10 Brinkley-Obu, 36 F.3d at 343 (“The equal work standard does not require that compared jobs be identical, only that they be substantially equal.”) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1620.13(a)); but see Wheatley v. Wicomico County, 390 F.3d 328, 332, 333 (4th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1032, 125 S.Ct. 2253, 161 L.Ed.2d 1058 (2005) ( “In interpreting the EPA, ‘equal means substantially equal.’

Case 5:15-cv-01913-LHK Document 56 Filed 10/15/15 Page 22 of 31 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION Case No. 5:15-CV-01913-LHK FOR EQUAL PAY ACT CONDITIONAL COLLECTIVE ACTION CERTIFICATION AND AUTHORIZATION OF NOTICE 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 showing that the jobs being compared are “substantially equal.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1620.13(a); see also Corning Glass Works, 417 U.S. at 203, n. 24 (noting that “it is now well settled that jobs need not be identical in every respect before the Equal Pay Act is applicable”). B. Procedurally, Equal Pay Act Cases Are Treated Like Fair Labor Standards Act Cases.

152:5-153:15, 156:4-19, 162:8-13) Regardless, job content, not title, is determinative of whether the positions are substantially equal. 29 C.F.R. § 1620.13(e); see also Brobst v. Columbus Serv. Int'l, 761 F.2d 148, 155 (3d Cir.1985) (central issue is job content, not title or job descriptions).

The “equal work” standard requires that jobs be “substantially equal,” not necessarily “identical.” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.13. When considering whether positions are “equal,” the “broad remedial purpose of the law must be taken into consideration.”

.............................24 Case 1:12-cv-05224-RA-MHD Document 38 Filed 04/29/13 Page 10 of 62 x 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e) ............................................................................................................41, 44 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) .....................................................................................................................26 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) ..........................................................................................................................6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)....................................................................................................................6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ...........................................................................................................................40 Other Authorities 29 C.F.R. § 1620.9 ...........................................................................................................................8 29 C.F.R. § 1620.13(e).....................................................................................................................8 29 C.F.R. § 1620.33(b) ..................................................................................................................11 EEOC Compl. Man. § 10–IV(E)(1) (2000) .....................................................................................8 EEOC Compl. Man. § 10–IV(E)(2) (2000) .....................................................................................8 Case 1:12-cv-05224-RA-MHD Document 38 Filed 04/29/13 Page 11 of 62 1 Defendants Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Forest Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants” or “Forest”) respectfully submit this memorandum of law, the accompanying Declaration of Gary D. Friedman, dated April 29, 2013 (the “Friedman Decl.”), and the exhibits attached thereto, in support of their motion, under Rules 12(b)(6) and 23(d)(1)(D) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss

It is well established that the equal work analysis is not dependent on job titles, but rather on actual job requirements and performance. 29 C.F.R. §1620.13(e) (“job titles are frequently of such a general nature as to provide very little guidance in determining the application of the equal pay standard”). That said, the larger problem for Plaintiff with this theory, of course, is that if the Court were to accept the proposition that all individuals with the same title were performing equal work, Plaintiff’s discriminatory wage claims would necessarily fail because at all times, there have been male associates in the lab with the same title as Plaintiff who were paid less than was she.