Summary
The Supreme Court interprets the Equal Pay Act of 1963 in consolidated cases involving Corning Glass Works’ higher base wages for male night-shift inspectors than for female day-shift inspectors performing equal work. The Court holds that the work was performed under similar working conditions, that Corning failed to establish a sex-neutral justification for the wage differential, and that permitting women to bid for night-shift jobs did not cure the violation. The Court affirmed the Second Circuit in No. 73-29 and reversed the Third Circuit in No. 73-695.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether day-shift and night-shift inspection work constituted equal work performed under similar working conditions under the Equal Pay Act.
- Whether Corning proved that the higher base wage for night inspectors was based on a factor other than sex.
- Whether permitting women to bid for higher-paid night-shift positions in 1966 cured the Equal Pay Act violation.
- Whether Corning's 1969 wage agreement cured the violation by equalizing rates for newly hired inspectors while preserving higher red-circle rates for existing night-shift employees.
Holdings
- Inspection work performed during the day and at night was equal work under the Equal Pay Act because the specialized job-evaluation meaning of working conditions concerns surroundings and hazards, not the time of day when the work is performed.
- After the Secretary proved unequal wages for equal work, the burden shifted to Corning to prove that the differential was justified by one of the Equal Pay Act's statutory exceptions. Corning failed to prove that the higher base wage was a nondiscriminatory night-shift differential rather than a wage differential rooted in sex.
- Allowing women to bid for higher-paid night-shift positions did not cure Corning's Equal Pay Act violation. The violation could be remedied only by raising the lower base wage paid to female day-shift inspectors to the higher base wage paid to male night-shift inspectors.
- The 1969 wage agreement did not cure the violation because it continued unequal base wages for pre-1969 employees and thereby perpetuated the effects of Corning's prior unlawful practice.
Key quotations
“The purpose of this proviso was to ensure that to remedy violations of the Act, "[t]he lower wage rate must be increased to the level of the higher."” (417 U.S. at 206-207)
“The Equal Pay Act is broadly remedial, and it should be construed and applied so as to fulfill the underlying purposes which Congress sought to achieve.” (417 U.S. at 208)
Factual background
Corning paid male inspectors working the night shift a higher base wage than female inspectors performing the same inspection work on the day shift. The higher night rate originated before the Equal Pay Act and was initially tied to the higher wages demanded by male workers, while a separate plant-wide shift differential was later added for night work. After the Act became effective, Corning allowed women to bid for night-shift jobs and later adopted a new wage system, but continued higher "red circle" rates for certain pre-1969 night-shift employees.
Procedural history
In No. 73-29, the Second Circuit held that Corning violated the Equal Pay Act by paying male night-shift inspectors more than female day-shift inspectors performing equal work. In No. 73-695, the Third Circuit reached the opposite conclusion. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases, affirmed the Second Circuit, and reversed and remanded the Third Circuit case.
Remand instructions
The judgment in No. 73-29 was affirmed. The judgment in No. 73-695 was reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including resolution of factual differences in the record concerning the Wellsboro plant.