Sandor v. Safe Horizon, Inc.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
2011 WL 115295 (2011)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Stephanie Sandor (plaintiff), a female, worked for Safe Horizon, Inc. (SH) (defendant) as a human-resources manager at a full-time salary of $47,578. SH was seeking a maternity-leave replacement for Abigail Saunders, the employee-relations manager for SH’s domestic-violence shelters. The job posting stated that SH was seeking someone with an undergraduate degree and at least three to five years of human-resources experience. The job entailed support for 700 employees. SH hired Richard Brown, a male, to temporarily replace Saunders. Brown was a high-school graduate, had completed certificate programs in not-for-profit management, and was unemployed when hired. Brown had worked as a hotel human-resources manager and assistant director, a hotel quality-assurance director, and the director of a human-resources department that was being developed. SH paid Brown an 80 percent full-time salary of $44,752, which was equivalent to a 100 percent full-time salary of $55,940 and meant Brown was working four days a week. Saunders had been earning $44,752 for 100 percent full-time work. Sandor resigned after SH declined to promote her to senior director and promoted Brown instead. Sandor sued SH for discriminating against her on the basis of her gender in violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA). Sandor moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gold, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.