{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:57-f-4th-426", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:57-f-4th-426)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-17", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:e7344b", "proof": "sha256:cd457ad40bf938b2c17bc4b277a11a2859c95a53d26b8dac68261ed4d3124659", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:57-f-4th-426", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "PUBLISHED", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "No. 21-1848", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "ELIZABETH POLAK, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated,", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "Plaintiff - Appellant,", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "and", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "DEBRA TRENT; NICOLE TILLEY; LYNNE E. SMITH; CASSAUNDRA M.", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "PORTER; LEANN K. MORAN, individually and on behalf of persons similarly", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "situated; VALERIE MCGEE; SARAH T. LONG; LAUREN LINVILLE; SHERYL", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "A. KATTAN, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated; ROBINA F.", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "JORDAN; REBECCA SUE HINES; KAREN HALEY-WINGATE; MARYBETH", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "M. GLASER; CASSANDRA FRYSINGER; HEATHER Z. EVANS; JUNE R.", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "ERWIN; LISA A. ELLIS; PAMELA DERK; D. LAURA CORL; ROSALIND A.", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "CHAPLIN; BRENDA L. BROWN; BETSY K. BOWLES; SHARON ALLEN; JOY", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "D. ABEL; ELIZABETH C. ABE, individually and on behalf of persons similarly", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "situated,", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs,", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "Defendant - Appellee,", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "and", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "VDHRM/COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Party-in-Interest.", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 21-1848 Doc: 39 Filed: 01/17/2023 Pg: 1 of 10", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at", "paragraph_id": "para_28", "court_paragraph": 2 }, { "text": "Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:20-cv-00270-JAG)", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "Argued: October 26, 2022 Decided: January 17, 2023", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge Diaz", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "and Judge Rushing joined.", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "ARGUED: Tim Schulte, SHELLEY CUPP SCHULTE, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "Appellant. Brian Garth Muse, SANDS ANDERSON, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "Appellee. ON BRIEF: Sydney E. Rab, SYDNEY E. RAB LAW FIRM, Richmond,", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "Virginia; Timothy E. Cupp, SHELLEY CUPP SCHULTE, P.C., Harrisonburg, Virginia,", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "for Appellant. Michelle S. Kallen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Wade T. Anderson, SANDS ANDERSON, PC,", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 21-1848 Doc: 39 Filed: 01/17/2023 Pg: 2 of 10", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "3", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:", "paragraph_id": "para_43", "court_paragraph": 3 }, { "text": "Elizabeth Polak, a longtime employee of the Virginia Department of Environmental", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "Quality (“DEQ”), commenced this action against DEQ, claiming that it paid her less than", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "it paid a male employee with the same position doing equal work, in violation of the Equal", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "Pay Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "The district court entered summary judgment against Polak, concluding that she", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "lacked evidence to demonstrate that any higher-paid male employee was doing work", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "“virtually identical” to the work she was doing. Indeed, the court explained that the record", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "showed that the male employee whom Polak had identified as a comparator was doing", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "different and more complex work than she was, such that she could not show that she was", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "paid less for equal work.", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "Based on a careful review of the summary judgment record, we agree with the", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "district court and affirm.", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "I", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "For ten years, Elizabeth Polak was employed by DEQ as a “coastal planner,”", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "executing federally funded Virginia programs for coastal management. The federal funds", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "were provided through specific grants that had to be applied for each year, and Polak’s role", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "involved managing some of those grants.", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "Polak was hired in May 2009 and served on a team of six members, one of whom", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "was the Program Manager, Laura McKay. Polak was hired at a starting salary of $43,000,", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "which was a substantial increase over her former job but was near the bottom of the salary", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 21-1848 Doc: 39 Filed: 01/17/2023 Pg: 3 of 10", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "4", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "“pay band” for which her position qualified. Her pay, however, did increase over the years", "paragraph_id": "para_66", "court_paragraph": 4 }, { "text": "such that she was paid $56,325 when she ended her employment with DEQ in 2019.", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "During her tenure at DEQ, Polak worked closely with Henry Moon, another coastal", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "planner on the team, who had been working at DEQ since 2002. Although Polak believed", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "that she and Moon had the same position and that they were doing essentially the same", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "work, Moon was paid more. At the time Polak left DEQ, Moon was paid $69,000 per year.", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "Polak and three other women commenced this action in April 2020 against DEQ,", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "alleging that it had been paying them, as well as other female employees, “lower wages", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "than those paid to their male colleagues for performing equal work,” in violation of the", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(d)(1) and 215(a)(2). Although Polak originally", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "brought her claim not only on her own behalf but also on behalf of a class of others similarly", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "situated, the class claims and other plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed without prejudice,", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "leaving only Polak’s individual claim in the case. Polak requested injunctive relief, as well", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "as damages consisting of back pay, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a loss of", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "value under her retirement program.", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "After discovery, DEQ filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Polak, in", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "identifying Moon as a comparator, had “failed to identify an appropriate comparator", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "performing substantially equal work, as required under the Equal Pay Act,” and that, in any", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "event, “the salary differences between [Polak] and [Moon] [were] readily explained by", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "‘factors other than sex,’ specifically their respective prior pay histories.”", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "In an order dated July 7, 2021, the district court granted DEQ’s motion, relying", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "solely on the ground that Moon, the comparator Polak had identified, was not “a proper", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 21-1848 Doc: 39 Filed: 01/17/2023 Pg: 4 of 10", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "5", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "comparator” for purposes of establishing a claim under the Equal Pay Act. The court", "paragraph_id": "para_90", "court_paragraph": 5 }, { "text": "acknowledged that “Polak and Moon both worked as coastal planners at DEQ’s central", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "office” but concluded that “the undisputed evidence show[ed] that they [did] not ‘have", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "virtually identical jobs.’” The court explained that a plaintiff in Polak’s position could,", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "with sufficient evidence, “establish that she and a purported comparator had substantially", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "similar jobs even though they did different tasks on different grants for different", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "stakeholders,” but it noted that Polak had failed to “cite evidence to establish that [kind of]", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "similarity” and had instead relied on only “general assertions” “at a high level of", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "abstraction.” In short, the court concluded that “Polak [did not] establish a prima facie . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "claim [under the Equal Pay Act] because” a jury could not find that Moon was an adequate", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "comparator.", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "From the district court’s judgment, Polak filed this appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "II", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "Polak contends essentially that she presented evidence — relying mostly on her own", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "declaration — that created a question of fact for a jury as to whether Henry Moon was an", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "adequate comparator for her claim under the Equal Pay Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "The Equal Pay Act prohibits an employer from “discriminat[ing] . . . between", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees . . . at a rate less than the rate", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "at which [it] pays wages to employees of the opposite sex . . . for equal work on jobs the", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "performed under similar working conditions.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) (emphasis added).", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 21-1848 Doc: 39 Filed: 01/17/2023 Pg: 5 of 10", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "6", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "An exception is provided, however, “where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a", "paragraph_id": "para_113", "court_paragraph": 6 }, { "text": "seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "The Act, in short, “prohibits gender-based discrimination by employers resulting in", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "unequal pay for equal work.” EEOC v. Md. Ins. Admin., 879 F.3d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 2018).", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "To establish an Equal Pay Act claim, the plaintiff “must make an initial (i.e., prima", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "facie) showing of three elements: (1) the [employer] paid higher wages to an employee of", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "the opposite sex who (2) performed equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "responsibility (3) under similar working conditions.” Spencer v. Va. State Univ., 919 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "199, 203 (4th Cir. 2019). “This initial showing permits an inference that a pay disparity", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "was based on sex discrimination,” an “inference [that] stands even without the support of", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "any evidence of discriminatory intent.” Id. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case,", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "“the burdens of production and persuasion shift to the defendant-employer to show that the", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "wage differential was justified by one of the statutory defenses,” and if it fails to establish", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "such an affirmative defense, “the plaintiff will prevail.” Evans v. Int’l Paper Co., 936 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "183, 196 n.6 (4th Cir. 2019).", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "This appeal focuses on the second element of a prima facie case — i.e., the", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "requirement that Polak establish that she and Moon, her proffered comparator, performed", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "“equal work” on jobs requiring “equal skill, effort, and responsibility.” We have stressed", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "with respect to that element that “[e]quality under the Act is a demanding threshold", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "requirement.” Spencer, 919 F.3d at 203. “Similarity of work is not enough”; instead, the", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "proffered “comparator [needs] to have performed work ‘virtually identical’ (or the apparent", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 21-1848 Doc: 39 Filed: 01/17/2023 Pg: 6 of 10", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "7", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "synonym, ‘substantially equal’) to the plaintiff’s in skill, effort, and responsibility.” Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_137", "court_paragraph": 7 }, { "text": "203–04 (emphasis added); see also Evans, 936 F.3d at 196 (noting that the plaintiff and her", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "comparator “must have virtually identical jobs”); Wheatley v. Wicomico Cnty., 390 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "328, 333 (4th Cir. 2004) (“In enacting the [Equal Pay Act], Congress chose the word", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "‘equal’ over the word ‘comparable’ in order to show that the jobs involved should be", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "virtually identical, that is very much alike or closely related to each other” (emphasis", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "added) (cleaned up)).", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "Thus, to establish equality of work, it is “[g]enerally . . . not enough to simply show", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "that the comparator[] hold[s] the same title and the same general responsibility as the", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "plaintiff.” Evans, 936 F.3d at 196. Stated otherwise, “a plaintiff may not rely on broad", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "generalizations at a high level of abstraction.” Spencer, 919 F.3d at 204; see also Wheatley,", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "390 F.3d at 332–33 (rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the managers of a county’s", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "eleven different departments all performed equal work and explaining that while, “at a high", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "level of abstraction[,] these positions all require[d] [department] directors to do the same", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "thing — supervise, coordinate, and organize” — “the [Act] demands more than a", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "comparison of job functions from a bird’s eye view”). And this requirement to rely on", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "“more than broad generalities” has particular resonance in an employment context “where", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "the work is an exercise in intellectual creativity that can be judged only according to", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "intricate, field-specific, and often subjective criteria.” Spencer, 919 F.3d at 205.", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "The record in this case shows that Moon and Polak were both coastal planners who", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "were members of the team supervised by McKay, the Program Manager, and that they", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "worked closely together and collaborated on issues of planning, grant progress, and", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 21-1848 Doc: 39 Filed: 01/17/2023 Pg: 7 of 10", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "8", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "program performance. Thus, the general description of their work was similar. Even so,", "paragraph_id": "para_161", "court_paragraph": 8 }, { "text": "the record also showed that they had many different responsibilities involving different", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "projects and grant recipients. In particular, Program Manager McKay testified that Moon", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "had expertise in coastal hazards, sea level rise, and shoreline erosion and that Polak did not", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "have the same “kind of background or experience” in those topics. Based on his expertise,", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "Moon was responsible for “facilitating implementation of the . . . Section 309 Coastal", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "Hazards Strategy, including annual grants and projects of special merit.” McKay testified", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "that Polak was “not qualified” to perform that responsibility. Another duty that Moon", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "performed that Polak did not was “assisting in developing and submitting new narrative", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "enforceable policies and managing grants to the William & Mary . . . Coastal Policy Center", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "to assist in this effort.” Moon was also solely responsible for “represent[ing] Virginia on", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "the [Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean] Climate Change Action Team.” And", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "he similarly had “responsibilities for managing aspects of the [Coastal Zone Management]", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "program related to the National Estuarine Research Reserve System,” which Polak did not", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "do. Finally, Moon helped organize “a marsh vulnerability assessment and adaptation", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "strategy summit,” for which Polak had no responsibilities.", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "The record shows similarly that Polak carried out duties that Moon did not have.", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "She managed certain grants to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "and helped “implement the Section 309 Cumulative and Secondary Impacts strategies.”", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "She also organized a statewide Working Waterfronts Summit that “resulted in development", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "of the first Working Waterfronts Plan in Virginia.”", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 21-1848 Doc: 39 Filed: 01/17/2023 Pg: 8 of 10", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "9", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "Based on her understanding of what Moon did, Polak stated in her declaration that", "paragraph_id": "para_184", "court_paragraph": 9 }, { "text": "she and Moon filled “complementary” roles while having “equal” duties and “essentially", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "the same job.” But Polak could not have full comparative knowledge of both Moon’s job", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "and hers, as they each performed their work simultaneously in different contexts and on", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "distinct projects to which each were assigned. She did acknowledge, however, that McKay,", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "who was her “direct supervisor and boss at DEQ,” “controlled the work performed by Mr.", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "Moon and controlled the work that [Polak] performed.” Polak thus implicitly", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "acknowledged that McKay’s knowledge of the similarities and differences between the", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "jobs performed by Moon and Polak was unique. And McKay’s superior perspective", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "therefore was also critical to the resolution of Polak’s claim under the Equal Pay Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "In her declaration, Program Manager McKay testified to the jobs and relevant", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "responsibilities of both Moon and Polak, noting that because of his background and", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "experience, Moon was doing different and more complex assignments than those given to", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "Polak. McKay stated, “Moon had more experience than Polak with respect to coastal", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "planning policymaking and the updating of enforceable policies of the [Coastal Zone", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "Management] [p]rogram. . . . Because he had more experience, Moon worked on more", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "challenging issues related to the [Coastal Zone Management] program than Polak and", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "handled more difficult and complex grant application assignments.” (Emphasis added).", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "McKay also listed numerous tasks that Moon but not Polak was assigned to perform.", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "Because Polak did not have the same vantage point as McKay, Polak could not", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "assess the differences in Moon’s work to which McKay testified, nor could she assess the", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "relative complexity of his work. Thus, she did not — indeed, could not — rebut McKay’s", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 21-1848 Doc: 39 Filed: 01/17/2023 Pg: 9 of 10", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "10", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "testimony. Rather, Polak relied on her own more limited perspective, giving her opinion", "paragraph_id": "para_208", "court_paragraph": 10 }, { "text": "that the roles she and Moon filled “were complementary and [their] duties equal” and that", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "she and Moon had “essentially the same job.” But even with that very general conclusion,", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "she could not dispute McKay’s testimony that Moon not only did different work but he also", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "“worked on more challenging issues” and “handled more difficult and complex grant", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "application assignments” than did Polak.", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "Based on that record, the district court did not err in concluding that Polak could not", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "establish that she and Moon performed “equal work.” To be sure, Polak and Moon", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "performed similar work. But the differences in the actual work performed and the level of", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "complexity involved were significant enough that their work cannot be fairly described as", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "“substantially equal” or “virtually identical,” as required to establish a claim under the", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "Equal Pay Act. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "judgment to DEQ.", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "AFFIRMED", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 21-1848 Doc: 39 Filed: 01/17/2023 Pg: 10 of 10", "paragraph_id": "para_222" } ], "word_count": 2505, "cites": [ "879 F.3d 114", "919 F.3d\n199", "936 F.3d\n183", "390 F.3d\n328" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "efe088c10593ddc8fb37fe9b7b0b7d63f8ab7fa7227b28728f984e7cd1f4f8d2", "source_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca4-21-01848/pdf/USCOURTS-ca4-21-01848-0.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-02T06:02:44.401+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/57-f-4th-426", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:57-f-4th-426", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:57-f-4th-426", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:57-f-4th-426" }, "hash": "sha256:cd457ad40bf938b2c17bc4b277a11a2859c95a53d26b8dac68261ed4d3124659", "version": "legal-2026-10-17", "expires": "2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T03:17:04", "content_hash": "sha256:cd457ad40bf938b2c17bc4b277a11a2859c95a53d26b8dac68261ed4d3124659", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-17T07:41:00.849Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:57-f-4th-426", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:57-f-4th-426" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:57-f-4th-426" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:57-f-4th-426" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }