Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marzano v. Southern New England Telephone Co.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

September 10, 2018

LEIGH ANN MARZANO, Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE COMPANY, d/b/a FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF CONNECTICUT, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          JEFFREY ALKER MEYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Leigh Ann Marzano has filed this action against defendant Southern New England Telephone Company (SNET) alleging that she was unlawfully paid less than men who held the same job that she did as a construction supervisor. SNET now moves for summary judgment. I will grant the motion as to Marzano's gender discrimination claims but deny it as to her claim for a violation of the Equal Pay Act.

         Background

         The following facts are set forth in the light most favorable to Marzano as the non-moving party. Marzano began working for SNET in 1988 as a general office associate. Marzano did not have a technical background, and over the next two decades she held a variety of administrative jobs for SNET. In 2008, she became a Project Manager at SNET. This new role involved working on a battery project and included duties such as ordering batteries, scheduling replacements of batteries, and supervising the work of technicians related to the battery project.

         Marzano was promoted in 2009 to the position of Construction Supervisor within the Digital Electronics Group of SNET's Construction and Engineering Organization. She continued to serve in that position through November 2016 and the filing of this lawsuit.

         Marzano was promoted to the Construction Supervisor position by her manager, Michael Imbriglio, who first approached her directly about the position and told her that there would be no salary increase if she accepted the new position. Promotion to a management position ordinarily entailed a 10% salary increase, but Marzano was told that this was not possible because of budget concerns.

         Marzano was one of several Construction Supervisors, all of whom were men except for one woman who left SNET in 2014. Marzano had the same job responsibilities as her peers, and she received strong performance reviews.

         As a Construction Supervisor, Marzano supervised between 10 and 18 technicians at any given time. The job description for the Construction Supervisor position stated a preference for a technical degree, as well as three to five years of network-related technical experience, which Marzano did not have. Although the parties dispute the extent to which Marzano had any prior technical job experience, they do not dispute that all of Marzano's peers at the Construction Supervisor position had at least as much technical experience as she did.

         SNET had union and non-union employees, and the Construction Supervisor position was not a union bargaining unit position. Coming into the new position, Marzano's salary was not as high as it might have been had she been previously employed as a bargaining unit employee. By contrast, all but one of Marzano's peers at the Construction Supervisor position were promoted to this position from more well-paying bargaining unit positions at SNET, and their starting salaries as Construction Supervisors took into account the level of their prior salary.

         When Marzano started as a Construction Supervisor in 2009, she was the lowest paid among her all-male peers. Her salary then was $52, 607, compared to a range of between $76, 361 and $82, 344 that was paid to her four male peers.

         Over the years from 2009 to 2016, Marzano received numerous salary increases. Her base salary increased 60% during that term, more than any other Construction Supervisor. In 2016, her salary was $84, 301, which was still lower than all but one of her five male peers serving as Construction Supervisors. Four of her all-male peers earned between $84, 897 and $98, 479 in 2016.

         During the years that Marzano worked as a Construction Supervisor, there was only one other female Construction Supervisor. This female peer worked from 2010 to 2014, and she was paid a higher salary than Marzano, ranging from between $83, 124 and $88, 955. This female peer's salary was not only higher than Marzano's but higher than most of their male peers who worked as Construction Supervisors.

         Marzano complained about her salary as early as 2009 or 2010. Marzano was told by Imbriglio that it was a “dead-end situation” and that she would need to be rated far ahead of her peers to justify a higher salary. Marzano was not told that her salary was less than her peers because of her prior non-bargaining unit position or because of her prior lack of technical or other educational experience.

         Marzano filed this lawsuit in July 2016. Count One of the complaint alleges a claim for gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Count Two alleges a claim for gender discrimination in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60(a)(1). Count Three alleges a claim under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206. Although the complaint alleges that Marzano was subject to numerous forms of discrimination, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.