Mickelson v. New York Life Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that *‘[t]he EPA[ ] ... im-postes] a form of strict liability on employers who pay males more than females for performing the same work”
• stating that, to prevail at the summary judgment stage, “the employer must prove at least one affirmative defense so clearly that no rational jury could find to the contrary”
• stating that if the plaintiff establishes a primafacie case, the burden of persuasion then shifts to the defendant to prove that the wage disparity was justified for one of four permissible reasons
• explaining that employer failed to demonstrate that wage disparity at hiring was due to male employee’s prior experience where employer did not produce contemporaneous evidence of how male employee’s starting salary was set
• explaining that employer failed to demonstrate that wage disparity at hiring was due to male employee’s prior experience where employer did not produce contemporaneous evidence of how male employee’s starting salary was set
• noting that a defendant’s proffered justification for a pay disparity was insufficient for summary judgment where “conspicuously missing from the record is any suggestion” that the higher paid male employee used the experience in his position

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).