A Texas federal jury has ruled against a female hotel executive who claimed her employer paid her less than her male counterparts because of her gender, despite evidence showing initial salary differences among food and beverage directors.
The jury verdict, delivered in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, found that Omni Hotels Management Corporation did not discriminate against S.L. based on her sex when determining her compensation as Director of Food & Beverage at the company’s Corpus Christi location.
Career progression and salary history at issue
Court documents show S.L. enjoyed remarkable career growth during her tenure with Omni Hotels, rising from a part-time server earning $12.45 per hour in 2001 to Director of Food & Beverage with a final salary of $90,037.09 when she resigned in 2016.
The case centered on S.L.’s claim that her starting salary as Director of Food & Beverage was lower than her three male predecessors in the position at the Corpus Christi property. S.L. began in the role at $70,841, which represented a standard 10% increase from her previous position, in accordance with the company’s promotion policies.
The jury verdict form reveals they answered “No” to the key question of whether S.L. proved she “would not have been compensated less than one or more of her male predecessors in the position of Director of Food & Beverage at the Omni Hotel in Corpus Christi in the absence of—in other words, but for—her sex.”
Comparison to male predecessors
Evidence presented at trial showed that S.L.’s immediate predecessor, D.C., had a starting salary of $82,824.50 in the position, which represented a 10% increase from his prior salary as Director of Catering at the Omni Houston hotel. Court records indicated D.C. had over 20 years of hotel industry experience, including more than 15 years in food and beverage management positions with Marriott Hotels.
Another predecessor, R.W., started at $75,000 when promoted to the position in 2007. J.P., who held the role in 2006, began at $77,000.
Career trajectory and salary growth
The stipulated facts showed that S.L. ultimately surpassed the highest salary of all her predecessors after three years in the position. By the time she resigned in 2016, her salary of $90,037.09 was $6,300 more than any predecessor had been paid.
Between December 2014 and June 2016, the period relevant to her claim, S.L. received multiple merit increases, including a 7% increase in 2013 that doubled the company’s standard merit review increases.
Over her entire career with Omni, S.L.’s salary increased approximately 125%, “which is much higher than Omni Hotels’s standard increases pursuant to its compensation guidelines,” according to court documents.
Defense arguments
Omni Hotels defended its compensation practices by presenting evidence that S.L.’s salary differences were based on factors other than sex, including:
- The significant industry experience her predecessors brought to the position
- The company’s policy limiting promotional increases to 10% of previous salary
- Differences in job responsibilities, as the Marina Tower (a separate building that was part of the property) was sold during S.L.’s tenure
- S.L.’s lack of a college degree, while at least one predecessor had an associate’s degree
The company also noted that S.L. was aware of her predecessor’s salary when she accepted the promotion.
Filing of claim and jury instructions
S.L. filed an EEOC charge against Omni Hotels on September 23, 2015, which was received by the agency on October 27, 2015. The jury instructions explained that to prevail on her Title VII pay discrimination claim, S.L. needed to prove that between December 31, 2014, and June 8, 2016, Omni compensated her less than her male predecessors for work requiring substantially the same responsibility, and that sex was a determining factor in this decision.
The jury was instructed to consider Omni’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decisions and determine whether these reasons were merely pretext for discrimination.
For more information see https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25898198/us-dis-txnd-3-17cv2942-d167173564e11764-jury-instructions-kaf-entered-04-11-2025.pdf
