Document: 417 U.S. 188 94 S.Ct. 2223 41 L.Ed.2d 1 CORNING GLASS WORKS, Petitioner,v.Peter J. BRENNAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department Labor. Peter Petitioner, v. WORKS. Nos. 73—29, 73—695. Argued March 25, 1974. Decided June 3, Syllabus Male employees at the Corning Glass Works (Corning) previously performed night shift inspection and were paid more than females, who day inspection. A plantwide differential that subsequently came with unionization was superimposed on existing base-wage difference between male inspectors female inspectors. Thereafter, beginning 1, 1966, began to open up jobs for women, an equal seniority basis men able bid higher as vacancies occurred. On January 20, 1969, a new 'job evaluation' system setting wage rates took effect, under which all hired receive same base (which previous rate) regardless sex or shift. Employees before date, however, when working continue ('red circle') rate, thus perpetuating in pay The Labor brought these actions backpay injunctive relief against Corning, claiming violations Equal Pay Act 1963 had occurred its N.Y. (No. 73—29), Wellsboro, Pa. 73—695), plants. In No. District Court granted relief, Appeals Second Circuit affirmed, concluding Corning's practice violated Act, while 73—695 held not been violated, Third affirmed. order establish violation it must be shown employer pays different wages opposite sexes 'for work performance requires skill, effort, responsibility, are similar conditions,' except where payment is made pursuant merit one measuring earnings by quantity quality production, 'based any other factor sex.' Held: 1. during period from effective date 1966. Pp. 195—205. (a) statutory term 'working clear Act's legislative history, encompasses only physical surroundings hazards time worked. 197 204. (b) record amply supports conclusion 73—29 sustained burden proof pre-June 1966 all-male fact intended serve added compensation work, based 'factor Substantial evidence showed arose simply because would low women reflected job market could less work. 204—205. 2. did cure permitting inspectors, since have cured equalizing 205—208. 3. equalized inspector rates, 'red circle' rate perpetuated discrimination. 208—210. 474 F.2d 226, affirmed; 73—695, 480 1254, reversed remanded. Scott F. Zimmerman, Pittsburgh, Pa., petitioner 73 29 respondent Allan A. Tuttle, Raleigh, N.C., Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. These cases arise 1963, 77 Stat. 56, § U.S.C. 206(d)(1),1 6 Fair Standards 1938 principle sex. principal question posed whether paying performing tasks shift, addition separate Circuit, case involving several plants New York, this Act. 226 (1973). plant Pennsylvania, reached conclusion. 1254 We certiorari consolidated resolve unusually direct conflict two circuits. 414 1110, 839, 38 737 Finding ourselves substantial agreement analysis we affirm reverse 2 * Prior 1925, operated Wellsboro day, women. Between 1925 1930, company introduce automatic production equipment desirable institute During period, both York Pennsylvania law prohibited night.2 As result, fill positions recruit among dayworkers. so transferred demanded received substantially those engaged shifts.3 no plant-wide existed night, their counterparts. Thus situation developed male,4 female, significantly wages. 3 1944, locations organized labor union collective-bargaining negotiated maintenance employees. This first established differential,5 but change eliminate Rather, 4 11, 1964, Act,6 amended permit night.7 It until some after initiated efforts Beginning started Previously lists became eligible exercise seniority, men, 5 went into establishing rates. abolished future imposed uniform exceeding effect. All wage, whatever further provided, prior served essentially perpetuate enjoin violating Act8 collect back allegedly due bacause past violations. Three distinct questions presented: (1) Did ever violate inspectors? (2) If so, (3) Finally, if remedied 1969 shift? II 7 Congress' purpose enacting remedy what perceived serious endemic problem employment discrimination private industry—the structure 'many segments American industry has ancient outmoded belief man, his role society, should woman even though duties same.' S.Rep. 176, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., (1963). solution adopted quite simple principle: require 'equal will rewarded wages.' Ibid. 8 basic operation similarly straightforward. make out show conditions.' Although silent point, history makes plain issue,9 courts below recognized.10 9 also establishes four exceptions—three specific general catchall provision—where 'is (i) system; (ii) (iii) measures production; (iv) Again, question, suggest once carried showing workers shifts justified exceptions. many lower considered held,11 view consistent rule application exemption matter affirmative defense proof.12 10 contentions parties reflect underlying framework. argues failed prove 'performed conditions' maintains 'similar within meaning Act.13 recognizes may contends such upon sex' catch-all exception carry 11 relied part conflicting statements having bearing construction. found particularly significant statement Congressman Goodell, sponsor bill, who, course explaining bill floor House, commented 'standing opposed sitting, pleasantness unpleasantness surroundings, periodic rest periods, hours logically fall condition factor.' 109 Cong.Rec. 9209 (1963) (emphasis added). contrast, House Committee Report which, describing broad differentials sex,' stated: 'Thus, things, . excluded. .' H.R.Rep.No.309, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 687, 689. 12 agree Judge Friendly, better understanding phrase can obtained consideration way Congress arrived language trying reconcile preferences interpretations individual legislators committee reports. Frankfurther remarked earlier interpretation 'regard process culminated now us affords solid ground giving appropriate meaning.' Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp., 344 218, 222, 227, 230, 97 L.Ed. 260 (1952). 13 most notable feature recognized early concept readily stated reduced meaningful employers workable across range industries covered originally introduced, required skills.' There exceptions—for 'made increase does discriminate .'14 14 Senate hearings, witnesses highly critical definition exemptions. Many noted used formal, systematic evaluation plans equitable structures plants.15 Such systems, explained coincidentally representative testified factors determining value—skill, responsibility conditions—and each components systematically divided various subcomponents.16 Under plan, point values assigned subcomponents given job, resulting total figure representing relatively objective measure job's value. 15 comparison rather complex industry, drafts criticized unduly vague incomplete. Industry representatives feared result bill's cast position second-guessing validity company's system. They repeatedly urged include classification otherwise incorporate bill.17 own testified: 16 'Job accepted tested method attaining equity relationship. 17 'A great committed contractual administration. 18 "Skill' alone, criterion, fails recognize aspects affect worth. 19 'We sincerely hope passing legislation differences relationship.'18 20 think amending present form, acted response pleas. Spokesmen stated, example, debates: 21 'The demanding skill expanded conditions. core systems. form legitimate pay.'19 22 Indeed, telling congressional intent incorporated plan described hearings representative—that is, concepts 'skill,' 'effort,' 'responsibility,' 23 intent, manifested use terms federal well-defined well-accepted principles ensure bona fide outside purview emphasized. 24 'This there relationships valid pay. majority Thus, anticipated program charge discrimination.' supra, Admin.News, 688, 25 light understood, technical words art, 'it (is) proper explain them reference art science they (are) appropriate.' Greenleaf Goodrich, 101 278, 284, 845 (1880). See NLRB Highland Park Mfg. Co., 341 322, 326, 71 758, 761, 95 969 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). salutary where, here, reveals special field regulated statute overcome objections definitions 26 While layman might well assume worked reflects aspect much industrial relations. element conditions subfactors: 'surroundings' 'hazards.'20 'Surroundings' elements, toxic chemicals fumes, regularly encountered worker, intensity, frequency. 'Hazards' takes account encountered, frequency, severity injury cause. wide industry.21 27 Nowhere mentioned relevant criterion. specialized encompass differentials. plans, including consistently treated respects, conditions.22 And Manager Job Evaluation condition.'23 Significantly, look behind historically viewed unequal asks differentiate itself always equated. issue case, work' defined Act.24 28 mean, course, room nondiscriminatory Work steady doubt psychological physiological impacts making attractive contemplates worker just employee years' Factors play exceptions—the exception, sex.'25 remains, proving solely constituted Court's proof.26 revealed, 'the large product generally level need compensate regarded demeaning tasks.' F.2d, 233. originated corresponding workers, maintained long instituted thought adequately additional burdens That advantage understandable economics, nevertheless illegal enacted III 30 consider continued remain when, without changing evident token gesture end discrimination, turnover rapid. shows, two-year permitted jobs, 152 278 openings, very little obtain Relying facts, ceased discriminating longer 31 But company, abstract sense, said proved. circuits occasion issue, implicit language, purpose, history. 32 noted, '(r)ecognizing weaker bargaining believing represented unfair exploitation source cheap labor.' 234. families dependent income included finding inspec-wage depresses living standards necessary health efficiency.' Pub.L. 88—38, 2(a) (1), 56 declared policy correct condition. 2(b). 33 To achieve end, then specified: 34 'provided, subsection shall not, comply provisions subsection, reduce employee.' 206(d) (1). 35 proviso '(t)he increased higher.' p. 688. Comments view. Representative Dwyer remarked, drag down levels raise enjoyed still practiced.'27 Griffin raised higher.'28 36 By implicitly demonstrated unlawfully depressed fair whole raised, justice themselves, 'constitutes competition.' 2(a)(5). JudgeFriendly 37 'In apparent understanding, cannot hold allowing some—or many—women move achieved full compliance action left shift—virtually women—earning initially consideration; taking availability differentially 235. broadly remedial, construed applied fulfill purposes sought achieve. If, proved, obligated counterparts escape obligation agreeing allow frustrate, serve, ends. Shultz Can Co.—Dixie Products, 424 356, 359 (CA8 1970); Hodgson Miller Brewing 457 221, 227 (CA7 1972); Square D 459 805, 808—809 (CA6 1972). 39 final contention—that effect 1969—need detain long. provided provide likely number laid-off offered re-employment hired. After considering calculated agreement, concluded failure equalize required, entitled inspectors.29 therefore conclude facts phrased neutral sex, effects Cf. Griggs Duke Power 401 424, 430, 91 849, 853, 158 (1971). 40 judgment 695 remanded proceedings opinion. ordered. 42 Judgment 43 STEWART decision cases. 44 THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST dissent reasons Adams Brennan Works, (CA3 1973). 'No subject section discriminate, establishment employed, he conditions, sex: Provided, p.m. a.m. 1927 N.Y.Laws, c. 453; 1930 868. July 1913, 466, Pa.Laws 1913. Higher earning money creation ranging cents per hour. Most designated newly created blowing lowest 48 hour incentive earned. 53 'demeaning' 'women's work.' temporary World War manpower shortages caused employ locations. appears earned men. three afternoon five respectively. Section take expiration year 10, enactment, least days termination agreement. conceded respect stipulated limitations barred claims November 1964. With plant, apparently dispute evidently believes 1965, outstanding reopened 24, requirements enactment. see that, event, bars recovery October 1953 amendment allowed females over age midnight factories operating multiple Industrial Commissioner transportation safety satisfactory approval. 708, N.Y.Labor Law 172, formerly codified 173(3)(a)(1) (1965) (McKinney's Consol.Laws, 31). 1947 conditioned approval State Industry, 1947, 543, 1397, Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 43, 104 (Supp.1974 1975), state regulations furnish public available. available economically feasible hire regular Pa.Dept. Regulations Relating Hours Conditions Employment Women Rule S—8(c) (1966). repealed, either expressly implication, night-work restrictions cited above. N.Y.Laws 1042, 2, 2630, repealing 173.3.a(1) replacing 177.1(c), repealed 1973, 377, 1336; 133, 951 et seq. (Supp.1974—1975), impliedly voided laws specifically protecting Op.Atty.Gen. 69—304, Dec. 5, 1969. issued worded injunction modified limiting largely 'Corning endeavoring sincerely, ineffectively—to bring compliance.' 236 (CA2 Since Government seek Circuit's judgment, question. 9196 (Rep. Frelinghuysen); 9208 Rep. Goodell). 231 1973); 1258 Behrens Drug 475 1041, 1049 (CA5 Golden Isles Convalescent Homes, Inc., 468 1256, 1257 Fairmont Supply 454 490, 493 (CA4 Brookhaven General Hospital, 436 719, 722 Co.-Dixie 360 1970). 231; 1258; Robert Hall Clothes, 473 589, 597 (CA3), cert. denied sub nom. 866, 50, 85 (1973); Security Nat. Bank Sioux City, 460 57, 59 n. Wheaton 421 259, 266 denied, 398 905, 90 1696, 64 (1970); 362; First Victoria Bank, 420 648, 654 1969); Savannah, 347 F.Supp. 63, 67 (SD Ga.1972); Maison Miramon, 843, (ED La.1972); W. Lyles, 335 128, 131 (Md.1971), aff'd, 625 City Stores, 332 942, 947 (MD Ala.1971); Kimberly-Clark 315 1323, 1332 (WD Tenn.1970); Wirtz Basic 256 786, 790 (Nev.1966). CFR 800.141 H. Phillips, Inc. Walling, 324 493, 65 807, 808, 89 1095 (1945); Arnold Ben Kanowsky, 361 388, 392, 80 453, 456, 393 (1960); Walling Industries 330 545, 547—548, 883, 884, 1088 (1947); Mitchell Kentucky Finance 290, 295, 79 756, 759, 815 (1959). advances argument ashamed unlawful goes, already fully differential, 'similar' differential. appear presented opinions assumption concerned Secretary's fail unless For reason, our resolution condition' intimate views argument. S. 882, (1963); cf. 910, 4(a) See, e.g., Hearings Subcommittee Public Welfare, 26, 73, 79, 124, 140, 178 (hereinafter Hearings); Special Education 145—146 Hearings). 96—104; 232—240. 304—305, 307—308. 74, 130, 138, 178; 145, 146, 159, 199—200. 98; 9195 Freling-huysen). 98—99; 234—236. D. Belcher, Wage Salary Administration 271—274, 287—289 (1955); Dept. Dictionary Occupational Titles 656 (3d ed. 1965); Civil Service Commission, Grading System Trades Occupations, F.P.M.Supp. 512—1, A3—3 (1970). Pursuant 1944 consultants, labeled SJ&H evaluated 'general schooling,' 'training period,' 'manual skill,' 'versatility,' knowledge,' evaluation, 'surrounding (wet, heat, cold, dust, grease, noises, etc.) (bruises, cuts, heavy lifting, slippery floors, machines, chemicals, gases, bodily injuries, unavoidably subjected duties.' put 1963—1964 called CGW awarded App. 66. claimed do certain amount packing, cleaning Noting settled identical every applicable, extra consequence remained equal. 265; 360; 493. pursued here. An administrative Hour Administrator legitimacy 800.145 discussed Part III, infra, latter deal issues, then, 73—29. extent records factual matters relating questions, leave instance, case. 2714 Hearings, 15, 65. Thompson). 8% 20¢ across-the-board increase, pre-January retroactive 4, 1968. contract positions. retroactively current job—that old rate—employees through protection. wage. Had complied protection rate.

Category: 1