A federal magistrate judge

has determined that the Development Authority of Peachtree City did not

violate the Equal Pay Act by paying former amphitheater director Kristi

Rapson less than former tennis center director Virgil Christian.

U.S. Magistrate Walter E. Johnson

is recommending that summary judgment be granted to the authority, which

would effectively end Rapson's equal pay suit. A U.S. District Court

Judge will take that recommendation under advisement and also hear any

objections to the recommendation from attorneys for either party.

The authority had spent more

than $90,000 to defend itself as of last fall, according to the DAPC.

The authority did not violate

the Equal Pay Act in paying Christian more than Rapson because the two

jobs were substantially different, Johnson wrote in a detailed, 59-page

report to the U.S. District Court.

One of the main differences

between the two jobs was in terms of the operating hours of both facilities,

Johnson wrote. The amphitheater, which hosts concerts and school events,

hosts roughly 35 events a year while the tennis center "is open every

day of the year except Christmas, 14 hours per day during the week, 12

hours per day on Saturdays and eight hours per day on Sundays," Johnson

wrote. "Mr. Christian was present at the center during the majority

of those hours and was on call the rest of the time."

The two positions also differed

in terms of management responsibilities, Johnson indicated.

Rapson, who resigned in October

2001 over the pay dispute with the authority, supervised two full-time

year-round employees and 41 seasonal part-time employees and contractors

for the summer concert series. But Christian was responsible for 15 full-time

year-round employees and 20 part-time seasonal employees.

Thus, Johnson concluded "...

That the two positions are not substantially equal in terms of skill,

effort and responsibility."

The differences in Rapson's

and Christian's compensation were also due to the incentives built

into Christian's contract based on performance of the tennis center,

including a percentage of all lessons taught at the center, Johnson noted.

The authority never changed

Christian's base pay of $30,000, Johnson noted.

Although Christian's base

pay was just $30,000 a year, with the incentives he received an average

of $120,957 a year between 1996 and 2001, according to Johnson's

report. That included any reported income or loss from the pro shop, which

Christian was allowed to operate rent-free at the tennis center and was

operated by tennis center employees.

Rapson's compensation

rose by roughly 50 percent in about two-and-a-half years after she complained

about the pay discrepancy between her and Christian, Johnson noted. She

also received a commission based on the sponsorships sold to the amphitheater's

summer concert series.

In September 2001, a month

before Rapson resigned, the authority voted to raise her total compensation

for 2001-2002 to $83,896, a 3.2 percent increase which included $11,000

in commission income, Johnson noted.

In his report to the U.S. District

Court, Johnson also rejected Rapson's claim that the authority discriminated

against her based on her gender.

"The undisputed facts

show that the authority was generous with increases in plaintiff's

compensation after she complained," Johnson wrote. "However,

that generosity could not be unlimited given that the authority, as a

public agency, could not pay someone substantially more than the market

said someone who managed an amphitheater was worth.

In the suit, Rapson also claims

the authority retaliated against her for her pay complaint by requiring

her to get permission for non-budgeted expenditures over $500 and having

to consult with an authority member before hiring, firing or giving pay

increases to amphitheater employees.

Johnson determined those were

institutional controls enacted by the authority which did not raise to

the level of "retaliation" required for the lawsuit to survive.

"None of the items about

which plaintiff complains can serve as the basis for a retaliation claim,"

Johnson wrote, adding that the changes were brought by the authority to

"establish responsible oversight."

Johnson did side with Rapson

on a minor part of the suit, ruling that the authority could not claim

the amphitheater and tennis center are separate establishments. But that

decision did not affect Johnson's final recommendation that summary

judgment be granted to Rapson.

Back

to News Home Page |