Image of Pay discrimination claims under the Equal Pay Act versus Title VII:  what is the difference?

Pay discrimination claims under the Equal Pay Act versus Title VII: what is the difference?

Major differences between EPA and Title VII pay discrimination claims

Although Title VII and the Equal Pay Act (EPA) have many similarities, they also have notable distinctions that may affect your potential lawsuit (all of the points below assume the claim is against a private employer):

  • Under the EPA, you are not required to file an EEOC Charge of Discrimination before going to court, but you must file a charge for a Title VII pay discrimination claim;
  • The time limit for filing a case in court under the EPA is within two years of the discriminatory pay practice (or three years if the violation is willful), whereas a Title VII pay discrimination charge must be filed with the EEOC within 180 or 300 days (depending on what state you live in) of the discriminatory pay practice;
    • NOTE I:  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)
    • NOTE II:  You are allowed to file an EEOC Charge of Discrimination for an EPA claim as well, but filing a charge with the EEOC does not extend the two-year time frame for filing an EPA lawsuit.
  • Unlike the EPA, no requirement exists under Title VII to prove that your job is substantially equal to that of a higher-paid male employee, nor under Title VII must you work in the same establishment as the male comparator;
  • In an EPA claim, your employer will have the burden of proof (not just a burden of production like in a Title VII claim) to establish its EPA defense (seniority system, merit system, production-quota system, or any factor other than sex);
  • If you prove your employer willfully violated the EPA, you may receive liquidated damages;
  • Title VII’s anti-discrimination provisions cover more protected characteristics (race, gender, religion, etc.) than the EPA, which is limited to gender-based differences.

Other helpful resources

Hiring an experienced employment discrimination lawyer

Hiring a proven and effective advocate is critical to obtaining the maximum recovery in an employment discrimination case.  Eric Bachman, Chair of the Firm’s Discrimination Practice, has substantial experience litigating precedent-setting individual and class action discrimination cases.   His wins include a $100 million settlement in a disparate impact Title VII class action and a $16 million class action settlement against a major grocery chain.  Having served as Special Litigation Counsel in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and as lead or co-counsel in numerous jury trials, Bachman is trial-tested and ready to fight for you to obtain the relief that you deserve.

Bachman writes frequently on topics related to promotion discrimination, harassment, and other employment discrimination issues at the Glass Ceiling Discrimination Blog., which the ABA Journal recently named a top legal blog.

U.S. News and Best Lawyers® have named Zuckerman Law a Tier 1 firm in Litigation – Labor and Employment in the Washington DC metropolitan area.  Contact us today to find out how we can help you.  To schedule a preliminary consultation, click here or call us at (202) 769-1681 or (202) 262-8959.

equal_pay_act_lawyers
Avatar of Eric Bachman

Eric Bachman litigates employment discrimination, including "glass ceiling," claims as well as whistleblower retaliation cases. He is Chair of the discrimination and retaliation Practices at Zuckerman Law. Previously, Bachman served as Special Litigation Counsel with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, and Deputy Special Counsel for Litigation and Legal Affairs with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.