Gender Pay Disparity
According to a Council of Economic Advisers issue brief about the Gender Gap, in 2014, “median earnings for a woman working full-time all year in the United States totaled only 79 percent of the median earnings of a man working full-time all year. Phrased differently, she earned 79 cents for every dollar that he earned.”
Proving Equal Pay Act Act Discrimination
To establish a prima facie case under the Equal Pay Act, the plaintiff must show that e that: (1) she was “doing substantially equal work on the job, the performance of which required substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility as the jobs held by members of the opposite sex”; (2) “the job was performed under similar working conditions”; and (3) she was “paid at a lower wage than members of the opposite sex.” Cornish v. District of Columbia, 67 F. Supp. 3d 345, 360-61 (D.D.C. 2014) (citations omitted). Once the EPA claimant has met that burden, the employer has the burden of demonstrating the applicability of one of the four affirmative defenses identified in the EPA: (i) a bona fide seniority system, (ii) a merit system, (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or (iv) a differential based on any factor other than sex. See 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1).
Significantly, the employer must prove not just that proffered reasons could explain the wage disparity, but that the proffered reasons do in fact explain the wage disparity. An employer seeking summary judgment in an Equal Pay Act case must produce sufficient evidence such that no rational jury could conclude but that the proffered reasons actually motivated the wage disparity.
An EPA claimant “does not have to prove that two jobs are identical but rather must show that the “skill, effort and responsibility required in the performance of the jobs are substantially equal.” Arrington v. Cobb County, 139 F.3d 865, 876 (11th Cir. 1998).
Strict Liability Under Equal Pay Act
An EPA plaintiff need not allege discriminatory intent on the part of the employer. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618, 640 (2007) (The EPA does not require a plaintiff to establish that his employer engaged in “intentional discrimination.”). Instead, a plaintiff need only plead that “employees of the opposite sex were paid differently for performing `equal work’—work of substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, under similar working conditions.” Stanziale v. Jargowsky, 200 F.3d 101, 107 (2000). Thus, the employer need not have made the classification itself, but rather, it would be liable under the EPA, barring some affirmative defense, simply for paying employees of opposite sexes differently for performing equal work.
Statute of Limitations for Equal Pay Act Claims
The statute of limitations for filing an Equal Pay Act claim two years from the date of the alleged unlawful compensation practice or, in the case of a willful violation, the statute of limitations is three years. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act extends the statute of limitations for discriminatory compensation claims by clarifying “that a discriminatory compensation decision . . . occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the [discriminatory decision].” Pub. L. No. 111-2, 123 Stat. 5 (2009).
Liquidated Damages Under the Equal Pay Act
Where the EPA claimant proves a willful violation of the Equal Pay Act, the claimant can recover liquidated damages.
Resources About Equal Pay Act Claims
If you have suffered pay discrimination, call the attorneys at Zuckerman Law at 202-262-8959 or contact us by clicking here.