Skip to main content

U.S. Soccer Federation Moves For Summary Judgment in Equal Pay Case


At the end of February, the U.S. Soccer Federation moved for summary judgment in response to the equal pay case filed by about 50 players from the women's national soccer team.  (For those unaware of the legal proceedings, a motion for summary judgment is a pretrial matter that seeks to have judgment awarded to the claimant/s or have the case dismissed, which is what this motion seeks to do.)

Readers will likely recall that the lawsuit came about after the players claimed they were paid less than their male counterparts, on the unlawful basis of their gender.  After attempts to reach a settlement fell apart, litigation began to ramp up.  The filing of this motion for summary judgment is the next phase of this case inching closer to trial.

As for the U.S. Soccer Federation's motion itself, it is claimed that any alleged pay disparity between the male and female soccer players on the U.S. National Team is a result of the players' union.  The motion argues that during contract negotiations, the union put child care and salary guarantees ahead of potential bonus money.  The argument follows that because the players' union prioritized different matters, no valid equal pay claim exists because any pay disparity is a result of a negotiation and compromise during contract negotiations.

No response has yet been filed by the players, but I would expect one in the coming weeks.  While I question whether the motion for summary judgment would actually be granted, there might be some merit to the U.S. Soccer Federation's argument here, if true.


For a copy of the U.S. Soccer Federation's motion for summary judgment:  https://static.reuters.com/resources/media/editorial/20200224/morganvussoccer--soccerSJmotion.pdf

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