Skip to main content

This Bud's Not For You: Former Anheuser-Busch Female Executive's Sex Discrimination Suit Fails


Francine Katz, a former executive at Anheuser-Busch, brought suit in 2009 and alleged that she was sexually discriminated against by the company.  Katz claimed that she was paid significantly less than her male counterpart who held the position before her.  After being promoted to vice president of communication and consumer affairs, Katz earned approximately $1 million annually.  However, she claimed that her male counterpart who held the position before her earned around $5 million annually.  Katz further alleged that she was not invited to meetings with company executives, was excluded from golf outings, and on occasion, was not invited to fly on the company's jet with other executives.  In essence, Katz attempted to show that the "good 'ol boy" network excluded her based solely upon her being female.

Anheuser-Busch argued that Katz's compensation compared favorably to other executives in similar positions at other companies and that Katz's predecessor had a larger role than she did in the position.  One of the company's attorneys argued in his closing argument that Katz had been paid well for her position.  

After an approximately three week trial in which Katz testified in her defense and Anheuser-Busch executives took the stand to counter her claims, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Anheuser-Busch and held that Katz had failed to prove her sexual discrimination case.  After the jury returned its verdict, the foreman stated that there was not enough evidence for Katz to establish that the determining factor in the difference in pay was on the basis of sex.  This might have been a case where the jury found that while there was some evidence of sexual discrimination...there was just not enough to establish that Katz's sex was the determining factor in her alleged discrimination.

Thanks to the Fox affiliate in St. Louis for additional information on the topic:  http://fox2now.com/2014/05/16/lawyers-debate-with-judge-over-jury-requests-in-ab-trial/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more