Imagine two attorneys doing the same work for the same employer. You’d naturally expect them to receive the same benefits, even if their salaries differ. But one Pennsylvania lawyer says she receives no employment benefits at all — while male attorneys doing comparable work do.
Debra Domenick is challenging that alleged disparity in a sex-discrimination lawsuit. Now, a federal judge has sided with her on several requests for information that could help her make her case.
Same Work, Different Treatment?
Domenick, an experienced trial attorney, took on the role of Juvenile Delinquency Conflict Counsel in 2024, when then-President Judge Trish Corbett appointed her to represent juveniles before the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas. Her appointment has no fixed end date, and she receives a set monthly payment. But when it comes to her employment status, the County classifies her as a vendor. The County does not treat her as a W-2 employee and provides no employment benefits.
Domenick compared herself to male attorney Shane Scanlon, who previously held her position and now serves as Juvenile Guardian Ad Litem. Different titles aside, Domenick alleges they perform the same duties, but Scanlon receives a higher salary and County benefits. She also points to four male part-time conflict attorneys representing adult criminal defendants who, she alleges, receive employee status and benefits.
Domenick has sued both the County and the Court of Common Pleas, alleging that they jointly employ her and have discriminated against her based on sex. Her claims arise under the federal Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
Before getting to the alleged unequal treatment, though, there’s a basic question to resolve: Should she be classified as a vendor in the first place?
Looking Beyond Her Own Position
To investigate the alleged differences in treatment, Domenick requested information about other part-time and per diem attorneys working for the County or the court. Who was classified as an employee, and who was paid as a vendor? What did they earn, what benefits did they receive, and who made those decisions?
The County’s response was narrower. It identified Scanlon and Kelly Hadley as previous holders of her position and explained that the Court of Common Pleas made those appointments and set the compensation: $1,500 per month, with Domenick receiving an increase to $1,875 in 2025.
But Domenick wasn’t asking only about her predecessors. She wanted information about other attorneys, too. The County resisted that broader inquiry, arguing that those lawyers provided services in “totally separate and distinct capacities” and objecting that her requests were vague, overly broad, burdensome, and irrelevant.
With the parties unable to resolve the dispute, Domenick asked the judge to require fuller answers and additional records.
County Must Provide More
U.S. District Judge Joseph F. Saporito Jr., of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, agreed that the County needed to provide more information. He rejected its objections that the broader requests were vague, overly broad, burdensome, and irrelevant, finding that the County had not specifically explained why the requests were improper or unduly burdensome.
According to Domenick, defense counsel had identified no more than 10 to 15 attorney positions potentially covered by the requests. The judge ruled that the County must provide additional information about part-time and per diem attorneys, including their compensation and benefits. It must also identify who made decisions about vendor appointments and compensation.
The required records extend beyond those answers. The County must produce responsive, nonprivileged documents concerning attorneys classified as vendors and paid on a 1099 basis from 2020 onward. Those include payment vouchers that, according to Domenick, the County had agreed to produce during the parties’ discovery discussions. The judge also required seniority lists reflecting part-time or per-diem attorneys on payroll beginning June 1, 2024.
Other disclosures concern Domenick’s own work arrangement, including her duties, supervisors, accounting and payroll status, personnel records, and related documentation. The County must also identify who supervised Scanlon when he previously held her position as a vendor.
Not Every Request Succeeded
Domenick also sought additional communications about her appointment, including exchanges involving Judge Corbett. The County maintained that it had no additional responsive documents beyond those already produced by the Court of Common Pleas. Saporito declined to compel more production, explaining that a party cannot produce documents it does not possess or control.
The judge found the limited communications unsurprising given the division of responsibilities in Pennsylvania’s judicial system. He explained that courts control the hiring, discharge, and supervision of court personnel, while counties fund salaries, services, and accommodations.
A Discovery Win, Not a Discrimination Finding
Saporito granted the motion to compel in part and denied it in part, requiring each side to bear its own expenses associated with the motion. He did not decide whether Domenick should be classified as an employee or whether the differences she identifies amount to sex discrimination.
In a separate October 30 ruling, Saporito denied the County’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed while the parties gather evidence about Domenick’s employment status and whether the County jointly employs her with the court. The County may renew its arguments in a later motion for summary judgment.
For Domenick, the ruling is a step toward examining the distinction at the heart of her case: why some attorneys receive employee status and benefits while she does not. The additional records could help show whether the comparison she draws holds up, and how those differences came about.
Establishing whether the work is comparable, and whether the different treatment is discriminatory, is the harder part. Domenick has not won that argument yet. But she has won the right to fuller answers.
