The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Recent Examples of EEOC's Enforcement of Equal Pay in Litigation
The following are summaries of recent EEOC successes on the issue of equal pay in
cases in which the Commission filed suit. These cases are representative of the EEOC's
commitment to vigorous enforcement of equal pay laws.
- EEOC v. Eastern Michigan University (EPA and Title VII - Sex). The Commission
alleged that the university hired a female as a tenure-track Assistant Professor in the
Industrial Technology Department at a salary lower than male colleagues who taught
similar courses at the same location. She was the second-lowest paid professor in a
department of close to 20, despite the fact that she had a higher rank and more
seniority than four male colleagues. The Commission filed suit, and the university
subsequently agreed to pay $45,400 in back pay plus interest, to contribute $4,600 to
her retirement account, to raise her salary to that of her highest paid male colleague,
and to pay $50,000 to resolve a related Title VII claim. A consent decree was entered
on April 26, 2000.
- EEOC v. Baltimore Cable Access Corporation (EPA). The company hired a female as
its first Executive Director. Though she continually was promised salary increases,
she remained at her starting salary throughout her three years of employment. She
presented to the board of directors a study which she alleged demonstrated that she
was significantly underpaid, and alleged that were she male, she would be paid more.
A month after this presentation, the company terminated her and replaced her with a
less qualified male at a salary 20% higher than what she received. The Commission
entered into a consent decree with the company on April 25, 2000, providing for an
injunction, a notice posting, and $45,000 for the victim.
- EEOC v. Jersey Community Unit School District (EPA). The Commission alleged
that the employer paid lower wages to female custodians than to male custodians
performing substantially equal work. The Commission settled the lawsuit on January
24, 2000, for $10,700 in full back pay and interest to 5 female custodians. The
consent decree also provides that wage rates for male and female custodians shall be
the same under the revised labor agreement between the school district and the
employees' union.
- EEOC v. R.E. Michel Co. (EPA and Title VII - Sex). A female purchasing agent for a
major heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning wholesaler, was paid less than half of
what her male colleagues were paid. After ten years of employment, she complained
to her supervisor, the company owner, about her low salary and requested to be paid
what her male colleagues were being paid. Within a few weeks of her complaint, she
was terminated and told that the company was downsizing. Nine months later, she
was replaced by a higher paid male who assumed all her accounts. After the
Commission filed suit on her behalf, her case was settled in August of 1999 for
$200,000.
- Villaneuva & EEOC v. Woodbine Healthcare Center (Title VII - Nat'l Origin). The
employer did not employ 65 Filipino nurses as registered nurses, as promised, but
instead employed them as nurses' aides and technicians, which were lower-skilled jobs.
The employer paid them roughly $6 an hour less than their non-Filipino counterparts.
Even Filipino nurses ultimately assigned to work as registered nurses received lower
wages than non-Filipino nurses at the facility. One nurse brought suit under Title VII,
and the EEOC intervened. The Commission settled the case for a total of $2.1
million, of which approximately $470,000 was back pay plus interest. The consent
decree was filed in March of 1999.
- EEOC v. St. Paul Metalcraft (EPA). The Commission alleged that the company paid
ten female operators working in machine operator positions less than males performing
substantially equal work. The Commission settled the case and obtained a consent
decree on March 12, 1998, with $73,684.14 going to ten individuals, a prospective
wage adjustment, training, and an agreement by the employer to comply with the EPA.
- EEOC v. American Building Maintenance (Title VII - Nat'l Origin). The Commission
alleged that the company paid a Filipino maintenance worker less than non-Filipino
maintenance staff because of his national origin. The Commission settled the case in
1997, giving the employee $25,000, a promotion, a significant wage increase, and a
commitment by the employer to comply with Title VII.
- EEOC v. Eagle Nursing Home (EPA). The Commission alleged that the nursing home
paid female licensed practical nurses (LPNs) less than male LPNs for equal work
based on a stereotypical assumption that men required a higher wage before they
would work in an occupation historically occupied by women, and based on a
presumption that men needed a higher salary to support their families. The
Commission settled the case and obtained a consent decree in 1997, with $40,000
going to 12 women and one male whose salary was lowered to mask the
discrimination, along with a prospective wage adjustment and an agreement by the
employer to comply with EPA.
- EEOC v. Temco Service Industries, Inc. & SEIU AFL-CIO Local 54 (Title VII - Sex).
The Commission alleged that the employer and union steered women into light duty
cleaning jobs and men into heavy duty cleaning jobs. The wage rates were the same,
but the hours were less for the women in the light duty jobs. After filing suit the
Commission entered into a 1996 consent decree through which 3 women received
$4,292.32 each; 22 women received $775.11 each; and one woman received $516.22,
for a total of $30,445.60.
- EEOC v. Attorney's Title Insurance Fund (EPA and Title VII - Sex). The Commission
alleged that the employer did not pay 6 women commissions that it regularly paid to a
male employee. After a jury trial, the women were awarded $3,945 each plus
$2,879.85 in interest. After judgment in 1994, the Commission settled for an
additional $1,000 per claimant, plus an agreement by the employer that it would not
pay lower wages to any individual because of sex. The total amount recovered for the
claimants was $46,949.10.
This page was last modified on May 11, 2000.
Return to Home Page