McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Black v. Buffalo Meat Serv.

    No. 15-CV-49S (W.D.N.Y. May. 21, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Plaintiff filed the Complaint on January 15, 2015 (Docket No. 1). She did not need to allege Equal Pay Act violation before the EEOC to state a claim in this Court, although she did allege them with her other employment discrimination claims before the EEOC. "Thus, there is no reason why Plaintiff could not have filed her Equal Pay Act claim prior to the conclusion of the [New York State Division of Human Rights] and EEOC investigations into her Title VII claims," McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc., No. 04-CV-2891, 2007 WL 4326819, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2007). There is also no equitable tolling by the EEOC charge, id. (citing cases).

  2. Rivera v. Children's & Women's Physicians of Westchester, LLP

    16 Civ. 714 (PGG) (DCF) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2017)   Cited 10 times
    Dismissing EPA claim as "too vague and conclusory" where pro se plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that "she discovered that [the defendant] paid other less qualified, junior medical assistants an hourly rate greater than that which she was paid," as "[t]he Complaint does not identify any male employee who performed substantially similar work to Plaintiff, and who was compensated at a higher hourly rate"

    Moreover, "[c]laims brought pursuant to the Equal Pay Act need not be administratively exhausted prior to filing suit." McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc., No. 04 Civ. 2891 (DRH) (AKT), 2007 WL 4326819, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2007) (citing Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618, 640 (2007)); see alsoByrne v. Telesector Res. Grp., Inc., No. 04 Civ. 76S, 2005 WL 464941, at *10-11 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2005) ("Unlike Title VII, the EPA does not require a grievant to exhaust administrative remedies prior to the commencement of a civil action. Therefore, to the extent [plaintiff] seeks relief under the EPA for an allegedly discriminatory wage disparity, it is immaterial whether she raised that issue in her EEOC charge.")

  3. Setelius v. Nat'l Grid Elec. Servs. LLC

    11-CV-5528 (MKB) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 24, 2014)   Cited 41 times
    Finding no materially adverse change in terms and conditions of employment where the plaintiff's male supervisor excluded the plaintiff from meetings, ostracized her, criticized her work and assigned her clerical duties

    In addition, Plaintiff's Complaint was filed on November 14, 2011, more than four years after the last day on which an Equal Pay Act claim as to Sarcona could have accrued. See 29 U.S.C. ยง 255 (establishing two year statute of limitations for Equal Pay Act claims, and three years for willful violations); McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc., No. 04-CV-2891, 2007 WL 4326819, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2007) ("Claims brought pursuant to the Equal Pay Act are subject to a two-year statute of limitations, except with respect to allegations of willful violations, which are subject to a three-year limitations period. " (citing Pollis v. New School for Social Research, 132 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir. 1997)).

  4. Cummings v. Brookhaven Sci. Assocs. LLC

    11 CV 1299 (DRH) (ETB) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2011)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding the 180-day time period applied where state statute was not enforceable against employer located on federal enclave

    "Under the Act, a separate claim accrues each time an aggrieved employee receives a paycheck reflecting discriminatory wages." McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc., 2007 WL 4326819, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2007) (citing Pollis, 132 F.3d at 119).