Equal Pay Act prohibits an employer from discriminating
between male and female employees by paying lower
wage rates to employees of one sex than to the
other for work which requires equal skill, effort
and responsibility, and which is performed under
similar work conditions. Some segments of American
industry continue to operate on the outmoded belief
that a man, based upon his role in society, should
be paid more than a woman, even though the woman
may be performing the same duties. In fact, many
employees are unaware that they are experiencing
violations of these laws. Strict statutes of limitations
govern the time period within which an employee
must bring such claims under the Equal Pay Act.
Burr & Smith, L.L.P. is experienced litigating
multiparty cases under this Act. If you are concerned
you are not receiving the pay to which you are
entitled, contact us for a consultation.
Female Employees of Sterling
Jewelers sue for discrimination in pay and promotion
July 1, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued an important ruling in Jock et al. v. Sterling
Jewelers Inc. finding that the Arbitrator properly held that the
Claimants could seek to pursue their gender-discrimination claims in
a class arbitration. The decision reversed a district court order
that had found that the Arbitrator exceeded her powers in allowing
the claimants to seek class certification of their discrimination
claims. The Second Circuit’s decision can be viewed by selecting
this link: Second Circuit’s July 1, 2011 Decision.
The Claimants are current
and former female employees of Sterling Jewelers Inc. (“Sterling”)
who have alleged they were paid less than similarly-situated male
employees or were denied promotional opportunities because of their
gender. The Claimants have worked at stores, owned by Sterling, that
operate under the brand names: Kay Jewelers, Jared the Galleria of
Jewelry, Marks and Morgan Jewelers, J.B. Robinson Jewelers, LeRoy’s
Jewelers, Osterman Jewelers, Goodman Jewelers, Weisfield Jewelers,
Shaw’s Jewelers, Friedlanders Jewelers, Rogers Jewelers, and Belden
Next, the Claimants plan
to seek to pursue their claims collectively as a class action on
behalf of similarly-situated female employees who work or worked in
any of Sterling’s brand stores on or after June 2, 2002.
is very important that anyone, female or male, who has information
about these discrimination allegations or more generally about how
Sterling has treated its women employees please call the lawyers at
(813) 253-2010 or (866) 647-3110, or send us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org providing your
contact information and where you worked for Sterling. You may
also contact our co-counsel Thomas A. Warren Law Offices, P.L.,
(Misty McKinnon) toll-free at (866) 854-5152; or Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, (Jenny Yang), at (202) 408-4600. We are interested
in speaking with former or current employees, both male and female.
(Please note that we are not ethically permitted to discuss the case
with current managers unless they believe they have experienced or
are experiencing gender discrimination at Sterling).
Background History of Case
case, Jock et al. v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., AAA Case No. 11
160 00655 08, was filed in March 2008 with the American Arbitration
Association, a private agency that manages arbitrations, rather than
in court, because Sterling’s alternative dispute resolution program
called the RESOLVE Program requires that employees bring claims of
this kind before an arbitrator, who acts as a private judge.
Current and former female employees of Sterling sued Sterling under
federal civil rights laws alleging that they were paid less than men
doing the same work at the same stores and have been denied chances
for promotion into salaried jobs because of their gender. The
Claimants’ First Amended Complaint can be viewed here: Claimants’ First Amended Complaint.
Sterling denied that it
has committed any discrimination and argued that, in any event, its
RESOLVE Program does not permit these women to pursue this case as a
June 1, 2009, the Arbitrator issued an order finding that Sterling’s
RESOLVE Program did not prohibit the Claimants in Jock from
bringing their claims together in a class action in arbitration. The
Arbitrator’s decision permitting the claimants to seek class
certification of their discrimination claims is linked here: Arbitrator’s June 1, 2009 Clause Construction
On July 1, 2011, the U.S.
Court of Appeals in New York upheld the Claimants’ right to seek
class certification in the arbitration.
Prior to filing the demand for arbitration, at
least fifteen current or former female employees of Sterling filed
charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”). On January 3, 2008, the EEOC issued a
Determination finding that Sterling subjected them and other female
employees working at its stores in this country who have retail
sales responsibilities to a pattern or practice of sex
discrimination by paying women less than men doing the same work and
denying women the same chance for promotion into salaried jobs. On
September 23, 2008, the EEOC filed its own lawsuit against Sterling
alleging a pattern or practice of gender discrimination in its pay
and promotion decisions very similar to the case pending in
arbitration. The EEOC’s case is pending in federal court in
Buffalo, New York. The EEOC’s Determination and Complaint can be
viewed by selecting these links: EEOC’s Determination and EEOC’s Complaint.
Publix Super Market Employees Sue for Equal Job
The attorneys at Burr & Smith, L.L.P. have
extensive experience litigating cases involving
gender discrimination. For instance, Shores v.
Publix Supermarkets, Burr & Smith, L.L.P.
and co-counsel, obtained certification for more
than 160,000 female current and former employees
of Publix Super Markets to sue as a class for
discrimination in various job benefits, including
promotions, allocation of hours, job assignments,
job advancement, pay and employment opportunities.
In 1997, the Court approved a settlement awarding
these women $81.5 million in monetary relief and
extensive injunctive relief.
hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that
should not be based solely upon advertisements.
Before you decide, ask us to send you free written
information about our qualifications and experience.
We will also provide you on request with additional
information on any other statements contained
in this website.