Mundell v. Acadia Hosp. Corp.

92 F.4th 1

Clare E. MUNDELL, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. ACADIA HOSPITAL CORP., Defendant, Appellant, Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems, Defendant.

No. 22-1394

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

February 1, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Lance E. Walker, U.S. District Judge]

Melissa A. Hewey, with whom Kasia S. Park and Drummond Woodsum were on brief, for appellant Acadia Hospital.

Valerie Z. Wicks, with whom Borealis Law, PLLC, David G. Webbert, and Johnson & Webbert, LLP were on brief, for appellee Clare E. Mundell.

Janna L. Gau, Kady S. Huff, and Eaton Peabody on brief for the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, amicus curiae.

Carol J. Garvan, Zachary L. Heiden, Anahita Sotoohi, ACLU of Maine Foundation, Gillian Thomas, ACLU Foundation Women's Rights Project, Sunu Chandy, and National Women's Law Center on brief for the American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, and National Women's Law Center, amici curiae.

Before Barron, Chief Judge, Lipez and Montecalvo, Circuit Judges.

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge.

Paid half the rate earned by her male colleagues for comparable work as psychologists, appellee Clare Mundell brought this sex discrimination action against her former employer, Acadia Hospital ("Acadia"), under federal and state law.¹ Ruling on Mundell's summary judgment motion, the district court found Acadia liable under the Maine Equal Pay Law ("MEPL"), Me. Stat. tit. 26, § 628, and awarded Mundell treble damages, see id. § 626-A. On appeal, Acadia claims the district court erred in holding Mundell could prevail as a matter of law on her MEPL claim because Mundell did not establish Acadia's discriminatory intent and because Acadia asserted a viable reasonable-factor-other-than-sex affirmative defense to explain the pay differential between Mundell and her male colleagues. The hospital further asserts that treble damages are not available for violations of the MEPL.

This case raises complex issues involving the construction of Maine law. Acadia moved, both in the district court and on appeal, for certification of a two-part question to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (the "Law Court"),² the answer to which depends on whether discriminatory animus -- i.e., an intent to discriminate -- is a required element of a MEPL claim.³ Like the district court, however, we conclude that certification is unnecessary. We also agree with the district court's construction of the relevant Maine statutes. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and award of damages for Mundell.

I.

The facts relevant to the issues before us are undisputed. Mundell is a licensed clinical psychologist who, for two and a half years beginning in 2017, was employed by Acadia, a nonprofit hospital in Bangor, Maine. Acadia employed a "pool" of five psychologists during this time, comprising two men and three women. Acadia paid the two male psychologists at a rate of $95 and $90 per hour, respectively, but paid the female pool psychologists around $50 per hour.

During a conversation with a fellow pool psychologist, Mundell learned that her male colleagues were paid more than her. Subsequently, she learned about other pay disparities between men and women in other jobs at Acadia. Believing the pay discrepancy between herself and her colleagues to be sex-based, she brought it to the attention of management. Around this time, Acadia independently became aware of several sex pay disparities among hospital employees and began a process to standardize pay across sexes. After a series of conversations between Mundell and Acadia in which the parties attempted to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution, Mundell informed Acadia on March 6, 2020, that she would be resigning, citing the differential between her wage and that of her male counterparts. Although she told Acadia she would work for two weeks after submitting her resignation to transition her patients, Mundell was informed on March 9, 2020, that she should not return to work after finishing the day.

The parties agree that all the pool psychologists, including Mundell, possessed the same fundamental qualifications for the role: doctoral degrees and licenses to practice psychology in Maine, and comparable experience and skills in providing psychological services. Acadia also concedes that it did not pay its pool psychologists differently pursuant to any seniority system, difference in shift or time of day worked, or merit increase system. Instead, it says that a "'market-based' compensation structure" (hereinafter "market factors") explained any pay disparity between Mundell and her male colleagues.

Mundell filed an administrative complaint for state and federal sex discrimination and retaliation with the Maine Human Rights Commission, which also was cross-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After exhausting the administrative process, she filed the instant action in federal court. Mundell alleged that Acadia and Eastern Maine violated the MEPL by paying male and female employees different wages for "comparable work," Me. Stat. tit. 26, § 628; that Acadia and Eastern Maine's failure to provide equal pay amounted to sex discrimination in violation of the Maine Human Rights Act ("MHRA"), Me. Stat. tit. 5, § 4572(1)(A), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); and that Acadia and Eastern Maine committed unlawful retaliation by firing her after she complained of sex-based discrimination, in violation of Title VII, the MHRA, and the Maine Whistleblower Protection Act, Me. Stat. tit. 26, § 833(1)(A).

In September 2021, Mundell moved for partial summary judgment only on her MEPL claim against Acadia, asserting that the undisputed facts -- the acknowledged pay disparity for comparable work that Acadia admitted was not due to an established seniority system, merit pay system, or shift differences -- established Acadia's liability under the state's equal pay statute. In opposing the motion, Acadia argued that this showing was insufficient for Mundell to prevail as a matter of law because the statute also required a showing of intent to discriminate, or, alternatively, Acadia should be permitted to raise the affirmative defense that it relied on a reasonable factor other than sex (i.e., market factors) to set these wages. Mundell countered that any requirement to establish discriminatory intent for the unequal pay would read an intent requirement into the text of the MEPL when there is none, and that market factors did not constitute a valid affirmative defense under the MEPL. One day after the district court held oral argument on that motion, Acadia filed its Motion for Certification to the Law Court.

On February 8, 2022, the district court issued its decision addressing both the certification and partial summary judgment motions. The district court first held that certification to the Law Court was inappropriate because the plain language of the MEPL, the statute's legislative history, comparable statutes and precedent, and public policy all provided more than enough evidence of how the Law Court would likely resolve the issues of statutory interpretation raised by the parties. Mundell v. Acadia Hosp. Corp., 585 F.Supp.3d 86, 90-91 (D. Me. 2022). The district court then analyzed the MEPL's statutory language (viewing it as plain and unambiguous); applicable case law under the Federal Equal Pay Act ("FEPA"), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), and similar state statutes (viewing them as analogous); and the MEPL's legislative history (viewing it as instructive). See Mundell, 585 F.Supp.3d at 91-95.

The court concluded that this material compelled the following holdings: (1) the MEPL does not impose an intent requirement on a plaintiff, nor does it permit a defendant to rely on a catch-all affirmative defense (i.e., claiming that pay differences are based on "any reasonable differentiation except difference in sex") because the MEPL explicitly limits affirmative defenses to pay differentials based on seniority, merit, or differences in shift/time of day worked, id. at 92-94 (concluding that "the act of paying unequal wages for comparable work establishes discrimination on the basis of sex under the [MEPL]," and refusing to "will into existence by judicial fiat a catchall affirmative defense that does not exist in the text of the law"); and (2) those who violate the MEPL can be obligated to pay treble damages, id. at 99 (analyzing Me. Stat. tit. 26, § 626-A).

The parties then filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice of Mundell's Title VII and MHRA claims against Acadia as well as all of Mundell's claims against Eastern Maine. The district court entered a judgment of dismissal in accordance with the parties' stipulation. It also entered judgment against Acadia and in favor of Mundell for a violation of the MEPL and awarded Mundell $180,955.90 (the damages she requested in full). This judgment was a final judgment and disposed of all of Mundell's claims.

In addition to filing its appeal, Acadia asked us to certify to the Law Court the same question involving statutory construction it had raised before the district court. We denied the motion without prejudice to consider along with the merits of the appeal. Acadia also seeks review of the district court's grant of partial summary judgment, arguing that the court erred in its construction of Maine law by: (1) holding that a plaintiff need not show an intent to discriminate to succeed with a claim under the MEPL, and that, in so concluding, the court also incorrectly read the MEPL to have only limited affirmative defense categories; and (2) holding that treble damages are available for MEPL violations.

II.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo. Benson v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 14 F.4th 13, 17 (1st Cir. 2021). The interpretation of a statute or regulation, which presents a purely legal question, is likewise subject to de novo...