Photo: AndreyPopov / iStock / Getty Images
LOS ANGELES (CNS) - The city of Los Angeles is seeking dismissal of a deputy city attorney's lawsuit over alleged unequal pay for women, stating in new court papers that she did not have the skills her higher-paid counterparts, most of whom were also females.
Plaintiff Karen Majovski alleges she suffered a backlash after spending years demanding equal pay for herself and other female employees in her office. Her Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit alleges equal pay violation, gender discrimination, retaliation and failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation and harassment.
Majovski, 36, has associated with other women within her office who also believe they are experiencing pay disparity, according to her court papers.
In papers filed Friday with Judge Gail Killefer seeking dismissal of Majovski's case, defense attorneys maintain that "none of plaintiff's claims have merit" and that Majovski "did not have substantially similar skill and responsibility" compared to the higher-paid deputy city attorneys, most of whom were women.
After Majovski complained that she and another female deputy city attorneys were underpaid, both were promoted, according to the defense attorneys' court papers. Although Majovski has suggested the other woman was promoted to a grade 3 position and the plaintiff to grade 2 because her colleague did not complain, that argument is "spurious on its face" because the co-worker had a dozen years of experience as a civil litigator and the plaintiff just over two years, according to the defense attorneys' court papers.
A hearing on the city's dismissal motion is scheduled Sept. 29.
Majovski's suit states she was hired in May 2014 as a deputy city attorney in the workers' compensation division. In November 2016, she had interviews for a position in the employment litigation division and was told, "You are a rising star in the City Attorney's Office."
Shortly after joining the division, Majovski says she complained about not being able to park in the building like the other attorneys and paralegals, leaving her concerned for her safety because she had to park blocks away.
But according to the defense attorneys' court papers, Majovski was provided parking on an as-needed basis, that she admits her parking complaints did not allege unlawful activity and that there is no evidence suggesting the plaintiff suffered any adverse employment action because she complained.
Along with her parking concerns, Majovski had multiple discussions in 2017 with her boss about her rank within the office and what she perceived to be a pay disparity, according to the suit. She says she complained that newly hired attorneys were being paid at a higher salary than her because she had not been given a promotion.
After years of complaining of unequal pay given that she believed her performance level was that of a grade 3, she was told in the spring of 2018 that she would be only given the level 2 title and that there would be no retroactive pay, her suit filed in March 2021 states.
Majovski went on to other positions within the office and at times performed work normally given to attorneys two grades higher than her deputy city attorney 2 ranking, according to her court papers.
"In fact, Majovski was doing more work than other higher paid attorneys in her office, but being paid much less," the suit states. "All she was asking for was to be paid equivalent."
Despite her persistence in seeking pay comparable for her work and commensurate with her experience, she is still seeking pay equity, the suit states.