Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D operates two Civil Service systems. The Higher Education Personnel Board (HEPB) has jurisdiction over all classified employees at the institutions of higher education and the State Personnel Board (SPB), and Department of Personnel (DOP) have jurisdiction over all classified employees at D agencies. Prior to July 1971, discriminatory acts were prohibited only on the basis of age, race, creed, color, or National origin. In May 1971, D signed into law an amendment against discrimination prohibiting employment discrimination based on sex. D then initiated a study to determine if there was a wage gap between jobs predominately held by males and job classes predominately held by females. They “discovered” that women were paid 20% less based on comparable worth. The 1974 report also found that the degree of discrimination increased as the job value increased. For jobs evaluated at 100 points, men's pay was 125% of women's pay. For jobs evaluated at 450 points, men's pay was 135% of women's pay. In December 1976, Governor Evans included a $7 million budget appropriation to begin implementation of comparable worth. Governor Dixy Lee Ray became the successor to Governor Evans in 1977. She took the appropriation out of the budget even though there was a surplus in the 1976-77 State budget that could have been used to pay Ps' their evaluated worth. A 1980 update revealed that since salary increases have been established on a percentage basis, the inequality gap between men's and women's salaries for similar work has now increased. Governor Ray stated that 'the dollar cost of solution will be high; it probably cannot be achieved in one action. But, the cost of perpetuating unfairness, within State government itself, is too great to put off any longer . . . .' 'Comparable Worth', as defined by the Defendant, means the provision of similar salaries for positions that require or impose similar responsibilities, judgments, knowledge, skills, and working conditions. Ps filed charges with the EEOC. The EEOC took no action and issued a Right to Sue. Ps represent 15,500 workers in jobs held primarily by females. Ps sued Ds seeking a declaratory judgment and money damages pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, concerning Ds' discriminatory implementation and application of its compensation system, and injunctive relief to provide enforcement of a non-discriminatory compensation system as it previously has been or herein may be judicially determined. In 1983, subsequent to the filing of the instant suit, D's legislature passed two comparable worth implementation bills to be implemented over 10 years: Substitute Senate Bill 3248 (SSB 3248) and Engrossed House Bill 1079 (EHB 1079). EHB 1079 appropriated $1.5 million to increase the salaries by $100.00 a year for occupants of job classifications for which the current salary range is more than 8 ranges (20%) below the comparable worth range, as shown by the 1982 supplementary salary schedule. Ps submitted general statistical data, prepared over a period of years by D, tending to show a general pattern of discrimination by D against women. The court found that D discriminated against Ps, on the basis of sex in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), by compensating employees in jobs where females predominated at lower rates than employees in jobs where males predominated. D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co