Posts Tagged: equal pay

Corning Glass Works v. Brennan: EPA Law Requires Equal Pay for Equal Work

In Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188 (1974), the Supreme Court addressed the allocation of proof in pay discrimination claims under the Equal Pay Act of 1963. This was the first Supreme Court decision applying the Equal Pay Act. The Court held that to prevail on an EPA claim, the plaintiff must prove that the employer pays an employee of the one sex more than it pays an employee of the other sex for substantially equal work. The opinion addressed what it meant for two employees to perform “substantially equal work” for the purposes of the Equal Pay Act, including what it means for work to be performed under “similar working conditions.” 

Facts

Corning was a glassworks company. It employed night shift inspectors and day shift inspectors at its plants. For many years, Corning allowed only men to work the night shift, and it paid night shift inspectors more than it paid the day shift inspectors, who were women. In June 1966, three years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act, Corning began opening the night shift jobs to women, allowing female employees to apply for the higher-paid night inspection jobs on an equal seniority basis with men.  

In January 1969, Corning implemented a new “job evaluation” system for setting wage rates. Under that pay system, all subsequently-hired inspectors were to receive the same base wage (which was higher than the previous night shift rate) regardless of sex or shift. With respect to employees hired before the new pay system went into effect, however, the pay plan provided that those employees who worked the night shift would continue to receive a higher (“red circle”) rate. Because of this “red circle” rate, the new pay system perpetuated the previous difference in base pay between day and night inspectors, thereby also perpetuating the previous disparity in pay between female (day) inspectors and male (night) inspectors. 

The Equal Pay Act prohibits an employer from paying different wages to employees of opposite sexes “for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions,” except where the difference in payment is made pursuant to a seniority or merit system or one measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production, or where the differential is “based on any other factor other than sex.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)

The Secretary of Labor brought suit, asserting that Corning’s pay practices violated the EPA by paying male and female inspectors differently for equal work. 

The Court’s Decision

The Court addressed the question of whether Corning’s pay practices violated the EPA by paying different wages to employees of opposite sexes for “equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions[.]” The Court found that they did. 

First, the Court held that Corning’s pay practices from the passage of the EPA in 1963 to June 1966 violated the EPA, because during that period the night shift inspectors (all male) were paid more than the day shift inspectors (female) and the night shift and day shift inspectors performed equal work “under similar working conditions.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). Corning argued the difference between working at night and working at day meant the different positions did not entail similar working conditions. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the EPA’s legislative history established that the statutory term “working conditions,” as used in the EPA, encompasses only physical surroundings and hazards, and not the time of day worked. 417 U.S. 197-204.

Corning also argued that the pre-1966 pay disparity was lawful because the higher pay to (male) night inspectors was intended as additional compensation for the inconvenience of night work, and thus the pay disparity was based on a “factor other than sex[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). The Court rejected this argument, holding the evidence showed the pay disparity in fact arose because men would not work for the low rates paid to women inspectors. The pay disparity therefore “reflected a job market in which Corning could pay women less than men for the same work.” 417 U.S. 204-05.

Second, the Court held that Corning did not remedy its violation of the EPA in June 1966 simply by permitting women to work as night shift inspectors, because the violation could only be cured by increasing the base wages of female day inspectors to meet the higher rates paid to night inspectors. Corning’s action in allowing women to work the night shift did not accomplish this, as “Corning’s action still left the inspectors on the day shift — virtually all women — earning a lower base wage than the night shift inspectors because of a differential initially based on sex and still not justified by any other consideration[.]” 417 U.S. 207-08. In effect, “Corning was still taking advantage of the availability of female labor to fill its day shift at a differentially low wage rate not justified by any factor other than sex.” Id. Thus, Corning’s allowing women to work the night shift, without increasing base pay to the female day shift workers, did not remedy the EPA violation. 

Finally, the Court held the Corning did not remedy its violation of the EPA in January 1969 with its pay plan equalizing day and night inspector rates, because the plan’s higher “red circle” rate paid to employees who previously worked the night shift only perpetuated the previous unlawful pay disparity. This was because the previously-hired male night shift workers would receive the higher red circle rate based on their pre-1969 pay — before day and night wage rates were equalized. Thus, the pay plan had the unlawful effect of continuing the pay disparity between men and women for equal work. As the Court observed, “the company’s continued discrimination in base wages between night and day workers, though phrased in terms of a neutral factor other than sex, nevertheless operated to perpetuate the effects of the company’s prior illegal practice of paying women less than men for equal work.” 417 U.S. 209-10.

Analysis

This case was important because it marked the first time the Supreme Court addressed the requirements of the Equal Pay Act. The Court held that to prevail on an EPA claim, the plaintiff must prove that the employer pays an employee of one sex more than it pays an employee of the other sex for substantially equal work. The opinion addressed what it meant for two employees to perform “substantially equal work” for the purposes of the EPA, and held that the requirement for work to be performed under “similar working conditions” referred to physical surroundings and hazards, and not the time of day worked. If a male employee and a female employee perform equal work at different times of the day, they should therefore be given equal pay — unless the pay disparity is based on a seniority or merit system or one measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production, or where the differential is “based on any other factor other than sex.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). If an employer’s pay practices violate the EPA, the only way to cure the violation is to equalize wages between men and women — simply offering women the same job titles is not sufficient. And pay systems that have the effect of perpetuating prior discrimination may still violate the EPA — even if the pay system is neutrally-worded and made without intent to discriminate. 

This site is intended to provide general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and attorney Tim Coffield or Coffield PLC. Parts of this site may be considered attorney advertising. If you have questions about any particular issue or problem, you should contact your attorney. Please view the full disclaimer. If you would like to request a consultation with attorney Tim Coffield, you may call 1-434-218-3133 or send an email to info@coffieldlaw.com.

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938: Minimum Wage and Overtime Protections for Workers

Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938—in the midst of the Great Depression—to combat the pervasive “evils and dangers resulting from wages too low to buy the bare necessities of life and from long hours of work injurious to health.” S. Rep. No. 75–884, at 4 (1937); Salinas v. Commercial Interiors, Inc., 848 F.3d 125, 132–33 (4th Cir. 2017). Congress intended the FLSA “to free commerce from the interferences arising from the production of goods under conditions that were detrimental to the health and well-being of workers,” Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 727 (1947), and “to protect the rights of those who toil, of those who sacrifice a full measure of their freedom and talents to the use and profit of others.” Benshoff v. City of Va. Beach, 180 F.3d 136, 140 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotes and cites omitted).

The FLSA establishes a federal minimum wage and requires employers to pay “a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate” to employees who work more than forty hours in a single workweek. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a), 207(a)(1). Under the FLSA, a workweek is generally (with few exceptions) a period of 7 consecutive 24 hour periods (168 total hours). Employees covered under the FLSA must be paid for all hours worked in a workweek. As defined by the statute the term “employ” includes “to suffer or permit to work.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(g). An employee’s hours worked includes all time an employee must be on duty, or on the employer’s premises or at any other prescribed place of work, from the beginning of the first principal activity of the workday to the end of the last principal work activity of the workday. See DOL Fact Sheet #22 on Hours Worked and regulations at 29 C.F.R Part 785. The FLSA also establishes employer recordkeeping requirements and youth employment standards. See 29 C.F.R. Part 516 (record keeping) and 29 C.F.R. Part 570 and DOL Fact Sheet #43 (youth employment). The FLSA applies to all covered, non-exempt employees in the private sector, as well as federal, state, and local governments.

Effective July 24, 2009, the FLSA established that all covered non-exempt workers are entitled to a minimum wage of no less than $7.25 per hour. Many states, however, have enacted their own state minimum wage laws. Some state laws provide greater protections for workers and a higher minimum wage, compared to the federal law. Should an employee be subject to both state and federal minimum wage, the law entitles the employee to the higher wage.

The FLSA covers all employees of enterprises that have workers engaged in interstate commerce, or the handling, selling, producing, or working on goods or materials that have been moved or produced for commerce between states or foreign countries. Some employees are not covered under all or part of the FLSA, because their job duties render them exempt from the law’s overtime pay provisions or from both the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions. An employee who is “exempt” from the overtime pay provisions is not entitled to overtime pay for time worked over 40 hours in a workweek.

Exemptions from Overtime Pay

The following are some examples of overtime pay exemptions. This list is illustrative and does not include every exemption. These examples simply identify some categories and do not define the conditions for each exemption:

  • Certain commissioned employees of retail or service establishments; auto, truck, trailer, farm implement, boat, or aircraft sales-workers; or parts-clerks and mechanics servicing autos, trucks, or farm implements, who are employed by non-manufacturing establishments primarily engaged in selling these items to ultimate purchasers;
  • Employees of railroads and air carriers, taxi drivers, certain employees of motor carriers, seamen on American vessels, and local delivery employees paid on approved trip rate plans;
  • Announcers, news editors, and chief engineers of certain non-metropolitan broadcasting stations;
  • Domestic service workers living in the employer’s residence;
  • Employees of motion picture theaters; and
  • Farmworkers.

The FLSA’s overtime only exemptions are located at 29 U.S.C. § 213(b).

Exemptions from Both Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay

The following are some examples of employees whose job duties render them exempt from both the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime pay laws. This list is illustrative and does not necessarily identify every type of exempt employee. These examples simply identify the major exemption categories and do not define the conditions for each exemption:

The FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime pay exemptions are located at 29 U.S.C. § 213(a). Regulations interpreting various FLSA exemptions are located at 29 C.F.R. Part 541.

Recording Keeping Requirements

Under the FLSA, employers are required to keep records on wages paid, hours worked, and other employment items. See 29 C.F.R. Part 516. The FLSA records that employers must keep include but are not limited to:

  • Personal information–employee’s name, home address, occupation, sex, and birth date if under 19 years of age;
  • The beginning of the workweek;
  • Total hours of each workday and workweek
  • Total daily or weekly straight-time earnings;
  • Regular hourly pay rate for any week when overtime is worked;
  • Additions or deductions to wages
  • Total overtime pay in the workweek
  • Total amount of wages paid out each pay period,
  • Date of wage payment and pay period covered.

See 29 C.F.R. Part 516.

Anti-Retaliation

The FLSA also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who have complained about violations of the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) (anti-retaliation provision). If an employee makes such a complaint, the FLSA prohibits her employer from discharging or otherwise discriminating against her because of her complaint. If an employer does take an adverse action against an employee for complaining about FLSA violations, the affected employee may file a suit for relief.

Relief Available

If successful on a claim for unpaid wages or retaliation, an employee may recover her lost wages, liquidated damages (in an amount equal to the lost wages), reinstatement of her job (where applicable), as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

This site is intended to provide general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and attorney Tim Coffield or Coffield PLC. Parts of this site may be considered attorney advertising. If you have questions about any particular issue or problem, you should contact your attorney. Please view the full disclaimer. If you would like to request a consultation with attorney Tim Coffield, you may call 1-434-218-3133 or send an email to info@coffieldlaw.com.