A successor may serve as a comparator for the purposes of an equal pay claim. See generally Knight v. G.W. Plastics, Inc., 903 F. Supp. 674, 679 (D. Vt. 1995) ("'[T]he employees whose pay is the subject of comparison may hold jobs in succession as well as simultaneously.'") (quoting Pearce v. Wichita County, 590 F.2d 128, 133 (5th Cir. 1979)); Sinclair v. Auto. Club of Oklahoma, Inc., 733 F.2d 726, 729 (10th Cir. 1984) ("The Act applies to situations in which an employer hires an employee of one sex for a particular job to replace an employee of the opposite sex."). Dreves asks the Court to compare the difference between her starting salary in 2003 and Dixon's starting salary in 2010; however, the responsibilities of the general manager expanded in 2007.
See, e.g., Wayne Bldg & Loan Co. of Wooster v. Yarborough, 11 Ohio St.2d 195, 200-203, 228 N.E.2d 841 (1967); Whistler v. Allward, 57 Ohio App. 147, 148, 12 N.E.2d 299 (3d Dist.1936) (equitable lien enforceable against third parties with notice); see also Restatement of the Law, Restitution, Section 161, at 652. Courts applying equitable remedies also consider the extent to which the party seeking relief has come to court with clean hands, Hotel Burnet Co. v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 72 Ohio App. 453, 458, 52 N.E.2d 754 (1st Dist.1943), whether the party has taken "all reasonable steps to [en]sure that it obtained a perfected lien," In re McCoy's Waste Industries & Mfg., Inc., Bankr.D.D.C. No. 94-00227, 1995 WL 908054, *1, 26 (Oct. 4, 1995), and other equitable considerations.
The Act provides "a form of strict liability." Knight v. G.W. Plastics, Inc., 903 F. Sup. 674, 678 (D.Vt. 1995). The complainants bear the burden of proving a prima facie case.