Recent Examples of EEOC's Administrative Enforcement of Equal Pay

The following are summaries of EEOC successes in 1999 and 2000 on the issue of equal pay in charges resolved prior to a suit being filed. These cases are representative of the EEOC's commitment to vigorous enforcement of equal pay laws.

1. An employer had a restructuring which resulted in a manager, a male, being reassigned to another position. The employer assigned the charging party, a female, to the manager position at a salary lower than that of the male. When she asked for a raise, the employer told the charging party her salary would be raised to match that of the former manager in two years. She continued to ask for a pay raise but was not granted one. After the charging party held the manager position for ten months, the employer removed her from the position in spite of satisfactory performance, and placed the former manager back in the position at a higher salary than the charging party's. The charging party filed a charge under Title VII and the case was settled for back pay and compensatory damages.
    
2. The charging party, a female, was hired during college as a Greeter at a car dealership. After she completed college, the employer promoted her to Finance and Insurance Manager, a position she shared with a male. The charging party alleged that she was paid at a lower rate than both the male she shared the job with and the male who preceded him. The investigation showed that the charging party's commission rate was half the rate of the males. In addition, the maximum commission rate attainable for reaching all goals was substantially less for the charging party than for the males. The charging party complained to management and was given a 0.5% increase in her commission rate, but she resigned because the increase did not bring her commission rate to parity with the males' rate. The charging party filed a charge under Title VII and subsequently entered into a private settlement with the employer for monetary relief.
    
3. The charging party, a female manager, filed a charge under the EPA, Title VII, and the ADA alleging she was paid less than males, and treated differently than them in other terms and conditions of employment, because of her sex and because she was regarded as disabled. She also alleged she was forced to resign her position in retaliation for complaining of sex discrimination. The case was successfully resolved through EEOC mediation, resulting in monetary relief for the charging party.
    
4. The charging party, a female laborer, alleged she was paid less than her male counterparts because of her sex, in violation of Title VII and the EPA. She alleged that her employer told her it paid men more than women because men were the "head of households." During the investigation, the employer stated it paid males more because "they were married and had children." The Commission issued a cause finding under the EPA and Title VII, and the case was successfully conciliated for monetary benefits for six females employed during the relevant period.
    

This page was last modified on May 11, 2000.

Return to Home Page