Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc., No. 16-1305 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs Dindinger, Loring, and Freund filed suit against Allsteel, alleging claims of sex-based wage discrimination under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(d); Dindinger and Loring also brought claims of sex-based wage discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code 216.6A, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e; and Loring additionally brought a claim of sex-based discrimination for failure to promote under Title VII. On appeal, Allsteel challenged the district court's denial of its motion for a new trial and grant of plaintiffs' motions for attorney's fees and costs. The court concluded that the district court correctly instructed the jury that Allsteel could not rely on economic conditions to establish its affirmative defense to the Equal Pay Act claim that a factor other than sex justified the pay discrepancies between plaintiffs and their male comparators; even if the court were to agree that economic conditions could be a factor other than sex justifying a pay differential in some circumstances, Allsteel did not present evidence to establish such a defense here; and because Allsteel did not present evidence that economic conditions caused the pay differentials plaintiffs experienced, the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury that Allsteel could not rely on economic conditions to establish an affirmative defense. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting "me-too" evidence; limiting Allsteel's ability to offer evidence regarding the audit; and by admitting testimony from Loring's supervisor. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in regard to attorney's fees, but remanded the issue of costs with instructions to determine whether charging clients separately for Westlaw research is the prevailing practice in Iowa. Accordingly, the court remanded as to this issue and affirmed in all other respects.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Loken and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. The district court did not err in instructing the jury that market forces are not a defense to an Equal Pay Act action or claim under Section 216.6A of the Iowa Civil Rights Act; even if economic conditions could be a factor "other than sex" justifying a pay differential in some circumstances, defendant did not present evidence to establish such a defense, and the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that defendant could not rely on economic conditions to establish an affirmative defense; the district court did not err in admitting "me-too" evidence showing defendant had discriminated against other female employees with respect to pay;the district court did not err in excluding the results of an audit of defendant's pay practices conducted by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs as the audit had limited probative value and presented the risk that the jury would rely on the results of the federal study rather than conduct its own independent review of the facts; no error in admitting evidence that a plaintiff who had complained about the pay differential had suffered retaliation; Attorneys' fees award affirmed; with respect to the district court's award of costs, the award of costs for real time transcripts and both printed transcripts and video recordings of depositions is affirmed; with respect to the award of costs for Westlaw research, the matter must be remanded to permit the district court to determine whether charging clients separately for Westlaw research is the prevailing practice in Iowa.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.