Tiffany Burnett, a former employee of AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, sued her employer alleging retaliation and violations of the Equal Pay Act after her employment was terminated in November 2019. The dispute arose following a company reorganization in 2019 that resulted in Burnett's team being dissolved. She was given 60 days to find a new position within the company and was subsequently terminated when she failed to do so. Burnett claimed the company retaliated against her for complaining about pay inequity and for barring her from finding another role. The district court granted AstraZeneca's motion for summary judgment, and Burnett appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
The Fourth Circuit applied de novo review, emphasizing that summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court first addressed the scope of the record, noting that Burnett's response to the summary judgment motion was untimely and had been struck by the district court; therefore, the appellate court could only consider the record accepted by the lower court. On the retaliation claim, the court outlined the three required elements: protected activity, materially adverse action, and a causal connection. The court found that while Burnett engaged in protected activity by emailing the general counsel about pay inequity, she failed to prove causation. The employer had a pre-existing plan to terminate her due to the reorganization, and the court cited Clark County School District v. Breeden to state that courts cannot presume retaliation when an employer follows a specific, pre-announced plan. Furthermore, regarding her claim that she was barred from finding another position, the court noted she received extra assistance compared to other displaced employees and offered no evidence that hiring managers knew of her complaint. On the Equal Pay Act claim, the court reiterated that plaintiffs must show their jobs are virtually identical to those of comparators in terms of skill, effort, and responsibility. Burnett's comparators worked in research and development, while she worked in the commercial division focusing on marketing. The court rejected her argument that evidence from 2016 was relevant, stating the question is whether she was paid less on account of sex during the statutory period, which she failed to demonstrate.
The decision affirms the district court's judgment, leaving Burnett without a remedy for her claims. It reinforces the strict evidentiary standard required for retaliation claims, particularly the necessity of proving a causal link that is not explained by a pre-existing employer plan. It also clarifies that Equal Pay Act comparators must have virtually identical job duties during the relevant statutory period, not just similar titles or duties from years prior. The ruling limits the scope of appellate review to the record accepted by the district court, warning litigants that untimely filings may be excluded from consideration.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download