Opinion ID: 351700
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Guiding Principles

Text: 53 An Equal Pay Act claimant must show that her salary was lower than that paid by the employer to employees of the opposite sex . . . for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. 115 The claimant bears the onus of demonstrating that the work unequally recompensed was equal within the meaning of the Act. 116 Once this has been done, the claimant will prevail unless the employer asserts as an affirmative defense that the wage differential is justified under one of the four exceptions enumerated in the Act (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex. 117 If one or more of these defenses is invoked, the employer bears the burden of proving that his policies fall within an exempted area. 118 This interpretation of the procedural mechanics of the Equal Pay Act comports with the construction of other provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, of which the Equal Pay Act is a part, by which statutory exceptions and exemptions are considered matters of affirmative defense to be proven by the employer. 119 54 One of the more frequent controversies aroused by the Equal Pay Act has involved litigants' attempts to demonstrate that jobs with different titles and descriptions are in reality equal in their calls upon the jobholders. The contest often necessitates an assessment of the significance of differences in job demands advanced by the employer to show that the jobs are not equal. For (it) is now well settled that jobs need not be identical in every respect before the Equal Pay Act is applicable; 120 the phrase equal work does not mean that the jobs must be identical, but merely that they must be substantially equal. 121 A wage differential is justified only if it compensates for an appreciable variation in skill, effort or responsibility between otherwise comparable job work activities. 122 55 The Department of Labor has promulgated an extensive series of regulations 123 to guide the application of the equal pay standard, (which) is not dependent on job classifications or titles but depends rather on actual job requirements and performance. . . . 124 One regulation states: 56 Congress did not intend that inconsequential differences in job content would be a valid excuse for payment of a lower wage to an employee of one sex than to an employee of the opposite sex if the two are performing equal work on essentially the same job in the same establishment. 125 57 Another points out that (i)nsubstantial or minor differences in the degree or amount of skill, or effort, or responsibility required for the performance of jobs will not render the equal pay standard inapplicable. 126 58 These regulations are entitled to great deference by the courts in applying the Equal Pay Act to given factual situations. 127 Courts have consistently held that differences in the duties respectively assigned male and female employees must be evaluated as part of the entire job. 128 Thus, if in the aggregate the jobs require substantially similar skills, efforts and responsibilities, the work will be adjudged equal despite minor variations. 129 59 When there is a disparity between salaries paid men and women for similar positions bearing different titles such as pursers and stewardesses the courts have scrutinized the evidence to discern whether the salary differential is justified by heterogeneous duties. 130 Another regulation of the Department of Labor states in relevant part, 60 (i)n determining whether job differences are so substantial as to make jobs unequal, it is pertinent to inquire whether and to what extent significance is given to such differences in setting the wage levels for such jobs. Such an inquiry may . . . disclose that apparent differences between jobs have not been recognized as relevant for wage purposes. . . . 131 61 An employer cannot justify a pay differential by mere assumptions on career-orientation, the duration or probable length of working time, or a supposed respect for male authority and leadership. 132 Moreover, training programs which appear to be available only to employees of one sex will . . . be carefully examined to determine whether such programs are, in fact, bona fide. 133 62 An employer must show a consistent pattern of performance of additional duties in order to demonstrate that added duties are genuinely the motivating factor for the substantially higher pay. It is not sufficient that an increased workload might hypothetically have commanded a higher salary if it is not in fact the basis for a significantly greater wage. The employer may not fabricate an after-the-fact rationalization for a sex-based pay difference. (T)he semblance of (a) valid job classification system may not be allowed to mask the existence of wage discrimination based on sex. 134 63 Often, evidence superficially purporting to justify greater pay as compensation for added work is found upon close examination to have inconsistencies which render its evidentiary value weaker. Where, for example, all male employees receive greater pay but only some perform the extra tasks allegedly justifying that pay, a reasonable inference is that maleness not the added chores is the basis for the higher wage. This is particularly true if the duties are of peripheral importance and the increase in pay is substantial. 135 Moreover, if some women without added compensation render the same extra performance that purportedly justified the pay differential favoring men, the inference becomes even stronger that the duties are irrelevant to the wage setting. 136 Similar evidence of discriminatory wage patterns is to be found where women are paid only for the amount of time actually spent on the extra work, but men are uniformly paid at the higher rate regardless of whether or not they are doing the work. 137 Additionally the Fourth Circuit has found corroborative evidence that higher pay is not related to extra duties when qualified female employees are not given the opportunity to do the extra work. 138 The conclusion to be drawn, when any of these inconsistent patterns exists, is that 64 (d)espite claims to the contrary, the extra tasks were found to be makeweights. This left sex which in this context refers to the availability of women at lower wages than men as the one discernible reason for the wage differential. That, however, is precisely the criterion for setting wages that the Act prohibits. 139