums.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Acosta on the federal claims; after procedural steps to obtain a final judgment, King appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether King presented sufficient timely and actionable evidence to proceed on a Title VII hostile-work-environment theory given the EEOC charge-filing period and the requirement of severe or pervasive conduct.
2. Whether King’s comparative pay evidence created a triable claim under the EPA and Title VII, and whether Acosta proved a lawful explanation (including a “factor other than sex”) as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Acosta on the hostile-work-environment claim.
- The court held that alleged hostile acts were largely outside the limitations window and were not shown to be sufficiently continuous into the timely period, and the timely incidents did not support a severe-or-pervasive finding.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed summary judgment on the EPA and Title VII pay-discrimination claims.
- The court held that King’s pay comparisons and evidence of comparable performance raised a triable issue of unequal pay for substantially equal work.
- The court held Acosta had not established, on summary judgment, that education/experience or other non-sex factors actually explained the wage disparities.
- The case was remanded for trial on the pay-discrimination claims.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII hostile-work-environment claims require timely proof of conduct within the charge-filing period, unless earlier conduct is part of a single, ongoing hostile environment that continues into the timely period; conduct must be severe or pervasive.
- Under the EPA, once a plaintiff shows unequal pay for equal work, the employer bears the burden to prove the differential is justified by a statutory defense, including a differential based on a “factor other than sex.”
- Generalized assertions about education, experience, or subjective pay setting, without evidence connecting those factors to the specific disparities, may be insufficient to warrant summary judgment for the employer under the EPA.
- Comparative pay evidence showing a broad sex-based disparity among employees performing the same role can support a triable inference of sex-based pay discrimination under both the EPA and Title VII.

## Conclusion

The court rejected the hostile-environment claim as untimely and insufficiently severe or pervasive, but held that across-the-board pay disparities between male and female business managers, coupled with comparable performance and weakly supported employer explanations, required a trial on the EPA and Title VII pay-discrimination claims.


King v. Acosta Sales & Mktg., Inc., 678 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2012)