Sha'ola Terrell v. Alabama State University

── Sha'ola Terrell v. Alabama State University ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 08, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12311 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2026 Page: 1 of 9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12311 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ SHA’OLA TERRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cv-00047-RAH-CWB ____________________ USCA11 Case: 25-12311 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2026 Page: 2 of 9 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12311 Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Sha’Ola Terrell appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Alabama State University and the Board of Trustees thereof (“collectively ASU”) on her claims for sex-based wage discrimination in violation of the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 206, and the Clarke Figures Equal Pay Act (“CFEPA”), Ala. Code § 25-1-30. She argues that she presents proper comparators to make a prima facie case and that ASU’s affirmative defense fails because the budget was discretionary and ASU did not follow the budget. After thorough review, we affirm. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judg- ment, using the same legal standards applied by the district court. Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Devs., Inc., 610 F.3d 1253, 1263 (11th Cir. 2010). Summary judgment is only appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Alvarez, 610 F.3d at 1263–64. “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” An- derson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The EPA forbids an employer “paying wages . . . at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the op- posite sex . . . for equal work on jobs the performance of which USCA11 Case: 25-12311 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2026 Page: 3 of 9 25-12311 Opinion of the Court 3 requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are per- formed under similar working conditions.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1). Exceptions exist for pay determined by: “(i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex.” Id. Similarly, the CFEPA prohibits an employer from “pay[ing] any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to em- ployees of another sex or race for equal work within the same es- tablishment on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, education, experience, and responsibility, and performance under similar working conditions.” Ala. Code. § 25-1-30(b). The CFEPA also includes exceptions for pay determined by: “(1) A sen-