*1 Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Reconsider” in this matter, requesting reconsideration of guidance the court provided at an informal discovery conference held on July 13, 2021. Dkt. 23. Plaintiff's motion to reconsider is construed as a motion to compel regarding the issues raised in Plaintiff's brief. Dkt. 24. The motion has been fully briefed. The parties did not request oral argument; thus, the court will rule on the pleadings. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 23) is GRANTED.

This action involves a gender pay disparity case alleging violation of and retaliation under the Equal Pay Act and discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. One contested discovery issue remains—Plaintiff's request for the gender and job title of Defendant's employees from 2010 to 2020. Dkt. 23. Defendant has already provided the names and salaries of the 191 employees during the time frame at issue. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for gender and job title information, asserting that it is overly broad in time and scope, unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case.

Plaintiff asserts that the gender and job title information is necessary for her expert to determine whether there is a statistically significant association between the gender and salary of Defendant's employees. Plaintiff alleges that her expert, A. Bentley Hankins, Ph.D., cannot provide an accurate opinion regarding pay disparity throughout Defendant's company without the gender and job title information. Plaintiff relies upon cases noting that statistical analysis can establish a prima facie case of discrimination without showing specific instances of discrimination. See Dkt. 24, p. 6 (citing Long v. Sapp, 502 F.2d 34 (5th Cir. 1974)). Plaintiff asserts that the employees' genders are readily known, are kept in the normal course of business, and creating such data would not require extensive time or effort by Defendant.

Defendant asserts that it does not maintain job title and gender information with its pay records and locating and producing the information would be “an exceedingly burdensome undertaking and bear no truly useful fruit for Plaintiff's expert.” Dkt. 30, p. 5. Defendant cites to Dr. Hankins' expert report dated June 18, 2021, which states,

*2 Dkt. 30-1. Defendant filed a motion in limine, seeking to exclude Dr. Hankins' report due, in part, to the lack of evidence to support a statistical relationship between gender and pay at Defendant's company. Dkt. 27. Thus, Defendant asserts that employee gender and job title information is not relevant to Plaintiff's claim, while also seeking to exclude Plaintiff's expert testimony on the basis that this information has not been provided. Plaintiff asserts, “[i]f Dr. Hankins had this data, it is very likely his opinions would be more suitable for said testimony.” Dkt. 33, p. 5.

Statistical evidence may be relevant in an individual, disparate treatment case. See Carter v. Ball, 33 F.3d 450, 456 (4th Cir. 1994). Such evidence may be used to establish an inference of discrimination as an element of plaintiff's prima facie case, or to demonstrate that an employer's stated nondiscriminatory reason for its action is in reality a pretext. Id. (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 804–05 (1973). “The usefulness of statistics depends on the surrounding facts and circumstances.” Id. (citing Int'l Broth. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 340, (1977)).

Here, the gender and job title information Plaintiff seeks is relevant to her expert's statistical analysis, and the request is proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant has already provided the names and salary information of its employees. Defendant provides no basis for its assertion that it would be unduly burdensome or expensive to provide the gender and job title for each employee. Further, Defendant cannot refuse to provide information in discovery and subsequently move to exclude Plaintiff's expert due, in part, to the lack of that same information.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED, and Defendant is ORDERED to provide the gender and job title for each of the 191 employees listed on Exhibit E (Dkt. 23-5) within 7 days.