Photo: SimpleImages / Moment / Getty Images
LOS ANGELES (CNS) - A judge has dismissed a lawsuit in which a deputy city attorney alleged she and other women in her office were victims of unequal pay, finding that the plaintiff did not suffer retaliation for speaking out and that her claim she was not promoted due to her gender was speculative.
Plaintiff Karen Majovski, now 37, alleged 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 alleged equal pay violation, gender discrimination, retaliation and failure to prevent discrimination, harassment or retaliation.
But Judge Gail Killefer found that the evidence did not support the plaintiff's claims. The judge said that even if Majovski was as skilled as other deputy city attorneys with similar ranks, she failed to show that the city's employment system that rewards seniority and years of experience practicing law, and years in the relevant area of law, was "applied in a discriminatory manner to female employees."
Majovski maintained that one example of the retaliation she says she suffered was after she reported that then-City Councilman Mitch Englander contacted her online and requested to follow her private Instagram account. Majovski believed Englander's request was unprofessional, but that nothing was done because then-City Attorney Mike Feurer believed it to be "too politically sensitive."
But according to Killefer, Majovski did not demonstrate that her complaints about Englander caused her to suffer retaliation and that the actual reason she was not promoted was that she failed to show she had enough experience. The judge also concluded that Majovski's belief she was not promoted because she is a woman is "mere speculation."
Killefer heard arguments on the case and took the issues under submission before ruling Wednesday.
Majovski's suit stated that 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 leave her car 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 speaking out about 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 stated.
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 stated. "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 stated.