No. 21-3465 ___________________________

Tamara O’Reilly

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Daugherty Systems, Inc.

Defendant - Appellee

------------------------------

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Amicus on Behalf of Appellant(s) ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: September 21, 2022 Filed: March 29, 2023 ____________ Before GRUENDER, MELLOY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ ERICKSON, Circuit Judge. Tamara O’Reilly appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment on her claim under the Equal Pay Act. The district court 1 granted summary judgment in favor of Daugherty Systems, Inc. (“Daugherty”) on the basis that O’Reilly had failed to establish a prima facie case because almost all her alleged comparators were either paid less than she was or did not perform equal work. Because the pay disparity was justified by a legitimate factor other than sex, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND

In March 2014, O’Reilly began working at Daugherty as a Senior Manager with a starting base salary of $135,000. During the next three years, she received several promotions, ultimately serving as a Director/Client Partner with a base salary of $200,000. In May 2017, John Wirth, the Acting Managing Director of Daugherty’s St. Louis branch, hired Drew Davis as a new Director/Client Partner working with a company client, Centene Corporation, with a base salary of $275,000. Approximately six months after Davis was hired, O’Reilly resigned and subsequently commenced this collective action alleging wage discrimination under the Equal Pay Act.

In a deposition, Wirth offered an explanation as to why Davis was brought on board with a higher salary than O’Reilly, testifying that Daugherty was “investing in her” while Davis brought a broad experience to the firm that O’Reilly lacked. O’Reilly acknowledges that she had no prior experience as a client partner, but contends she possessed valuable skills that Davis did not. As an example, O’Reilly contends that she was able to perform billable client service delivery of Daugherty’s consulting services and solutions, which Davis was not able to perform. Wirth explained that while O’Reilly’s base salary was $200,000, she had an incentive compensation guideline plan of $100,000, which was $45,000 more than Davis’s plan. Additionally, O’Reilly was paid overtime while Davis was not. O’Reilly’s

1 The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, then United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, now Chief Judge. -2- discovery responses revealed that she received $75,000 in incentive compensation for 2017 and $51,526 in overtime. She also asserted that Davis received a $20,000 sign-on bonus and a quarterly bonus of $40,000 during 2017, although she was unsure if this was the only incentive compensation he received.

The district court entered two separate orders in this case. The first order decertified the collective action while the second one granted Daugherty’s motion for summary judgment. In granting the motion for summary judgment, the district court ruled that O’Reilly failed to make a prima facie case for discrimination under the Equal Pay Act because she had only identified one comparable male employee who was paid more than she was and acknowledged that ten male Daugherty employees were paid less or had not performed equal work. O’Reilly timely appealed