F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
JAN 3 2002
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
PAMELA R. GOODWIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 01-3019
GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas
(D.C. No. CV-99-2241-CM)
Donald R. Aubry of Jolley, Walsh, Hurley & Raisher, P.C., Kansas City,
Missouri, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Robert J. Harrop (David C. Vogel with him on the brief), of Lathrop & Gage
L.C., Kansas City, Missouri, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before EBEL and PORFILIO, Circuit Judges, and SHADUR, District Judge. *
SHADUR, District Judge.
*
The Honorable Milton I. Shadur, Senior United States District Judge
for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
Pamela Goodwin (“Goodwin”) has sued her employer General Motors
Corporation (“General Motors”), charging it with racial discrimination actionable
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII,” 42 U.S.C. §§2000e to
2000e-17). Goodwin, who is African-American, alleges that General Motors has
discriminated against her over the years by paying her a significantly lower salary
than similarly-situated white employees.
After reviewing the parties’ submissions on General Motors’ motion for
summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 56, the district court granted
that motion on the grounds (1) that the majority of Goodwin’s claims for pay
discrimination were time-barred because her pay rates had been established more
than 300 days before she filed her charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and (2) that Goodwin had failed
to present a prima facie case for discrimination related to the single claim that
was not time-barred. 1 We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment
in General Motors' favor and remand the action for trial.
Standard of Review
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
1
Goodwin's initial complaint had also asserted claims under 42 U.S.C.
§1981. Because she failed to address those claims in response to General Motors'
Rule 56 motion, the district court deemed them abandoned in the course of
granting summary judgment to General Motors. That abandonment ruling has not
been appealed.
-2-
standard as did the district court (Brown v. Gray, 227 F.3d 1278, 1285 (10th Cir.
2000)). Under Rule 56(c) summary judgment is appropriate only “if the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Familiar Rule 56 principles impose on General Motors as movant the initial
burden of establishing the lack of a genuine issue of material fact (Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986)). On appellate review we, like the district
court, are required to draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to
nonmovant Goodwin (Brown, 227 F.3d at 1285).
Facts
Goodwin began working for General Motors in 1976 in a pre-foreman
training program at its Leeds plant in Kansas City, Missouri. During the next
decade she held a number of different positions there, including supervisor over
janitorial services, supervisor over sanitation and senior clerk. Goodwin was also
laid off several times as a result of reductions in force. Following each layoff she
was recalled, although she experienced some salary reductions as a result of the
layoff periods.
In August 1987 General Motors closed the Leeds plant and again placed
Goodwin on layoff status. In October 1987 General Motors rehired her to work as
-3-
a temporary security guard at its Fairfax plant in Kansas City, Kansas. Several
months later Goodwin accepted a position as clerk in the labor relations
department of that plant.When she had interviewed for that position she was
informed that it was a permanent fifth-level position, 2 but upon being hired she
was placed in a temporary fourth-level position. Her salary was even lower than
what she had received as a fourth-level clerk at the Leeds plant, and she was told
that this was because Fairfax plant workers were paid less than those at the Leeds
plant. After Goodwin had applied to transfer to another General Motors plant, her
position was made permanent, and her salary was later adjusted to reflect a fifth-
level rate of pay. In late 1991 Goodwin was promoted to the sixth-level position
of labor relations representative (“representative”), a position that she continues
to hold today. 3
While employed by General Motors, Goodwin obtained a bachelor’s degree
in 1986 and a master’s degree in personnel and labor relations in 1989. At the
time of Goodwin’s promotion to representative, all three of the other
representatives were white, and only one had a master’s degree. Each of the four
2
General Motors uses job levels to designate the salary ranges
available to employees in particular positions.
3
For a period of time from April 1992 until December 1993,
Goodwin--along with another one of the representatives--was returned to a fifth-
level clerk position, without any decrease in salary, due to a reduction in force at
the Fairfax plant.
-4-
representatives had been a salaried employee of General Motors since the 1970s
and had held a variety of positions, including other supervisory positions, before
becoming a representative. Goodwin’s supervisor Charles Limon testified that all
four of the representatives had different strengths and weaknesses and that none
of them stood “head and shoulders” above the rest.
When she was promoted to representative, Goodwin’s salary was set at
more than $300 per month lower than the lowest paid of the other representatives
and more than $500 less than the highest paid. Over the years that salary
disparity grew larger (principally due to straight percentage increases), until in
1997 Goodwin was being paid $547 less per month than the next lowest paid
representative. During the same period of time the disparity among the rates of
pay of the other three representatives shrank from over $200 per month to only
$82 per month.
Pay ranges for salaried employees in General Motors plants are established
by company headquarters in Detroit. Aside from those market ranges, there are
no set rates for employees entering specific positions. Salaries are not dictated by
an employee’s seniority with the company or in a particular position, and
subjective factors can come into play as managers and personnel officers
determine the levels of compensation for salaried employees.
General Motors also maintains a confidentiality policy regarding salaried
-5-
employees’ earnings, so that Goodwin did not know about--and had no way of
discovering--the salary disparity between herself and the other representatives. In
about April 1996 Goodwin did express concerns about her compensation level to
the personnel director after hearing a rumor that a white clerk in a fifth-level
position was earning more than she was. Goodwin was assured that her salary
was higher than the clerk’s. When she asked if her raises could be increased to
bring her salary closer to what she believed to be the market range for her
position, she was told that no funds were available for such an adjustment.
In March 1998 a printout listing the 1997 salaries of each of the four
representatives somehow appeared on Goodwin’s desk and on the desks of some
co-workers. 4 Goodwin immediately sought an explanation from management as to
the disparity the printout revealed. In June 1998 General Motors offered
Goodwin an annual raise of 5%--but because she refused to sign a
contemporaneous document acknowledging that she had received all of the
compensation due her, she never received that increase. Two months later
Goodwin was offered an additional raise that would have kept her salary $259
less than the next lowest paid representative, and she declined that as well. Nor
did Goodwin receive a 1999 annual raise, also due to her continuing refusal to
4
Neither party has provided an explanation of how that printout came
to be placed on Goodwin’s desk or by whom, but there is no dispute as to the
accuracy of the information it contained.
-6-
sign the acknowledgment.
On September 22, 1998 Goodwin filed a charge of employment
discrimination with EEOC. After she received a right to sue letter, she timely
filed suit in the District of Kansas. Upon completion of discovery General
Motors filed its motion for summary judgment. As stated earlier, this is the
appeal from the granting of that motion and the consequent dismissal of the case.
Statute of Limitations
Under Title VII a plaintiff must file an administrative charge with EEOC
within 300 days after the alleged act of discrimination (Martin v. Nannie & the
Newborns, Inc., 3 F.3d 1410, 1414 (10th Cir. 1993)). Here the district court ruled
that with the exception of the raise Goodwin was offered in 1998, any claims
related to her pay rate were barred as having occurred more than 300 days before
she filed her EEOC charge. In so ruling the district court framed Goodwin’s pay
discrimination claim as a continuing effect of prior discrimination. That analysis
was clearly in error.
Continuing effects of prior discrimination are generally not actionable
under Title VII once the 300 day filing period has passed following the
underlying discriminatory acts. United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553,
558 (1977) held that an otherwise neutral system that merely perpetuates the
effects of previous discrimination is not itself actionable under Title VII. In
-7-
effect Evans precludes any plaintiff from recovering for any lingering effects of
discrimination once the Title VII filing period has elapsed after the underlying
discriminatory acts (see also Delaware State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 258
(1980); Lorance v. AT&T Techs., Inc., 490 U.S. 900, 908 (1989)).
But Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 395 (1986) has taught a crucial
distinction with respect to discriminatory disparities in pay, establishing that a
discriminatory salary is not merely a lingering effect of past
discrimination--instead it is itself a continually recurring violation. 5 Bazemore
addressed the question whether discriminatory pay rates that had been set before
Title VII became applicable to state and local governments were actionable or
nonactionable under Title VII as then amended to expand its coverage (id.). In
answering that question in the affirmative, Bazemore articulated what remains the
basic rule as to pay discrimination claims (id.):
Each week’s paycheck that delivers less to a black than to a similarly
situated white is a wrong actionable under Title VII.
5
Bazemore begins with a brief two-page per curiam opinion (id. at
386-88). What then follows is an extended concurring-in-part opinion authored
by Justice Brennan and joined by all of the other Justices (id. at 388-407). Two
other opinions conclude the array: a separate concurrence by Justice White,
written for himself and four other Justices (id. at 407-09), and a dissenting-in-part
opinion by Justice Brennan, written for himself and three other Justices (id. at
409-20). Because what is treated in this opinion is drawn entirely from the first-
mentioned Brennan opinion, it represents a unanimous decision of the Supreme
Court.
-8-
Under Bazemore, then, pay discrimination must be viewed as a continually
recurring series of violations, each of which is separately actionable under Title
VII.
While this circuit has had no previous occasion to consider and apply that
rule, other circuits have uniformly recognized that under Bazemore “a claim of
discriminatory pay is fundamentally unlike other claims of ongoing discriminatory
treatment because it involves a series of discrete, individual wrongs rather than a
single and indivisible course of wrongful action” (Pollis v. New School for Soc.
Research, 132 F.3d 115, 119 (2d Cir. 1997); accord, Cardenas v. Massey, 269
F.3d 251, 257 (3d Cir. 2001); Wagner v. NutraSweet Co., 95 F.3d 527, 534 (7th
Cir. 1996); Ashley v. Boyle’s Famous Corned Beef Co., 66 F.3d 164, 168 (8th
Cir. 1995) (en banc); Brinkley-Obu v. Hughes Training, Inc., 36 F.3d 336, 347
(4th Cir. 1994); Calloway v. Partners Nat’l Health Plans, 986 F.2d 446, 448-49
(11th Cir. 1993)). Today we join those circuits and the Supreme Court in
recognizing that each race-based discriminatory salary payment constitutes a fresh
violation of Title VII.
General Motors argues that Bazemore is inapplicable here, but that
argument is unpersuasive. Simply put, none of the cases cited by General Motors
in any way supports the premise that Bazemore is irrelevant to Goodwin’s pay
discrimination claim.
-9-
Thus General Motors points to Carter v. West Publ'g Co., 225 F.3d 1258
(11th Cir. 2000), but Carter did not involve a claim of pay discrimination.
Instead it dealt with the lingering effects--the nonreceipt of dividends--of an
employer’s time-barred discriminatory act of failing to offer stock options to
female employees (id. at 1265). As such, that claim fell under the Evans line of
cases instead of Bazemore.
General Motors also urges us to adopt the different approach taken in
Dasgupta v. University of Wisconsin, 121 F.3d 1138 (7th Cir. 1997). Dasgupta
dealt with a complaint of national origin discrimination in which the plaintiff
alleged several manifestations of discrimination: differences in pay and
promotion as well as the employer’s failure to protect him from harassment by
other employees (id. at 1139). Each instance of harassment and failure to
promote occurred years before plaintiff filed his claim, but he argued that those
actions resulted in a continuing violation via a lower salary (id. at 1139-40).
In finding the plaintiff’s claim barred by the filing period requirement, the
Seventh Circuit analyzed the claim under the lingering effects framework and
held that the plaintiff’s lower salary did not itself create an independent cause of
action (id. at 1140). Describing the line between Dasgupta and Bazemore as “a
fine one, but reasonably distinct,” the court said that unlike Bazemore “[t]his is
not a case...where the illegal act is repeated during the limitations period” (id.).
-10-
In drawing that line the court did not advert to the unambiguous Bazemore
holding that we have quoted, nor did it explain how--particularly in light of that
holding--Dasgupta’s claim of discriminatory salary failed to constitute a recurring
violation during the limitations period.
Finally, General Motors cites to the district court opinion in Amro v.
Boeing Co., 65 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D. Kan. 1999), a decision that we affirmed at
232 F.3d 790 (10th Cir. 2000). While the district court there found Dasgupta
persuasive (65 F.Supp.2d at 1184-85), it did so in a context in which the plaintiff
attempted to avoid the preclusive effect of the holding in an earlier suit--a ruling
that his employer had not engaged in salary discrimination--by arguing in
plaintiff's second suit that his aggregate salary was discriminatory (id.). In
affirming we made much the same point as the district court: Because it had
previously been determined that the earlier salary decisions were not
discriminatory, any ramifications that those decisions might have on the
plaintiff’s current salary were obviously not discriminatory either (232 F.3d at
798-99). That holding provides no support for General Motors’ position here.
No other circuit has discerned the fine-line “distinction” perceived by the
Seventh Circuit in Dasgupta, and we find any such approach unpersuasive here.
Goodwin has shown that General Motors pays her less than her similarly-situated
white co-workers. To further distinguish Goodwin’s situation from that in
-11-
Dasgupta, Goodwin had no way of knowing about that disparity (and hence about
the assertedly race-based discrimination) until she received the salary information
in 1998, at which time she promptly initiated this action. 6 Just as in Bazemore,
each paycheck that delivers less to Goodwin than to her co-workers constitutes
grounds for a new claim under Title VII. We find that Goodwin’s claim falls
squarely within the pay discrimination framework articulated by Bazemore, and
we therefore hold that her claim is not barred by the 300-day filing requirement in
Title VII.
There is, however, a limitation on the relief that Goodwin may obtain
should she succeed in proving her charge of discrimination at trial. Title VII
permits the recovery of back pay for a period no longer than two years before the
filing of the charge of discrimination. As the en banc Eighth Circuit explained in
Ashley, 66 F.3d 168:
Relief back to the beginning of the limitations period strikes a
reasonable balance between permitting redress of an ongoing wrong
6
On this point the district court’s analysis was particularly flawed. It
found that Goodwin should have known of the need to file a complaint at the time
she received each raise or promotion, for she knew (of course) what her actual
salary was at those times. Just sentences later, though, the district court
commented that notice of an adverse employment decision is required before the
statute of limitations begins to run under Title VII. Here Goodwin indisputably
had no notice that any of General Motors’ salary decisions were adverse to her in
terms of racial disparity until she received the salary printout in March 1998. It
makes no sense to suggest that Goodwin should or even could have filed her
complaint before she knew about any adverse decisions.
-12-
and imposing liability for conduct long past.
We agree with that analysis. Title VII’s two-year limitation, which cuts off any
claim for the period preceding September 22, 1996, applies to any damages that
Goodwin may prove at trial.
Evidence of Discrimination
We now turn to Goodwin's substantive claim. At this summary judgment
stage she may show 7 discrimination either directly (through direct or
circumstantial evidence or both) or via the indirect McDonnell Douglas burden-
shifting method (Elmore v. Capstan, Inc., 58 F.3d 525, 529 (10th Cir. 1995)).
With Goodwin having proffered no direct evidence of discrimination, we must
analyze her claims under the McDonnell Douglas ping-pong formulation. First
Goodwin must establish a prima facie case of discrimination (id.). If she does so,
General Motors must then articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its
decision (id. at 530). If General Motors meets that burden (of production, not
persuasion), Goodwin must prove that the decision was actually the result of
intentional discrimination, either by producing evidence of discriminatory motive
7
Of course Goodwin need not “show” or “prove” or “establish”
anything to defeat General Motors’ summary judgment motion. Instead she must
merely demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material (that is, outcome-
determinative) fact. Although this opinion will nonetheless often employ one of
the quoted terms because that terminology is often used by the cited cases, we
have consistently imposed that lesser burden on Goodwin in testing her position.
-13-
or intent or by showing that the articulated reason is pretextual (id.).
Goodwin may demonstrate a prima facie case of racial discrimination in a
number of ways, including a showing that (1) she is a member of a racial
minority, (2) her job performance was satisfactory, (3) she was adversely affected
by General Motors’ employment decisions and (4) similarly situated non-minority
employees were treated differently from her (see the discussion in EEOC v.
Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d 1184, 1195 & nn. 6-7 (10 th Cir. 2000)).
That is not an onerous burden (Ortiz v. Norton, 254 F.3d 889, 895 (10th Cir.
2001)). And here General Motors has disputed only the fourth element--that
similarly situated non-minority employees were treated differently.
In analyzing that issue the district court limited its consideration to the
raise that Goodwin received in 1998, reasoning that it was the only salary
decision that fell within the period of the statute of limitations. Its limited
consideration produced two findings: (1) that Goodwin was similarly situated to
the other three representatives 8 and (2) that she was not treated differently
because the percentage raise that she was offered was equal to or greater than the
8
General Motors has not challenged this finding on appeal, and it is
well-supported by the evidence. All four representatives had the same supervisor,
performed identical job duties and were subject to the same company standards
and policies. In addition, each was a long-term General Motors employee who
had held a variety of company positions, including prior supervisory jobs, before
being promoted to the position of representative. And Goodwin was one of just
two who had master’s degrees.
-14-
percentage increases given to her co-workers that year. Both by using a
percentage approach rather than the absolute numbers involved 9 and by limiting
its analysis to that single raise instead of considering Goodwin’s full salary
history, the district court erred.
While as noted earlier Goodwin may recover damages only for Title VII's
two-year statutory period, that limitation on recovery does not at all preclude her
from introducing the “quite probative” evidence of earlier acts of discrimination
to support a claim of current discriminatory intent (Bazemore, 385 U.S. at 402
n.13; accord, Pitre v. Western Elec. Co, 843 F.2d 1262, 1267 (10th Cir. 1988)).
Goodwin may therefore adduce evidence of disparate salary payments throughout
her tenure as a representative.
Goodwin’s evidence that her starting salary as a representative was between
$300 and $500 less than that of her co-workers and that the disparity actually
increased as she remained in that position--while the disparity among the other
representatives shrank--is certainly adequate to establish that she was treated
differently from her similarly-situated non-minority co-workers. Hence Goodwin
9
By definition the application of an identical percentage increase to
already unequal amounts increases the dollar difference between them. Because
the key showing of discrimination lies in the salary differential between Goodwin
and the other representatives, a differential that was maintained--and indeed
expanded--by General Motors' practice of granting equal or similar percentage
raises to the four employees, such use of an identical percentage increase does not
excuse or avoid the discrimination shown by the disparity-in-dollars end result.
-15-
has demonstrated a prima facie case of discrimination.
Under the next McDonnell Douglas step, General Motors must articulate a
legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its salary decisions. General Motors has
met that “exceedingly light” burden (Sprague v. Thorn Americas, Inc., 129 F.3d
1355, 1363 (10th Cir. 1997)) by asserting that Goodwin’s salary is simply the
natural outcome of her unique employment path. In particular, General Motors
points out that unlike the other representatives Goodwin began her career at Leeds
instead of Fairfax and suffered salary and grade level demotions as a result of lay-
offs. General Motors has also argued that it simply could not afford to raise
Goodwin’s salary to pay her as much as the other representatives.
In response, Goodwin must demonstrate that those reasons are pretextual
(Randle v. City of Aurora, 69 F.3d 441, 452 (10 th Cir. 1995)). One way for her to
do that is to provide evidence that General Motors' reasons are not worthy of
belief (id.; Gossett v. Oklahoma ex rel. Bd. of Regents for Langston Univ., 245
F.3d 1172, 1177 (10th Cir. 2001)).
Goodwin has more than demonstrated a material factual issue on that score.
General Motors’ claim that her lower salary resulted in part from her initial
employment at the Leeds plant flatly contradicts the explanation that it gave
Goodwin when she was first hired at the Fairfax plant--that Leeds paid its
employees more than Fairfax. Similarly, the evidence demonstrates that
-16-
Goodwin’s overall employment path with General Motors is not significantly
different from that of the other representatives: All had lengthy careers with
General Motors that included significant supervisory experience. When that is
combined with Goodwin’s education level, which was equal to or greater than that
of her co-workers, it cannot be said as a matter of law that Goodwin’s
employment history justified the pay disparity, let alone its ever-increasing gap.
Finally, the suggestion that General Motors lacked the resources to pay
Goodwin a higher salary may clearly be viewed as pretextual in light of the
company’s policy of setting salary ranges according to market rates, as well as its
offer to increase her salary when she confronted them with the evidence of the
pay disparity. Goodwin has presented ample evidence under the McDonnell
Douglas burden-shifting method to raise genuine issues of material fact as to
General Motors’ motives in setting, and keeping, her salary well below that of her
similarly-situated non-minority co-workers.
Conclusion
In sum, we conclude that Goodwin has succeeded in demonstrating the
existence of genuine issues of material fact on her claim of race-based pay
discrimination and that the district court erred in granting General Motors
judgment as a matter of law. We REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of
Goodwin’s claim and we REMAND this case for trial.
-17-