Loomis v. Starkville Mississippi Public School District (150 F. Supp. 3d 730, 2015)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DEBRA M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This employment discrimination case is brought by Tonya Loomis against her current employer, Starkville Mississippi Public School District. Doc. #1. Before the Court is the District’s motion for summary judgment. Doc. #29. For the reasons that follow, summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

I

Summary Judgment Standard

“Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues as to any material facts, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Norwegian Bulk Transp. A/S v. Int’l Marine Terminals P’ship, 520 F.3d 409, 411 (5th Cir.2008) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). To award summary judgment, “[a] court must be satisfied that no reasonable trier of fact could find for the nonmoving party or, in other words, that the evidence favoring the nonmoving party is insufficient to enable a reasonable jury to return a verdict in her favor.” Norwegian Bulk Transp. A/S, 520 F.3d at 411-12 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To this end, “[t]he moving party bears the burden of establishing that there are no genuine issues of material fact.” Id. at 412.

“If ... the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may demonstrate that it is entitled to summary judgment by submitting affidavits or other similar evidence negating the non-moving party’s claim, or by pointing out to the district court the absence of evidence necessary to support the nonmoving party’s- case.” Morris v. Covan World Wide Moving, Inc., 144 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). If the moving party makes the necessary demonstration, “the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to show that summary judgment is inappropriate.” Id. In making this showing, “the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Cotroneo v. Shaw Env’t & Infrastructure, Inc., 639 F.3d 186, 191-92 (5th Cir.2011) (citation and internal punctuation omitted). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court “resolve[s] factual controversies in favor of the non-moving party.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994).

II

Factual Background

A. Parties

Plaintiff Tonya Loomis is a 43 year-old woman. Doc. #29-11. On August 1, 2012, Loomis was hired by Defendant Starkville Mississippi Public School District to work as an Assistant, Principal at its Sudduth Elementary School. Id. When she was hired, the District was run by Superintendent Lewis Holloway. Doc. #29-3.

B. Assistant Principal Salaries in the District

At the time Holloway was hired, he noticed that some employees had “pretty high” salaries. Doc. #29-2 at 33. Holloway explained that while he chose not to lower previously set salaries, he developed “a plan that, as people c[a]me in, [he would] try and make [pay] fair and equitable.” Id. at 36.

Under Holloway’s plan, salaries for new assistant principals are calculated by a loose mathematical formula “based on a daily rate times the number of days worked plus a responsibility factor [depend dent on] whether [the assistant principal works at the] elementary, middle school or high school.” Doc. #29-2 at 36. The District derives.the daily rate from its teacher pay scale, which is calculated based, on education and experience, but is generally approximately $1,700 above the state rate. Id. at 28. As for number of days worked, administrators in the District, including assistant principals, are employed under 10-month (200-day), 11-month (220-day), or 12-month (240-day) contracts. See. Doc. #35-3 at 1; Doc. #29-1 at 36. Finally, the responsibility factor is a set percentage— approximately 10% for elementary school assistant principals;. 15% for middle school assistant principals; and 20% for high school assistant principals. Doc. #29-2 at 38, 59-60. Holloway uses this formula for calculating salaries and raises “to get at a ballpark” figure, but maintains discretion to adjust the number. Id. at 37-38. For assistant principals hired before Holloway’s tenure, salaries remained untouched until the new formula called for a raise. Id. at 39.

Holloway explained that the markets for principals and assistant principals differ in that if he “need[s] to hire a high school principal, and I go out and find the best one I can, ,.. I’ve got to pay enough money to attract that person to come to Starkville ..., It’s a negotiated salary .... On assistant principal salary, most of the time they’re people from within. It’s a training job ... and it’s not ■ a market-based economy.” Doc. #29-2 at 33-34. ■

C.Loomis’ First Contract

Loomis’ first employment contract with the District provided for a 182-day employment term from August 20, 2012, through June 6, 2013, at an annual salary of $48,348.30. Doc. #29-3. The contract was signed by Holloway on August 22, 2012; and by Loomis on September 6, 2012. Id. Holloway elaborated that, because Loomis “came in after the school year had already started[, w]e went to the teacher salary [and] divided that ... to get a daily rate, and we multiplied the daily rate times the number of days she was going to be working, which was 182 [and then] added [a 10] percent responsibility factor for her assistant principal’s duties.” Doc. #29-2 at 27-28 (footnote added).

D. Loomis’ Revised 2012-2013 Contract

Shortly after, the signing of Loomis’ initial contract, Loomis and the District executed a revised employment contract which called for a 200-day employment term at an annual salary of $53,129,41. Doc. #29-4. Under this revised contract, Loomis’ employment term ran from August 20, 2012, through June 30, 2013. Id. The contract reflected a “Certification Level” of “AA” and “10-0” years of experience, and was signed by Holloway on September 18, 2012, and by Loomis on September 24, 2012. Id. According to Holloway, the District elected to “extend her contract tó 200 days, and she would come in during the summer to work her 200 days, so she’d get a full contract ____It was to help Ms. Loomis.” Doc. #29-2 at 43.

On July 13, 2012, a little over a month before Holloway signed Loomis’ first contract with the District, the District entered into an employment contract with Ra’mon Forbes for Forbes to serve as an assistant principal at the District’s Armstrong Middle School. See Doc. #29-5. Forbes’ contract called for a 220-day employment period and annual salary of $49,576, and reflected a certification level of “AA” and “4-4” years of experience. Id. Holloway signed the contract on behalf of the District on July 2,2012. Id.

E. Loomis’ Initial Salary Complaints and 2013-2014 Contracts

In March 2013, during the term of her revised contract, Loomis approached Holloway and asked why she “was making less than James Gassaway (a male), even though [she] had six years of administrative experience while James Gassaway had less.” Doc. #35-1 at ¶ 2. Holloway responded “that administrative experience was no more significant tha[n] regular, teaching experience.” Id'. When Loomis “pointed out that Gassaway had only 9 years of teaching experience' compared to [her] 15 years total experience[,] ... * Holloway said he would get back to [her].” Id.

Sometime between March and June 2013, Loomis was presented with a 200-day contract to serve as an assistant principal at Sudduth for an employment term of July 25, 2013, through June 5, 2014. Doc. #29-7. The document called for an annual salary of $53,129, and' reflected that Loomis had “10-0” years of experience. Id, Regarding this proposed contract, Loomis asked Holloway why her annual salary'had been reduced by 41 cents and why she “was making less than Gassaway and not much more than Forbes despite having significantly more administrative and total experience.” Doc.' #35-1 at ¶ 4. Holloway “said he would get back to [Loomis] about [her] concerns and request for a raise.” Id. Holloway eventually signed the contract on June 12, 2013,. and Loomis signed five days later. Doc. #29-7. Loomis signed “with the éxpectation that [the contract] might be changed' in the future.” Doc. #35-1 at ¶ 4.

At some point later, Loomis was presented with a revised 2013-2014 contract. Doc. #29-8. This revised contract called for the same employment term but rounded Loomis’ annual salary up "to $53,130, and reflected that Lobmis had “16-1” years of experience. Id. Loomis refused to sign the contract. Doc. #35-1 atH 5. ■

F. 2013 Reassignments

Sometime before the 2013-2014 school year, the District reassigned: (1) Tim Bourne, an African American male principal, from Sudduth to Armstrong; (2) Elizabeth Mosely, a white female principal, from Armstrong to Sudduth; (3) Forbes, a male African American- assistant principal, from Armstrong to Sudduth; and (4) Gass-away, a white male assistant principal, from Sudduth to Armstrong. Doc. #39-3 at ¶¶ 3-4. According to the affidavits of Assistant Superintendents Jody Woodrum and Toriano Holloway, the transfers of Bourne and Mosely “created a racial imbalance in both schools in terms of the principals and assistants employed at these schools. To address that racial imbalance, the administration ... reassigned ... Forbes ... and ... Gas[s]away ....” Id. at ¶ 4; Doc. #39-4 at ¶ 4.

Woodrum and Toriano also aver that “[p]rior to the decision to reassign ... Forbes ... and ... Gas[s]away[,] ... the School District administration had decided to make no change in the salaries of any assistant principal within the School District. However, to accommodate ... Forbes and ... Gas[s]away for the reassignment[,] ... it was decided to give both of these assistant principals a 5% pay increase.” Doc. #39-4 at ¶ 5;. Doc. #39-3 at ¶ 5. Holloway, for his part, explained that he wanted to give the raises to Gassaway and Forbes because “I was moving people from a position that they were comfortable with and actually forcing them into a new position [a]nd I felt they deserved some compensation for that.” Doc. #39-1 at 53-54.

Loomis submitted an affidavit stating that sometime, after March 2013, she learned that Gassaway “had approached Lisa Thompson ([then] principal of Sud-duth Elementary ...) about asking Elizabeth Mosely ... if he could move to Armstrong Elementary.” Doc. #35-1 at ¶3. However, both Woodrum and Toriano deny knowledge of such a request! Doc. #39-3 at ¶ 6; Doc. #39-4 at ¶ 6.

G. Forbes and Gassaway Raises

In July of 2013, Loomis spoke with Forbes “about not receiving a raise and he encouraged mé to go back to see Holloway, and said that he was going to go see Holloway about a • raise himself (having already signed a contract earlier that did not contain an increase).” Doc. #35-1 at ¶ 6; Doc. #35-2 at 2.

On August 14, 2013, Holloway signed employment contracts for Forbes and Gassaway for the 2013-2014 school year. Doc. #35-4; Doc.' #35-5. Both contracts called for 220-day terms, to run from July 11, 2013, through June 19, 2014; and provided for an annual salary of $52,054 for Forbes and $63,945 for Gassaway. Doc. #35-4; Doc. #35-5. On August 16, 2013, Forbes and Gassaway signed their contracts. See Doc. #35-4; Doc. #35-5. Neither Sean McDonnall, a male assistant principal at Starkville High School, nor Watress Harris, a male assistant principal at Armstrong Middle School, received raises for the 2013-2014 school year. See Doc. #29-6.

H. Loomis’ August 2013 Meetings

On August 19, 2013, Loomis again went to speak with Holloway about her compensation for the 2013-2014 term. Doc. #35-1 at ¶ 7. At the meeting, Loomis “asked for an explanation of why [she] wasn’t given a raise and also why the other male assistant principals with less experience than [she] had were either'making close to what [she] was making or were making more.” Id. Holloway responded that the reason “for the disparity was a ‘formula.’ ” Id. ■ '

Also during the meeting, Loomis was offered two additional contracts. Id. One reflected an annual salary of $53,129.41. Id. The other provided an increase in salary of $770.00, but increased the employment term from 200 days to 220 days. Id. at ¶ 8. Loomis refused to sign both documents. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. Regarding the 220-day contract, Loomis ■ explained that she refused to sign it because the proposed change “effectively decreased her] per diem salary by almost eight per cent which [she] viewed as punishment for complaining about the disparity in [her] compensation and that of the male assistant principals.” Id. After the August 19 meeting, Loomis called the District’s Human Resources Department and was told that Holloway had added the twenty-day term tq the 220-day contract. Doc. #35-1 at ¶ 9.

At Loomis’ request, Holloway, • Loomis, and Woodrum met on August 29, 2013, to discuss Loomis’ salary. Id. at ¶ 10. According to Loomis, at the meeting she repeated her requests for equal treatment to the male assistant principals, but Holloway insisted that the revised 220-day contract would control her employment. Id. at ¶¶ 11-12. Loomis also claims that Holloway initially informed her that the raises of Forbes and Galloway were “because of increased duties,” but later, after Loomis pointed out that .she and Forbes were employed at the same school, Holloway claimed the raises were due to the transfers. Id. at ¶ 13. During this meeting,-both Holloway and Woodrum suggested to Loomis that her job was in jeopardy and, “Holloway began to yell at [Loomis] in a threatening and intimidating manner.” Id. at ¶¶ 12,14. After, being threatened, Loom-is “thanked [Holloway] and Woodrum for their time and left the meeting.” Id. at ¶ 14.

. I. District’s Explanation for the 220-Day Contract: Offer

According to the District, sometime after the August 29 meeting, the District discovered' that the 220-day contract offered to Loomis was created in error by the District’s newly hired Human Resource Director Elsie Hopkins. See Doc. #39-5. According to Hopkins, she was hired on July 16, 2013, and “shortly after” her hire; she noticed that Loomis was the only assistant principal on a 200-day contract. Id. at ¶2. Without direction from Holloway “or any of the other administrative staff,” Hopkins “prepared a 220 day contract for [Loomis] using the formula [she] understood to be in place for newly hired assistant principals.” Id. at ¶¶ 2-3. In addition to improperly using a 220-day employment term, Hopkins failed to add a responsibility factor to Loomis’ contract. Id. at ¶ 4.

J. Loomis’ Basis for Retaliation

After the August 29 meeting, Loomis requested 45 minutes per week “to advance [her] education.” Doc. #35-1 at ¶ 15. Holloway told Loomis’ supervisor “that if she could afford to let [Loomis] leave then she probably didn’t need ... - two assistant principals.” Id. Loomis believes that Holloway’s statement was “a thinly veiled threat that if [she] persisted [her] contract would not be renewed.” Id. Loomis avers that she is aware “of two other employees who were allowed substantially more leave than 45 minutes per week and there is no other reason for the disparity in this treatment than retaliation against me for complaining about disparate treatment .of female and male administrators.” Id.

Holloway testified that he was unaware of any administrators who took leave for educational purposes. Doc. #29-2 at 41. He explained that he denied Loomis’ request because “[tlhere’s 1100 students in that school. I have no way to fill in for an assistant principal when they’re away from campus. I just didn’t think it was appropriate.” Id. at 42.

Loomis also alleges that Holloway “singled [her] out for intimidation by. attending a cohort presentation, [of hers] ... in which his demeanor was so threatening as to cause comment by others who were present.” Doc'. #35-1 at ¶ 16 (footnote added). According to Loomis, Holloway did not attend any other cohort presentations. Id. Holloway could not recall sitting in on Loomis’ presentation, but remembered sitting in on a presentation made by Forbes, someone named Stegall, and at least one more. Doc. #29-2 at 57-58.

K, EEOC Charge and Administrative Resolution

On October 23, 2013, Loomis filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). ■ Doc. #29-11. Loomis’,, charge alleged discrimination based on sex, retaliation, and “Equal Pay.” Id. In particular, Loomis alleged:

I was hired on August 1, 2012, as an Assistant Principal at Sudduth Elementary School. On June 18, 2013, I was denied a raise in salary while two less qualified male assistant principals were given raises in salary. On August 29, 2013,1 was retaliated against for making a complaint about disparate treatment based on my gender (female) from Lewis Holloway (Male) Superintendent. His áttitude and statements to me prior to a meeting created a hostile work environment.

Mr. Holloway . became verbally abusive and presented me with another contract. He . screamed at me and told me I could either accept the new contract, refuse to sign it in which case he would simply deduct $4,900 from my pay,’or that I could just quit. .

I believe that I am being discriminated against because of my gender (female) and in retaliation-for complaining about an unlawful employment act in violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; as amended since::

I have 11 lk years of public education, 4 years of private education, and 5 lh years in administration [and] 6 years teaching in public schools.

Two less qualified males (Jim Gassaway has 7-8 years in education, 3 years in administration) and Ramon Forbes has 5 years in education and 1 year in administration) holding the same position that I hold (Assistant Principal) were given raises.

Doc. #29-11. The charge alleged that the discrimination took place between June 18, 2013, and August 29,2013. Id.

L. Administrative Investigation and District’s Salary Chart

During the EEOC’s investigation, the District produced a document titled, “Position of Starkville School District.” Doc. #35-2., Of relevance here, in its position statement, the District stated that: (1) during the August 29 meeting, Holloway “explained the reasons for the proposed change [to 220 days] but [Loomis] did not accept his- explanation and continued to argue her position;” and (2) Forbes and Gassaway received their -2013-2014 raises “because they changed schools and their job responsibilities changed.” Id. at 2.

Additionally, in response to a “Request for Information” by the EEOC, the District supplied a document purporting to be “an analysis of the Starkville School District's administrative salaries by experience, degree, responsibility and days worked.” Doe. #35-2 at 3. Sometime later, the District created a revised version of the same chart. See Doc. #35-9.

Although the charts purport to report the same information (administrative salaries for the 2013-2014 ’ school year),' the numbers for Lynn Arsenault, an assistant principal, and Principal Lisa Thompson differ. Specifically, Arsenault’s: (1) salary changed from $69,300 in the first version to $63,525 in the second; (2) daily rate changed from $370.59 in the first version to $339.71 in the second; (3) “Days Supp” changed from $26,691.41 in the first version to $19,897.29 in the second; (4) responsibility factor changed from -16.07% in the first version, to -16.20% in the second; (5) “Resp Supp” changed from -$11,229 in the first version to -$10,210 in the second; and (6) total salary changed from $69,300 in the first version to $63,525 in the second. See Doc. #35-3; Doc. #35-9. Regarding Thompson, the -differences in the charts are that Thompson’s ■ (1) salary changed from $72,660 in the first version to $76,923 in the' second; (2) responsibility factor changed from 6.31% in the first version to 10.77% in the second; (3) “Resp Supp” changed from $4,586 in the first version, to $8,219 in the second; and (4) total salary changed from $72,660 in the first: version to $76,293 in the second. See Doc. #35-31; Doc. #35-9. No explanation for these changes has been offered by the District.

M. This Action

On June 19, 2014, Loomis received from the United States Department of Justice a “Notice of Right to Sue within 90 Days” letter. Doc. #1 at Ex. B. Loomis filed this action on September 8, 2014. Doc. #1.

Loomis’ complaint does not set forth specific counts; however, it invokes Title VII and references sexual discrimination and retaliation. Id. at ¶¶ 7-12. Specifically, the complaint alleges that: (1) Loomis “received a lower pay increase than male assistant principals similarly situated who had less administrative and overall experience;” (2) Loomis complained about the lower pay increase; (3) in retaliation for complaining, “Defendant ... presented the Plaintiff with a revised contract which effectively lowered the Plaintiffs compensation for the 2013-2014 school year;” (4) also in retaliation for the complaint, Holloway “verbally abused the Plaintiff and suggested that if she didn’t accept the retaliatory contract shé could either resign or he would adjust the compensation under the original contract to reduce it to an amount equal to the proffered contract;” and (5) “Holloway has continued to intimidate the Plaintiff, singling her out from her peers and intimating that she is being reviewed for poor performance, which has placed the Plaintiff in a false light and caused her additional mental anguish' and; emotional distress.” Id.

- On July 22, 2015, the District filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. #29. After requesting and receiving an extension to respond to the summary judgment motion, Loomis responded in opposition on August 12, 2015. Doc. #33; Doc. #34; Doc. #35. After requesting and receiving an extension to reply, the District replied on August 25, 2015. Doc. #37; Doc. #38; Doc. #39.

Ill

Evidentiary Matters

As cited above, Loomis, in opposition to the District’s motion for summary judgment, submitted an affidavit describing, among other things, certain conversations between the District’s employees. See Doc. #35-1. In its reply, the District objects to certain portions of the affidavit on hearsay and “falsity” grounds. See Doc. #39 at 5-7. The District also objects to consideration of the salary charts produced by the District on the grounds that the charts áre “evidence of nothing as it relates' to either how the plaintiffs salary was calculated or how' the salary of any other assistant principal had been calculated.” Id. at 9.

As an initial matter, in seeking to prove the “false” nature of Loomis’ affidavit testimony, the District cites to the affidavits and deposition testimony of its own witnesses. See id. What the District does not cite, however, is any authority for the novel proposition that a party may render an opposing party’s affidavit inadmissible by only submitting competing testimonial or affidavit evidence. In the absence of such authority, the District’s “falsity” objections are overruled.. .

Next, the Court has not relied on either of the District’s salary charts in resolving this motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, for purposes of this opinion, the District’s objection to'consideration of the charts is overruléd as moot.

- Turning to the hearsay objections, the District objects to Loomis’ affidavit averring to: (1) the fact that Gassaway asked Moseley if he could transfer to .Armstrong Middle School; (-2) a conversation between Loomis and Forbes during which Forbes said he planned bn asking Holloway for a raise; (3) a conversation between Loomis and the District’s Human Resources Department during which, an unknown employee told Loomis that Holloway had added the twenty days to the erroneous 220-day contract; and (4) the fact that Holloway told Loomis’ principal that if the principal could afford to let Loomis leave for 45 minutes per week, then the' principal probably did not nee,d two assistants. In its objections, the District .cites no authority and, in the rare instances when a semblance of argument is made, displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the hearsay rule,

Under Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, hearsay is defined as a “statement that ... the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing [and] a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in. the statement.” Once , a party has “properly objected to [evidence] as inadmissible hearsay,” the burden shifts to the proponent of the evidence to show, “by a preponderance of the evidence, that the evidence [falls] vrithin an exclusion or exception to the hearsay rule and was therefore admissible.” Sowders v. TIC United Corp., No. SA-05-CA-309, 2007 WL 3171797, at *1 (W.D.Tex.2007) (citing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175-76, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987)). Accordingly, to shift' the burden to Loomis, the District is required to offer a “proper” hearsay objection.

Where a hearsay objection is “conclusory and scant at' best,” such objection is not' properly made and should be summarily overruled. See Thomas v. Kent, No. Civ. A. 06-1078, 2009 WL 2019878, at *1 n. 2 (W.D.La. July 8, 2009); see also United States v. Nieto, 226 Fed.Appx. 483, 489-90 (6th Cir.2007). The necessity of proper argument is particularly important where “the Court questions whether the [statements] 'are being offered for the truth of the matter asserted and/or whether they” fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. Kent, 2009 WL 2019878, at *1 n. 2.

Here, the District has wholly failed to offer any legal argument for its hearsay objections. Furthermore, the Court questions whether: (1) the conversation between Gassaway and Moseley is being 'offered for the truth of the matter asserted and/or fits within the party-opponent exclusion to the hearsay rule, see Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D); (2) the conversation between Loomis and Forbes fits within the then-exiting state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, see Fed. R. Evid. 803(3); (3) the conversation between Loomis and Human Resources fits within the party-opponent exclusion to the hearsay rule; and (4) the conversation between Moseley and Loomis’ principal is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted and/or fits within the party-opponent exclusion to the hearsay rule. Thus, in light of the District’s cursory briefing, the Court deems the hearsay objections waived and overrules the same for the purpose of deciding the motion for summary judgment.

Although the District’s hearsay objections have been deemed waived, the Court elects to raise one evidentiary issue sua sponte. Pursuant to Rule 56(c)(4), “[a]n affidavit .., used to ... oppose a motion [for summary judgment] must be made on personal knowledge.” When considering a motion for summary judgment, a court may sua sponte decline to consider evidence which does not comply with Rule 56(c)(4). See Stamm v. TigerTech Inv., Inc., No. 1:11-cv-1686, 2013 WL 1093033, at *1 n. 2 (S.D.Ind. Mar. 15, 2013).

In paragraph three of her affidavit, Loomis alleges that she “learned” of the discussion between Gassaway and Thompson. Doc. #35-1 at ¶ 3. Loomis does not, however, aver as to the source of her knowledge.

An affidavit stating that a fact was “learned” is not based on personal knowledge and should not be considered at the summary judgment stage. Gibson v. Liberty Mut. Grp., 129 Fed.Appx. 94, 95 (5th Cir.2005) (district court “properly struck” portion of affidavit stating affiant “learned that”- a conversation occurred); see also Rabin v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., No. 98-c-1577, 2000 WL 1131944, at *7 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 9, 2000) (“In her affidavit, Rabin has not shown personal knowledge because there is no foundation for her general assertions that she ‘learned’ certain things.”). Accordingly, the Court concludes that paragraph 3 of Loomis’ affidavit is not supported by personal knowledge and will not, therefore, be considered in deciding the instant motion for summaiy judgment.

IV

Analysis

“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in federal and private employment.” Fitzgerald v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 121 F.3d 203, 206 (5th Cir.1997). The law also' prohibits retaliation against any- employee or applicant for employment because such person “opposed any practice made an unlawful ernployment practice by [Title VII], or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in. an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).

To establish a claim under Title VII, a plaintiff “can prove discrimination through' direct or circumstantial evidence.” Davis v. Miss. Tramp. Comm’n, 618 F.Supp.2d 559, 561 (S.D.Miss.2009) (citing Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir.2007)). Here, Loomis seeks to prove her case by. relying on circumstantial evidence. See Doc. #36 at 12.

Generally, Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation claims based on circumstantial evidence are analyzed under the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework. See Montemayor v. City of San Antonio, 276 F.3d 687, 692 (5th Cir. 2001) (retaliation case); see also Moore v. Miss. Dept. of Human Servs., 6 F.Supp.3d 713, 715 (S.D.Miss.2014) (sex discrimination). Under McDonnell-Douglas, a plaintiff first must establish a prime facie case of' discrimination. Aryain v. Wal-Mart Stores Tex. LP, 534 F.3d 473, 484 (5th Cir.2008). “If the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing, the burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate ... non-[discriminatory] reason for its employment action. If the employer meets this burden of production, the plaintiff then bears the burden of proving that the employer’s reason is a pretext for the actual [discriminatory] reason.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also Rutherford v. Harris Cty., 197 F.3d 173, 179-80 (5th Cir. 1999).

A. Relevant Conduct

Before considering the merits of Loomis] claims, the Court must first address an argument raised, by the District in its reply, specifically:"

The plaintiff filed a detailed EEOC charge in October 23, 2013 alleging that she was discriminated against when two lessor [sic] qualified males, Jim Gasaway and Ramon Forbes, received raises while she did not. The plaintiffs complaint makes similar allegations. However, when confronted .with a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff seeks to expand her claims. Now, she submits alleged evidence indicating that female assistant, principals generally receive less pay than their male counter-parts and she argues regarding “inconsistencies” in Lynn Arsenault’s daily rates. This argument is clearly beyond the scope of the initial ÉEÓC charge and the complaint filed in this matter. As such, the plaintiffs claim regarding gender discrimination should be strictly limited to her allegations as they relate to Ramon Forbes an4 Jim Gasaway.

Doc. #39 at 3 (internal citations omitted).

While less than clear, it appears the District contends that: (1) Loomis cannot claim discrimination based on her salary because her EEOC charge referred only to raises; and (2) Loomis cannot claim discrimination based on “inconsistencies” in Arsenault’s daily rates.

“The scope of a Title VII complaint-is limited to the scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.” Thomas v. Tex. Dept. of Criminal Justice, 220 F.3d 389, at 394-95 (5th Cir.2000) (citation omitted). Under this standard, a Title VII action “may be based, not only upon the specific complaints made by the employee’s initial EEOC charge, but also upon any kind of discrimination like or related to • the charge’s allegations, limited only by the scope of the EEOC investigation that could reasonably be expected to grow out of the initial charges of discrimination.” Fine v. GAF Chem. Corp., 995 F.2d 576, 578 (5th Cir.1998) (citation omitted). To make this determination, a court must “engage in a fact-intensive analysis of the statement given by the plaintiff in the administrative charge, and look slightly beyond its four corners, to its substance rather than its label.” Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783, 789 (5th Cir.2006) (citation omitted).

Of course, because the content of the EEOC charge only sets forth the maximum scope of a Title VII complaint, a plaintiff can waive or' abandon properly charged claims of discrimination by failing to plead such claims in her complaint. See Koger v. Texaco, Inc., No. 4:04-cv-205, 2007 WL 951752, at *7 (N.D.Ga. Mar. 28, 2007) (“[A] plaintiffs complaint is limited by her EEOC charge, but not expanded.’’); see also Johnson v. Unilever Home & Personal Care, USA, No. . 4:02-cv-627, 2003 WL 21911075, at *3 (E.D.Mo. July 30, 2003) (“Johnson also alleged that Unilever retaliated against him in his EEOC charge, but the Court finds no reference to a retaliation cause of action in his complaint.”); see generally Cutrera v. Bd. of Supervisors, 429 F.3d 108, 113 (5th Cir. 2005) (“A claim which is not raised in the complaint, but, rather, is raised only in response to a motion for summary judgment is not properly before the Court.”). Thus, for a Title VII claim to be properly before the Court, such claim must be within the scope of the EEOC charge, and must be raised by the complaint.

As a threshold matter, absolutely nothing in the EEOC charge, Loomis’ complaint, or the response to the motion for summary judgment suggests that Loomis is attempting to assert a claim based on discrepancies in Arsenault’s salary. Rather, it appears that Loomis is attempting to use Árseriáult’s salary to support a pay discrimination claim based’on Loomis’ salary. While the value of such “anecdotal” evidence is limited, there is no per se prohibition against its introduction. See Harkness v. Bauhaus U.S.A., Inc., No. 3:13-cv-129, 2015 WL 631512, at *2 (N.D.Miss. Feb. 13, 2015). Under this authority, the District’s contention that Loomis is basing a claim on Arsenault’s salary is'without merit.

Regarding the claims based on salary discrimination; the District argues in its reply that Loomis cannot assert a pay discrimination claim based on salaries (rather than the 2013 pay raises) because such a claim was not raised in the EEOC charge or pled in Loomis’ complaint. Doc. #36 at 2. Loomis did not seek leave to file a sur-reply to the motion for summary judgment and'thus has not addressed this argument.

First, the Court has no trouble concluding that a claim of salary discrimination based on gender is sufficiently related to a complaint about gender discrimination in the awarding of pay raises such that an investigation into the former could reasonably be expected to grow out of an investigation in the latter, particularly where, as here, the EEOC charge contains an explicit reference to “Equal Pay.” The question then becomes whether such a claim is contained in Loomis’ complaint.

When considering whether a complaint has alleged a particular claim of discrimination, a Court must be cognizant of the fact that