United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
WELLS ROBY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is a Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 64) filed by the
Plaintiff, Yalile Leal, seeking an order from the Court to
compel Defendant Wal-Mart to supplement its discovery
responses. On January 6, 2017, the Court denied the
Plaintiff's motion to the extent that she sought an
electronic copy of the Defendant's PeopleSoft database
and Associate database data for all employees who were
employed by Defendant in the same stores as Leal from 1999
through 2013. R. Doc. 75, p. 7. The Court further denied the
motion to the extent that it sought pay data for other
stocker classifications. Id.
of the Courts order, the Court took under further submission
two aspects of the Plaintiff's motion: (i) the
classification of Cash Office employees and Accounting
Associates; and (ii) support manager pay data for 2001 for
the Kenner store location. Id. at p. 8. As part of
the Court's consideration of these aspects of the
Plaintiff's motion, the Court ordered the Defendant to
file a supplemental memorandum addressing these two points.
time, the Defendant has filed the supplemental memoranda. R.
Doc. 77. First, the Defendant explains that “Cash
Office Associate” was a colloquial job term that was
never an official Wal-Mart title, but was used at the store
level. Id. at p. 2. The Defendant further explains
that Wal-Mart eventually issued a directive to local stores
to convert Cash Office Associate into Accounting Associate in
part to avoid the danger created by drawing attention to
certain employee's access to cash. Id. While the
Defendant is unclear as to when this directive was fully
implemented, the Defendant suggests that it was done in 2007.
Id. However, out of caution, the Defendant states
that it ran additional searches of pay data using both
“Cash Office Associate” and “Accounting
Associate” for the time period the Plaintiff held
either position. Id. at p. 3. The Defendant states
that no additional associates have been identified.
Id. Satisfied with this clarification and the
additional, unfruitful search, the Court will deny the motion
to compel as it relates to Cash Office/Accounting Associates.
as to support managers, the Defendant was unable to produce a
job description for the position of “Support
Manager” for the relevant time period. R. Doc. 77, p.
4. However, the Defendant did provided an affidavit detailing
that support managers at that time were divided into two
divisions: Division 1 Support Managers and Division 6 Support
Managers. Id. The Defendant states that Division 1
Support Managers supported Assistant Managers throughout the
entire store while Division 6 Support Managers worked only in
the Tire & Lube Express Department. Id. The
Defendant has provided a training plan for Division 6 Support
Managers that specifies duties related to the automotive
nature of the Tire & Lube Express Department. R. Doc.
77-2. Defendant argues that the Plaintiff was only a Division
6 Support Manager, and, as such, the Defendant should not be
required to produce Division 1 Support Manager pay data. R.
Doc. 77, p. 5.
Title VII purposes, the “similarly situated
employees” prong requires, a plaintiff must show that
he was treated less favorably than others “under nearly
identical circumstances.” Lee v. Kan. City S.
Ry., 574 F.3d 253, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009); see also
Wyvill v. United Cos. Life Ins. Co., 212 F.3d 296, 305
(5th Cir. 2000) (declining to find “similarly situated
employees” who had different job duties); Perez v.
Tex. Dept. of Crim. Justice, 395 F.3d 206, 213 (5th
Cir.2004) (holding that to satisfy the “similarly
situated” requirement, the situations of the plaintiff
and the non-protected class member must be more than similar,
they must be “nearly identical.”).
the materials provided by the Defendant, the Court is unable
to determine at this time that the duties performed by
Division 1 Support Managers are so irrelevant at this time to
the Plaintiff's claims in connection with her work as a
Division 6 Support Manager. As such, the Court finds that the
Defendant has not met its burden to resist discovery. See
Arinder v. Lee, No. 99-1487, 2000 WL 680343, at *2 (E.D.
La. May 23, 2000). While the scope of the work performed by
Division 1 Support Managers might have been larger, the job
content and actual duties performed by support managers from
each division might well have been the same. See
Montgomery v. Clayton Homes, 65 F. App'x 508, 2003
WL 1922917, at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 25, 2003) (citing
E.E.O.C. v. Hernando Bank, Inc., 724 F.2d 1188, 1196
(5th Cir. 1984)); Culotta v. Sodexo Remote Sites
P'ship, 2011 WL 3268274, at *3 (E.D. La. July 29,
2011) (internal quotation and citation omitted)
(“However, the Fifth Circuit has stated that the job
content and actual job requirements, not the job title,
classification, or description, are determinative regarding
whether an individual performed equal work for less
pay.”). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 26(b)(1), the
Plaintiff is entitled to discovery of information relevant to
her claim or defense. While this information might ultimately
be inadmissible at trial, the Federal Rules do not require
such determination at this time. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)
(“Information within the scope of discovery need not be
admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”)
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (R.
Doc. 64) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs motion is DENIED as it
relates to Cash Office Associates and Accounting Associates.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED as it
relates to support manager pay data. The Defendant must
produce pay data for all support managers in Division 1 and