## Facts

- Players on the United States Women’s National Team (WNT) sued the United States Soccer Federation (USSF), which employed both the WNT and Men’s National Team (MNT).
- The WNT and MNT were represented by separate unions and negotiated separate collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with different compensation structures.
- The WNT CBA emphasized guaranteed compensation (including annual salaries and benefits), while the MNT CBA emphasized pay-for-play (higher per-game and bonus opportunities, without guaranteed salaries).
- Plaintiffs alleged that, despite superior competitive performance, WNT players were paid less than MNT players for substantially equal work and were provided inferior working conditions.
- USSF presented evidence that during the relevant period WNT players, in the aggregate and on a per-game basis, earned slightly more than MNT players under the respective CBAs.
- Plaintiffs also alleged sex-based disparities in working conditions, including playing surfaces, travel/accommodations, and support services; USSF asserted non-discriminatory reasons for some differences, including scheduling of additional post-tournament “Victory Tour” matches.

## Issues

1. Whether USSF violated the Equal Pay Act by paying WNT players wages at a rate less than MNT players for equal work requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions.
2. Whether USSF violated Title VII by discriminating on the basis of sex in (a) compensation and/or (b) working conditions.
3. Whether either side was entitled to summary judgment based on undisputed facts regarding pay and alleged working-conditions disparities.

## Decision

- Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was denied.
- USSF’s motion for summary judgment was granted as to the Equal Pay Act claim and the parallel Title VII pay-discrimination theory.
- USSF’s motion was denied as to certain Title VII claims alleging discriminatory working conditions, which were left for trial due to disputed material facts.

## Legal Principles

- Equal Pay Act liability requires proof that the employer paid wages “at a rate less than” that paid to employees of the opposite sex for equal work performed under similar working conditions.
- Where compensation is set by different collectively bargained pay structures, the court may assess whether the challenged “rate” results in lower actual pay, including by examining aggregate and per-game earnings.
- A Title VII disparate-treatment claim generally proceeds through a burden-shifting framework: prima facie case, employer’s legitimate non-discriminatory reason, and proof of pretext.
- Summary judgment is improper on Title VII working-conditions claims where the record reflects genuine disputes of material fact about disparate treatment and the employer’s asserted reasons for the differences.

## Conclusion

The court disposed of the core equal-pay theory at summary judgment because the undisputed earnings data showed WNT players earned more than MNT players in total and on average per game under the bargained-for compensation package, but it allowed certain Title VII claims concerning allegedly inferior working conditions to proceed to trial.


Morgan v. United States Soccer Fed'n, Inc., 445 F. Supp. 3d 635 (C.D. Cal. 2020)