A VA doctor's lawsuit claims delayed salary reviews and pay gaps—HR leaders take note of the court's latest move
A Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) doctor’s pay discrimination lawsuit is challenging federal HR compensation practices after a pivotal court ruling on October 28, 2025.
Dr. Rebecca Metzinger, chief of ophthalmology at the New Orleans Veterans Medical Center since 2008, alleges she was paid less than her male subordinates and denied regular salary reviews. In her Equal Pay Act lawsuit against the United States, Metzinger claims the VA failed to provide her with the market pay adjustments that were given to male colleagues.
According to the complaint, Metzinger discovered in May 2017 that some of her male subordinates were earning higher salaries, despite her position as chief. She also learned that, during her nearly ten years at the VA, she should have received market pay panel reviews every other year—five times in total—but did not. Metzinger alleges that the VA routinely convened market pay panels and awarded increases to her male subordinates during this period.
In June 2017, Metzinger filed a sex discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and reported harassment by a male supervisor. Around August 2017, she received her first market pay panel, which increased her salary from $260,599 to $300,000, retroactive to June 26, 2016. Due to a payroll error, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service initially entered her updated salary at a lower rate, but later corrected the mistake. Between October 2017 and November 2019, Metzinger received six lump-sum payments totaling $55,103.16 to cover retroactive market-pay adjustments and correct payroll errors.
The government argued that Metzinger had received all the back pay she was owed from June 26, 2016, and moved for summary judgment before discovery began. Metzinger challenged the admissibility of the government’s payroll evidence and argued she was still entitled to liquidated damages, additional benefits, and attorney’s fees. She also requested that the court issue subpoenas for additional documents related to her salary changes, but the court denied this request, noting that discovery had not yet started and she could seek documents later in the process.
Judge Molly R. Silfen, in the United States Court of Federal Claims, found no genuine factual dispute that Metzinger received all the back pay owed from June 26, 2016. However, the court left unresolved whether Metzinger was owed back pay for the period between May 21 and June 26, 2016, and whether she was entitled to liquidated damages, certain benefits, and attorney’s fees. The court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, allowing the case to proceed to discovery.
For HR professionals, especially in healthcare or the public sector, the allegations in this case highlight the importance of regular pay reviews, transparent compensation practices, and thorough record-keeping. The court’s decision underscores the potential for pay equity disputes to result in protracted litigation, even when retroactive pay adjustments are made. As the case moves forward, HR leaders may look to its outcome for guidance on managing pay equity and compliance with the Equal Pay Act.
