Female Postal Manager also claims she earned a pay-scale level that does not offer annual leave carry-over, paid life insurance, fully paid health insurance or survivor benefits.

A Native American woman can amend her discrimination complaint against the United States Postal Service over claims that the company paid a higher salary to a man with similar job duties, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled.  Beverly Martin started working for USPS in 1981, and over the years worked her way up the ranks to become program manger. From 2004 until 2008 Martin headed the office’s National Performance Assessment program in the Field Operations Requirements and Planning division. In March of 2008 USPS promoted a co-worker named Thomas Henry to division manager, a position for which Martin had also applied. She filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Opportunity Commission because she believes that Henry was hired based on his gender. Martin says that although she practically shared the same job responsibilities as Henry, he was paid more by USPS.”Plaintiff alleges that, because of Mr. Henry’s gender, he received greater compensation for performing job duties substantially similar to those that Plaintiff performed,” the ruling, filed Jan. 26 states. 

Here’s some other legal information on the case:

On January 26, 2011 Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims rejected USPS’’ motion to dismiss postal manager Beverly Martin’s pay discrimination claim. Judge Williams’ decision rejected USPS’s argument that the recent Supreme Court “Iqbal and Twombly” decisions effectively required Ms. Martin to prove her Equal Pay Act case outright in order to survive a motion to dismiss.  In particular,  Judge Williams held that Ms. Martin properly alleged that the actual job duties she and the male comparator performed in their respective positions, and not their formal job titles, controlled whether or not they could be compared for pay discrimination analysis. Judge Williams also ruled that the fact that the male comparator did the job after Ms. Martin was no bar to Ms. Martin’s Equal Pay Act claims.

Here ares excerpts from her complaint filed February 11, 2011:

Plaintiff Beverly A. Martin has worked for the U.S. Postal Service since January 1981, in a variety of positions of increasing responsibility and compensation levels.

Beginning November, 2004, until March 28, 2008, Ms. Martin held the position of Program Manager for the National Performance Assessment (“NPA”) program in the Field Operations Requirements and Planning (“FORP”) division at USPS. Ms. Martin’s position was ranked as an “EAS 25,” and beginning 2004 she was paid a salary of $80,902 as set out in USPS schedules for managers at that level. Her annual pay for the NPA program manager position was $89,194 in 2004-2005; $98,336 in 2006; and $103,207 in 2007.

From November 2004 until July 2005, Ms. Martin also held the temporary position of Acting Manager, FORP, on a “detail,” but at the same, lower compensation level of an EAS-25. Ms. Martin’s duties as Acting Manager, FORP encompassed oversight responsibility for six to 14 different programs in FORP, only one of which was the NPA program. Ms. Martin’s responsibilities as Acting Manager also included oversight of the NPA Program Manager, and supervision of several other staff working on thirteen (13) other programs.

Ms. Naoma Bourdon, also female, served as Manager, FORP from July, 2005 until February 29, 2008. Ms. Bourdon was Ms. Martin’s first line supervisor during that time, except
during Ms. Martin’s eight month tenure as Acting Manager. Ms. Bourdon’s duties as Manager, FORP encompassed oversight responsibility for six to 14 different programs in FORP, only one of which was the NPA program. Ms. Bourdon retired from the position effective February 29, 2008. On information and belief, Ms. Bourdon was paid at the PCES-1 level throughout her tenure as Manager, FORP.

The USPS named Mr. Thomas Henry, a white Male, as Acting Manager, FORP, effective March 1, 2008. Ms. Martin does not have knowledge of Mr. Henry’s annual pay during his four month tenure as Acting Manager, FORP.

The USPS named Mr. Henry Manager, FORP, on July 5, 2008. Ms. Martin also applied for the position, but was not selected. Ms. Martin filed a formal EEO complaint of discrimination against the USPS based on her non-selection on or about October 6, 2008.

Ms. Martin continued to serve as NPA Program Manager during Mr. Henry’s first month as acting Manager, FORP. Her last day as NPA Program Manager was March 28, 2008. Her last rate of pay as NPA Program Manager in 2008 at the EAS-25 scale was $105,088.00. Her previous annual pay for the NPA Program Manager was $89,194 in 2004-2005; $98,336 in 2006; and $103,207 in 2007.
Identical Duties

Ms. Martin’s duties as the NPA program manager from 2004-2008 were detailed in her annual statement of “goals” included in her annual performance evaluations. Ms. Martin had complete management and oversight of the NPA program including officer briefings; planning, development, and implementation; oversight of NPA staff and contractors; and hiring and performance reviews of NPA staff.

Mr. Henry’s 2008 new goals, both as Acting and as Executive Manager, FORP, were  nearly identical to, or encompassed fewer responsibilities than, the goals and duties set out for Ms. Martin as Program Manager for the NPA program between 2005 and 2008. In particular, Mr. Henry’s new goals as Manager, FORP show that his main and only responsibility as Manager, FORP was management and oversight of the NPA program. Ms. Martin’s main responsibility as Program Manager for the NPA program from 2004 to 2008 was also the management and oversight of the NPA program.

Pay Disparity
Beginning July 25, 2008, and continuing to the present, although Mr. Henry’s duties as Manager, FORP, were far fewer than Ms. Bourdon’s had encompassed, and essentially identical to Ms. Martin’s duties as NPA program manager, USPS compensated Mr. Henry at the higher-ranked and better paid PCES-1 level. As of July 25, 2008, Mr. Henry’s PCES-1 salary was $115, 596.80.

 Mr. Henry held the position of Manager, FORP, from July 25, 2008 through July, 2010, when he was selected for another USPS managerial position. As of July 25, 2008, Mr. Henry’s PCES-1 salary was $115,596.80, or more than $10,000 per year higher than Ms. Martin’s last annual pay as NPA program manager. In addition, as a PCES-1, Mr. Henry was eligible for benefits including 128 additional hours annual leave carry-over; fully paid life insurance; fully paid health insurance; and survivor benefits, all of which are estimated to increase the value of his compensation package to $129,327.18.

As further detailed in 17 through 20, below, Ms. Martin’s received a discriminatory, lower salary as an EAS-25 Program manager for doing PCES-1 work beginning 2004, when she was paid an annual salary of $89,194. The pay discrimination continued through 2006 ($98,336); 2007 ($103,027), and 2008 ($105,088). In addition, Ms. Martin’s EAS-25 level compensation package from 2004 through 2008 did not include the additional PCES-1 benefits enumerated in paragraph 15; including the annual leave carry-over; paid life insurance; fully paid health insurance; or survivor benefits. Ms. Martin therefore seeks back pay in an amount more than $10,000.

The USPS’s pay discrimination cost Ms. Martin $31,716 in 2005. Ms. Martin’s 2005 annual pay at the lower EAS-25 level was $89,194.

The USPS’s pay discrimination cost Ms. Martin $34,093 in 2006. Ms. Martin’s 2006 annual pay at the lower EAS-25 level was $98,336.

The USPS’s pay discrimination cost Ms. Martin $37,203 in 2007. Ms. Martin’s 2007 annual pay at the lower EAS-25 level was $103,207. 

The USPS’s pay discrimination cost Ms. Martin $48,670 in 2008. Ms. Martin’s 2008 annual pay at the lower EAS-25 level was $105,088.

Ms. Martin also seeks the additional value of the 5% Thrift savings match which she would have received had she been compensated at the PCES-1 level. Ms. Martin is covered by the FERS retirement system and contributed the maximum allowed each year from 2004 through 2008. USPS contributed the 5% match to Ms. Martin’s Thrift savings plan in each of those years.