As frustrasting as it is I would really like some help to see if i am in a dead-end situation or not. Female, and have been with this company for almost 4yrs. Over a year ago my company bought out another company. Our company closed most of the old locations and eventually left a small number of branches open to add as another location for our company (of course that includes changing the layout, business procedures and operations to our companys operations). I put in a request to transfer to this location in being that there would be a need to train new team members regarding department procedures and hoping my chances of becoming a Mgr (salary position) would be noticed.

Anyway upon transferring i found out someone else was given the position. Apparently it was an employee that worked for the company, less than a year, before we bought it. And of course he had the slightest idea what his position was so i was given the nudge to train him on the procedures. As nice as i was, i basically ran his department for 3 months (operations-wise) while he mingled with a diff dept (a dept he said he preferred to manage). After 3 months, he was offered a step-up and was promoted to another position at a diff location. I was then offered his postion and gladly said yes however the pay was not what i had expected. I actually knew what the previous mgr was paid and was shocked to find that i would be paid $5,000 less than him even when he had no knowledge of his job duties. The excuse by upper management for the diff in pay and how easy it was for the previous mgr to be paid the way he was, was that he was a 'manager-in-training' for the old company and the only pay increase he received for the position i hold was $2000 but because i was moving from hourly to salary my pay difference would've been a larger amount. C'mon i was nearly paid minimum wage working hourly in San Francisco. I eventually concluded and i really wanted the learning experience and said yes to the offer. Months down the road an upper-mgmt position was eliminated in our location after the departure of another manager and so i was promoted again (same position, the previous mgr that transferred, is holding now). Well, again, i was assuming the promotion would come with another bump in pay, at least something noticeable but it did not. Beginning of this year the annual increase of 1% for all salary managers took effect which were to correspond with the annual reviews. And i did receive mine. The new mgmt position was offered to me the following month and i accepted with the assumption that my manager would put in a salary increase for my new position (he procratinates terribly). I noticed 2 months into my position my pay had changed a small bit, and so i back-tracked and calculated what the annual review should've gotten me to and the small change in pay was. The promotion increase was $600, another shock :mad: . I brought this to my mgrs attention and eventually found out the salary he assured me and i accepted was denied by Regional and the pay was decreased a substantial amount without my knowledge.

I spoke to the HR Director and she did mention she'll look into the situation. It has been 2 months and i've yet to receive a response. I just emailed her recently because i completely forgot about this, but seriously this has become a nuisance that now i don't think i would really like to continue working for a company that doesn't take its employees/managers serious let alone pay fairly.

Does anyone know if they did this legally? I felt i was treated unfairly but i would really like to know if it falls on legal terms.

Appreciate any help i get.
Thanks.

Why do you think being female had anything to do with this? I assume you think there is a connection, since you put in the beginning that you are female, but you didn't put WHY you see a connection. Please explain that part.

Why do you think being female had anything to do with this? I assume you think there is a connection, since you put in the beginning that you are female, but you didn't put WHY you see a connection. Please explain that part.


Thanks for replying.

Actually i don't know if it there is a connection. I'm not one to cry foul but I wanted to see what others thought of my situation with a different perspective. I only felt with my experience and tenure at the company, it could've at least given me a fair advantage over the previous mgr and prob help with negotiating a reasonable salary. Kinda felt cheated. I told my manager how it was possible for him to pay a higher salary to the previous mgr, who had no experience at all, and why i was not able to get the same or if not better because of my background in the company. His reply was that he received a memo from our district mgr regarding salary increases, get this, the very week i was offer the position which limited the increases he can give out. First he guarantees i will be paid around the same amount as the previous mgr if not better then he says his hands are tied he could only go up to a certain percentage. Just my luck.

Are salaries suppose to be competitive if not fair?

If it seems like i'm being a little too sensitive then i'll ease up.

Thanks for hearing me out.

No, salaries are not supposed to be competitive or fair. Most companies, especially smaller companies, will pay what they think is the minimum necessary to keep you at the job.

There is always an alternative- finding a better paying job elsewhere.

Again much thanks. I deserve better and i am at the moment looking for a job that is both challenging and rewarding.

Btw, thank you for the quick response. I wasn't expecting to have anyone reply within the week.

Appreciate the feedback.

Just wanted to let you know that the excuse you were given about Regional mandating the size of the raises is not that unusual. I've worked for a nationwide company for a number of years and they have established guidelines for the percentage of allowed raises: 2-4% unless you're relo-ing with a promotion, then you cap out at 8%. Moving from the east coast to the west coast with only an 8% cap is virutally impossible. But for same location raises my company has a certain allottment of their budget set aside for raises, and they have to make it work. That can shortchange employees at times, so rest assured you're not alone.

It seems that each time you were promoted or moved into another position, it was previously held by a male. Under the Equal Pay Act, if you are doing the same work that was previously done by a male, or less pay, then it could very well be discrimination. Based Upon what I have read, it seems that is what you have encountered.

It seems that each time you were promoted or moved into another position, it was previously held by a male. Under the Equal Pay Act, if you are doing the same work that was previously done by a male, or less pay, then it could very well be discrimination. Based Upon what I have read, it seems that is what you have encountered.


The problem with the Equal Pay Act is that the situations have to be almost completely identical. You have to have the exact same education, experience, tenure with the company, performance reviews, etc. before you can prove that your gender caused the pay difference.

And to use other discrimination laws, there needs to be something you can point to as the reason why you think your gender made the difference.

The problem with the Equal Pay Act is that the situations have to be almost completely identical. You have to have the exact same education, experience, tenure with the company, performance reviews, etc. before you can prove that your gender caused the pay difference. That's not exactly true. The Equal Pay Act states that "employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment. . . Pay differentials are permitted when they are based on seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production, or a factor other than sex. These are known as "affirmative defenses" and it is the employer's burden to prove that they apply." See http://www.eeoc.gov/types/epa.html

However, notwithstanding that, it's usually easier to address gender wage discrimination under Title VII. You should consult with EEOC or your state human right's agency for further information. If EEOC agrees to process your matter, it will do so under both Title VII and the EPA.

We will have to agree to disagree. In my experience in representing employees, EPA claims just don't suceed. I haven't seen much case law that comes down on the employee's side for EPA claims, either. California's discrimination laws are so liberal that using federal law is very rarely a good idea anyway.

I do not recommend filing with the EEOC. If you feel you are being discriminated against, I recommend the DFEH, which enforces California law. The EEOC gives "right-to-sue" letters that give you only 90 days to file a lawsuit, while the DFEH gives you a year from the date of their "right-to-sue."

I filed a complaint under the equal pay act and was successful in doing so. I don't have a degree and the person that I filed against had a Masters. He was not qualified and wanted me to continue doing the job, he was just the overseerer. That didn't fly with me, because he received a sustantial raise to do something he was relying on me to continue.

If the job did not change, in that they removed some of the duties of the previous person, then it doesn't matter what their education or seniority has to do with it. I have also used EEOC and they have an awful lot of cases. Even though they give you 90 days in which to file a suit, it will probably be about a year or more before you actually go to court. You can file the suit yourself, without a lawyer. However, you should have a lawyer to go into court with you. In fact, the court won't let you come in without one and will, in some situations, assign a lawyer to you.

I am glad to hear you were sucessful.

The deadline insn't when you go to trial, it is when you have to file a complaint in court. While you can file a complaint without an attorney, I don't recommend it, and it is much easier to get an attorney without a deadline looming quickly.

I agree that the deadline is when you have to file, not when you go to court. Apologies if that wasn't clear in my response. What I have found is that most people don't go through with their complaints because they can't afford lawyers. Although they get the legal fees back, if they pervail, they just don't have the upfront fees, which increases each time you go to another step (from experience). I wouldn't recommend that anyone not file because they can't afford a lawyer. You just can't find one that does pro bono. At least, not in a discrimination case. There is a class action filed at one of the Federal agencies and the fees are extremely high.

By the way, the site is very interesting and I appreciate and enjoy the messages and responses. I appreciate your responses.

Tcite

There is so much information here that will truly benefit anyone in my position. This is a sobering learning experience. Just the thought of being able to file suit is sobering enough though you pretty much have to weigh your options whether its worth it to continue with the suit or to drop it and walk away.

I wouldn't mind putting regional in an uncomfortable position once i mention EEOC to them. Ah well, im looking forward to a brighter future elsewhere, hehe, their competition :cool: . No wonder the turnover is terrible.

I am contemplating writing a letter and submitting my 2 weeks to the Director of HR, with copies to the Regional Manager, asking her if she noticed any resemblence in my case and the EEOC. Boy would i like to hear her stutter. We'll see how far i'll take this.

Much thanks.
Minx