Promotion & Pay Equity Reviews: How to Spot Discrimination in Raises and Titles (MI)

Promotions and raises are defining moments in an employee’s career. They don’t just reflect how your employer values your work today—they shape your earnings, responsibilities, and opportunities for years to come. A missed promotion or a smaller-than-expected raise can have a ripple effect that follows you long after the review cycle ends.

Title changes and compensation decisions influence future job offers, bonus eligibility, leadership opportunities, and even how your experience is perceived outside the company. That’s why inequities often surface during annual reviews, reorganizations, mergers, or periods of growth. These are moments when discretion is exercised, roles are redefined, and decisions are made behind closed doors.

Discrimination in pay or promotions is rarely obvious. It doesn’t usually come with explicit comments or negative performance reviews. Instead, it often appears subtly—through stalled advancement, vague explanations, shifting standards, or praise that never seems to translate into tangible rewards. Understanding how these decisions should be made is the first step in recognizing when something isn’t right.

How Promotion and Pay Decisions Are Supposed to Work

Employers generally have discretion when it comes to raises and promotions, but that discretion is not unlimited. Lawful decision-making is grounded in legitimate, job-related criteria applied consistently across employees.

Legitimate factors employers typically rely on include:

• Performance metrics
  
  • Meeting or exceeding goals
  • Quality and consistency of work
  • Documented performance evaluations
• Experience and tenure
  
  • Time in role or with the company
  • Demonstrated growth or increased responsibility
• Education, credentials, or specialized skills
  
  • Required licenses or certifications
  • Advanced training or technical expertise

The difference between discretion and arbitrariness

• Discretion allows employers to choose among qualified employees
• Arbitrariness occurs when decisions:
  
  • Lack clear criteria
  • Shift from person to person
  • Are justified only after the fact

When similarly situated employees are treated differently without a clear, job-related reason, legal concerns arise.

Why consistency and documentation matter

• Consistent standards help demonstrate fairness
• Documentation shows how decisions were made
• A lack of records often undermines an employer’s explanations

In pay and promotion disputes, inconsistent reasoning is one of the strongest indicators that discrimination may be at play.

Michigan and Federal Laws That Govern Pay and Promotion Equity

Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA)

ELCRA is one of the most important tools for Michigan employees facing pay or promotion discrimination.

Under ELCRA:

• Protected characteristics include race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, height, weight, marital status, and disability
• Employers are prohibited from discriminating in:
  
  • Compensation
  • Promotions
  • Job titles
  • Other terms and conditions of employment

ELCRA applies broadly and often provides stronger protections than federal law.

Federal Protections

Federal law also plays a significant role in pay and promotion equity.

Key statutes include:

• The Equal Pay Act
  
  • Requires equal pay for equal work
  • Focuses on substantially similar job duties, not job titles
• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
  
  • Prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics
  • Covers both pay decisions and promotional opportunities
  • Addresses disparate treatment, even when policies appear neutral

What Pay Equity Really Means

Equal pay vs. equal opportunity

• Equal pay focuses on whether employees performing substantially similar work are paid comparably
• Equal opportunity focuses on whether employees have fair access to raises, promotions, and advancement paths

An employer may comply with one and still violate the other. For example, equal starting pay means little if certain employees are consistently excluded from advancement.

“Substantially similar work” explained

Courts do not rely on job titles alone. Instead, they evaluate whether employees perform work that is substantially similar by looking at:

• Actual job duties performed
• Level of responsibility and decision-making authority
• Skill, effort, and working conditions

Two employees with different titles may be doing substantially similar work, while two employees with the same title may not.

Why job titles alone do not control pay equity analysis

• Titles are often used inconsistently across organizations
• Employers may inflate titles without increasing compensation
• Courts focus on substance over labels

When compensation differences exist, employers must be able to explain them based on real differences in work—not just a line on an org chart.

Common Red Flags in Raises and Promotions

Discrimination in raises and promotions rarely appears as a single event. It more often shows up as a pattern that becomes clear over time.

Warning signs employees should not ignore include:

• Repeatedly being passed over despite strong performance
  
  • Positive reviews without advancement
  • Praise that never translates into raises or title changes
• Lower raises than similarly situated coworkers
  
  • Smaller percentage increases
  • Reduced bonuses without explanation
• Title inflation for some employees but not others
  
  • Coworkers receiving upgraded titles without role changes
  • Expanded responsibilities without corresponding title or pay
• Being told to “wait your turn” without clear criteria
  
  • No timeline or benchmarks for promotion
  • Shifting explanations year to year

When explanations change or standards seem to move only for certain employees, that inconsistency often becomes critical evidence.

Comparator Evidence

Most pay and promotion discrimination cases rise or fall on comparator evidence—how the employee was treated compared to others.

What makes a coworker a valid comparator

A valid comparator is not simply someone you work with. Courts look for coworkers who are similarly situated in meaningful ways.

Key factors that matter include:

• Job duties
  
  • Core responsibilities
  • Day-to-day tasks
  • Scope of work
• Responsibility level
  
  • Supervisory authority
  • Budget or decision-making power
  • Impact on the organization
• Experience and qualifications
  
  • Relevant background
  • Education or certifications
  • Time in role or industry

The closer the match, the stronger the comparison.

Why employers often resist transparency

Employers frequently resist sharing pay and promotion data because:

• Patterns become visible when information is compared
• Inconsistencies are harder to explain
• Subjective decision-making is exposed

Lack of transparency does not defeat a claim, but it often explains why disparities persist unchecked.

How Bias Can Appear Without Explicit Discrimination

Discrimination in pay and promotions rarely looks overt. More often, it shows up through subtle systems and patterns that disadvantage certain employees over time while appearing neutral on the surface.

Common ways bias appears without explicit statements include:

• Subjective evaluation criteria
  
  • Vague performance standards
  • Inconsistent scoring or weighting
  • Reviews that depend heavily on manager impressions
• “Culture fit” and “leadership presence” as coded language
  
  • Undefined traits that favor those who look or act like current leadership
  • Standards that shift depending on who is being evaluated
• Informal decision-making behind closed doors
  
  • Promotions decided before reviews occur
  • Opportunities discussed in private conversations
  • Lack of transparency around who was considered and why
• Pattern discrimination over time
  
  • One decision may seem explainable
  • Repeated outcomes affecting the same groups raise legal concerns
  • Trends often matter more than isolated incidents

Courts and investigators frequently focus on patterns because bias is rarely admitted but often revealed through consistent results.

When Pay and Promotion Disparities Become Illegal

Not every unfair or frustrating decision is illegal. But pay and promotion disparities cross the legal line when they are driven by protected characteristics rather than legitimate business reasons.

Key legal concepts include:

• Disparate treatment vs. disparate impact
  
  • Disparate treatment involves intentional discrimination
  • Disparate impact involves neutral practices that disproportionately harm protected groups
• Lack of legitimate, non-discriminatory explanations
  
  • Vague or unsupported justifications
  • Explanations that don’t match documented performance
• Shifting justifications from management
  
  • One reason given initially, another later
  • New explanations appearing only after a complaint
• Patterns affecting protected classes
  
  • Repeated disparities involving gender, race, age, disability, or other protected traits
  • Statistical or anecdotal evidence showing a broader trend

When these factors are present, pay and promotion decisions are no longer just discretionary—they may be unlawful.

Don’t Let Unequal Pay or Titles Become Permanent

Pay and title decisions don’t exist in a vacuum. A smaller raise this year or a delayed promotion today can compound over time—affecting future earnings, bonuses, leadership opportunities, and even how your experience is valued by the next employer. What may seem like a temporary setback can quietly become a long-term disadvantage.

Silence often benefits the employer, not the employee. When inequities go unchallenged, they tend to repeat themselves. Employers rarely correct disparities on their own unless concerns are raised, documented, and taken seriously. Waiting too long can make it harder to untangle unfair decisions and easier for unequal treatment to become the “new normal.”

Contact Batey Law Firm, PLLC

If you believe you’ve been denied a raise, promotion, or title change because of discrimination—or you’re unsure whether your employer’s explanations hold up under Michigan law—experienced employment attorney Scott Batey can help you evaluate your situation and protect your rights.

Batey Law Firm, PLLC
30200 Telegraph Rd., Suite 400
Bingham Farms, MI 48025
📞 248-540-6800
📧 sbatey@bateylaw.com