Fill and Sign the Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions Insider Trading by Form

1.6.1 Equal Pay Act 29 USC § 206(d)(1) In this case the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant violated a federal law known as the Equal Pay Act.Under that Act it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate between employees on the basis of sex or gender by paying different wages for equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.In order to prevail on this claim, the Plaintiff must prove each of the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:First: That the Defendant is an "employer" within the meaning of the Equal Pay Act;Second: That the Plaintiff and a member or members of the opposite sex have been employed by the Defendant in jobs requiring substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility;Third: That the two jobs are performed under similar working conditions; andFourth: That the Plaintiff was paid a lower wage than a member of the opposite sex doing equal work. [In the verdict form that I will explain in a moment, you will be asked to answer a series of questions concerning each of these factual issues.] [The parties have stipulated or agreed that the Defendant is an employer subject to the provisions of the Equal Pay Act, and you should consider that fact as proven.] With respect to the second fact the Plaintiff must prove - - that the Plaintiff and members of the opposite sex have been employed on jobs requiring substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility - - your task is to compare the jobs, not the individual employees holding those jobs. You will note that it is not necessary that the two jobs be identical; the law requires proof that the performance of the two jobs demands "substantially equal" skill, effort and responsibility. Insignificant and insubstantial or trivial differences do not matter and may be disregarded. Job classifications, descriptions or titles are not controlling. The important thing is the actual work or performance requirements of the two jobs.In deciding whether the jobs require substantially equal "skill," you should consider such factors as the level of education, experience, training and ability necessary to meet the performance requirements of the respective jobs. In deciding whether the jobs require substantially equal "effort," you should consider the amount of physical and mental exertion needed for the performance of the respective jobs. Duties that result in mental or physical fatigue and emotional stress, or factors that alleviate fatigue and stress, should be weighed together in assessing the relative effort involved. It may be that jobs require equal effort in their performance even though the effort is exerted in different ways on the two jobs; but jobs do not entail equal effort, even though they involve most of the same routine duties, if one job requires other additional tasks that consume a significant amount of extra time and attention or extra exertion.In deciding whether the jobs involve substantially equal "responsibility," you should consider the degree of accountability involved in the performance of the work. You should take into consideration such things as the level of authority delegated to the respective employees to direct or supervise the work of others or to represent the employer in dealing with customers or suppliers; the consequences of inadequate or improper performance of the work in terms of possible damage to valuable equipment or possible loss of business or productivity; and the possibility of incurring legal liability to third parties.With respect to the third fact the Plaintiff must prove - - that the jobs are performed under similar working conditions - - you will note that the test here is whether the working conditions are "similar;" they need not be substantially equal. In deciding whether relative working conditions are similar, you should consider the physical surroundings or the environment in which the work is performed, including the elements to which employees may be exposed. You should also consider any hazards of the work including the frequency and severity of any risks of injury.Finally, of course, it must be proved that the Plaintiff was paid a lower wage than a member of the opposite sex doing equal work. [If you find that the Plaintiff has proved each of the things that must be established in support of the Plaintiff’s claim, you will then consider the Defendant’s defense as to which the Defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The Defendant contends that the differential in pay between the two jobs was the result of a bona fide [seniority system] [merit system] [system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production] [or describe factor other than gender upon which the Defendant relies]. If you so find, then your verdict will be for the Defendant]. If you find in favor of the Plaintiff concerning each of these issues, and against the Defendant on the defenses, you will then consider the matter of the Plaintiff's damages measured by the amount of the pay differential between the two jobs from [date] to the date of this trial.1.6.1Equal Pay Act29 USC § 206(d)(1)SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESTO THE JURYDo you find from a preponderance of the evidence:1. That the Plaintiff and a member or members of the opposite sex have been employed by the Defendant in jobs requiring substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility?Answer Yes or No2. That the two jobs are performed under similar working conditions?Answer Yes or No3. That the Plaintiff was paid a lower wage than a member of the opposite sex doing equal work?Answer Yes or No[Note: If you answered No to any of the preceding questions you need not answer either of the remaining questions.]4. That the differential in pay between the two jobs was the result of a bona fide [seniority system] [merit system] [system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production] [or describe factor other than gender upon which the Defendant relies]?Answer Yes or No [Note: If you answered Yes to the preceding question you need notanswer the remaining question.]5. That the Plaintiff should be awarded $ as the Plaintiff’s damages.SO SAY WE ALL.ForepersonDATEDANNOTATIONS AND COMMENTSIn an Equal Pay Act case the plaintiff must initially show that an employer pays different wages to employees of opposite sexes for equal work on jobs requiring substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility under similar conditions. The burden then shifts to the employer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the pay differential is justified under one of the four statutory exceptions provided in 29 USC § 206(d)(1). If the employer satisfies this burden, then the plaintiff must produce affirmative evidence that the proffered reason is a mere pretext for discrimination. Irby v. Bittick, 44 F.3d 949, 954 (11th Cir. 1995); Schwartz v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 954 F.2d 620, 623 (11th Cir. 1991) Wright v. Rayonier, Inc., 972 F.Supp. 1474, 1480-81 (S.D. Ga. 1997). “Comparison” employees must work in the same “establishment” as the plaintiff. Mulhall v. Advance Sec., Inc., 19 F.3d 586, 590 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 919, 115 S.Ct. 298, 130 L.Ed.2d 212 (1994). A single establishment can include operations at more than one physical location. Id. at 591; Brennan v. Goose Creek Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 519 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir. 1975) (central control and administration of disparate job sites can support finding of single establishment). However, courts presume that multiple offices are not a single establishment unless unusual circumstances are demonstrated. Meeks v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, 15 F.3d 1013, 1017 (11th Cir. 1994) 29 C.F.R. §§ 1620.9(a)(b). In evaluating the Plaintiff’s case, the Plaintiff is not required to prove that the jobs performed are identical; the test is one of substantiality, not identity. Thus, the jury should consider only the skills and qualifications needed to perform the job and should not consider the prior experiences or other qualifications of the other employees. Mulhall v. Advance Sec., Inc., 19 F.3d 586, 592 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 919, 115 S.Ct. 298, 130 L.Ed.2d 212 (1994); Miranda v. B & B Cash Grocery Store, Inc., 975 F.2d 1518, 1533 (11th Cir. 1992). Prior experience of other employees may be relevant, however, in determining the employer’s affirmative defense - - whether the fourth statutory exception (factors other than sex) applies. Irby v. Bittick, 44 F.3d 949, 955 (11th Cir. 1995); Glenn v. General Motors Corp., 841 F.2d 1567, 1571 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948, 109 S.Ct. 378, 102 L.Ed.2d 367 (1988).