Specifically looking for insight into filing claims under the Equal Pay Act.

You put too much information in your post. Take out a few of the details.

Details come if/when someone offers that they have the requisite knowledge. The only details that are pertinent at this point is that I am looking for someone familiar with the particulars of Equal Pay Act or Title VII discrimination claims.

Real lawyers are better than internet Perry Masons.

 

Agreed, but I'm fishing on the assumption that since the laws in question are federal there may be some actual credentialed legal types with some experience. I put a feeler out in the VA Hometown forum a while back and didn't get much.

VLRS is a good start though. Thanks.

I would first try your state labor board, they may be able to get you some help if you have legitimate claim.

VEC is on the list. I do believe there is a state-level equivalent to the Equal Pay Act as well.

Why should anyone get equal pay? Just asking?

Check your privilege



 

Call Saul!!!

The misogynists of arfcom will be along shortly.   Think they're making sure their women are in the kitchen making "sammiches"

Why should anyone be denied a comparable salary when the only apparent difference is gender?

Why not get paid more if you work better than the other fellow?

I have been sued under Title 7 and EPA (in NOVA ) what do you want to know?

For the record we crushed the complainants

Suing under EPA gets you lost wages only iirc and. I believe you don't have to prove your employer did it intentionally

Title 7 can win more $ but I believe you have to go through the Eeoc complaint process first.

Hope you plan on being self employed the rest of your life,by less you work for the government

Because we like freedom.  Just because Jane is a better negotiator doesn't mean you have to take out your fedora fueled rage on the company.

Cisgender shitlord checking in...

To clarify, I'm not the party in question. I'll play along with the scenario though.

Two individuals work for the same company, in the same building, with the same duties, performed at similar levels. College education is not required for the position but one has a 4-year degree, the other a 2-year. Individual with the 2-year degree has substantially more experience in the field. Individual with the 4-year degree has ~8 months seniority with the company. Company has no policies on qualitative/quantitative, merit, or seniority-based pay scales.

If one party discovers there is a 40% pay differential and is denied multiple requests for a comparable salary on the grounds of meeting or exceeding the performance of the other then there's something amiss. When one digs a little deeper and uncovers that there is a similar pay gap across the board and the only apparent differences are gender? That's some grade-A bullshit.

Don't worry your pretty little head though. In true Capitalist fashion, other employment is being sought. It's not always about Jim or Jane's negotiating ability though. Sometime's it's about fixing stuff that the free market never gets wind of.

"If one party discovers there is a 40% pay differential and is denied multiple requests for a comparable salary on the grounds of meeting or exceeding the performance of the other then there's something amiss. When one digs a little deeper and uncovers that there is a similar pay gap across the board and the only apparent differences are gender? That's some grade-A bullshit."

You must put in the wood before you get the heat. It's an unwritten law. If this party genuinely performs better than other parties and has no undisclosed issues, this party should seek reward elsewhere, and will get it. It's the law of supply and demand. Communism, Unionism and Government jobs excluded.


p.s. Mom always liked your brother best.

Now assume that opportunities in the field are limited. Are you suggesting that a 40% gender-based pay differential is acceptable in the interim? Because, you know, Freedom and all.

If opportunities in the field are limited, a "successful company" would clearly reward and would want to reward better performance. Perhaps she doesn't work for a "good" company. Realistically, if there aren't many companies around, she may have picked the wrong profession. The world owes nobody nothing.

If it were my wife, I would be unhappy, but would spend my energy looking in other directions.

There is one organization employing everyone in that field?

Wow, find a new field, make your own opportunities. Nobody owes you shit.

Edit: Pretty much exact same post as above.

Our reward in life is determined by the demand for what we do, to our ability to do it, and to the difficulty of replacing us. Earl Nightingale

We've already established that we're dealing with statistically "like" performance between the two parties and that other employment is being sought. It should be apparent given the scenario that it's not a "good" company which is not being run by "good" people. It is, however, a much-needed paycheck. Had we known then what we know now it likely would have changed the situation but we weren't in a position where we could be overly picky about employment.

You have thus-far failed to provide a rationale for accepting a relative slaves wage in the interim when it's rooted in misogyny. "Free market" is fine for a soapbox soundbite but it rings hollow when it's used as a thin veneer over systemic abuse. This is not about "paying people what they're worth". This is about paying people with the same job title, job description, job responsibilities, and job performance similar wages rather than an arbitrary pay scale based on bra size.

To put this back on track, you mentioned you were able to successfully defend against a Title VII/EPA suit. What was the burden of proof on your end and how was it met?

But I thought the GD consensus was that the LAW would protect employees from bad employers? At least, THAT is the claim when they attack unions. NOW the truth comes out.... DARE to SEEK protection, and you will be penalized for it. THIS is why unions are STILL relevant.

Then don't bitch about racial hiring quotas, either. Don't get pissy just because you were born the wrong color and jesse and al can play the game better.

Good luck, you would have to see every metric on every employee for every position to have any hope.  Only two ways to do this, spend a shit ton of money and hire a lawyer and spend years pursuing, or file Eeoc complaint and wait forever.

Either way they are fucked in the field and possibly professional work force.  There are a shit ton of factors from performance reviews, to time in industry, to degree field, etc etc etc.  

Look up the history of being a whistle blower before your friend takes it dry.  

Not advising not to do it or to so it, just need to make you realize it is a multi year uphill battle that will probably be a Pyrrhic victory

Hope that made your day better.

Tell your wife to go back and get a four year degree. It matters on the pay scale in many companies. Has she asked what she can do to bump her salary to a similar rate? Things like better job performance, more education, or specializing in a certain area within her field. The proof is in the pudding. Either that guy knows someone she doesn't or he has made himself irreplaceable in the office. I suggest your wife do the same or use the open market to either negotiate a higher salary or find a new employer.  From the way you describe it, it doesn't sound like "discrimination."

Actually the laws are generally the problem. If you think unions are the answer you may have mental deficiency issues.  Title 7 and EPA create a whole host of problems for both parties when redress is sought.

Labor laws are stupid and useless, until you need them.

You really need to stop posting.  You want laws to fix what the laws broke.  Free markets generally sort them out pretty well especially the companies that are efficient at hiring and rewarding talent.

OP - here are some basics I had laying around from something I was working on recently.  You can go to NELA.org to find an employment lawyer.  Click the link on the top left (if you posted in the VA HTF, I probably referred you to this site before).  Don't expect to find someone who will take your case on a contingency basis.  I'm not saying that it won't happen, it's just unlikely in VA.  

EPA:  



29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) (emphasis added); see also Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 195 (1974).  The EPA has a two-year statute of limitations unless the plaintiff claims that the defendant’s conduct was willful, in which case a three-year period applies.



The Supreme Court has directed that a willful violation of the EPA will be found if “the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute.” Allison v. U.S., 39 Fed. Cl. 471 (1997) (citing McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 133 (1988)) (emphasis added); see also Nerseth v. U.S., 17 Cl.Ct. 660, 666 (1989).

To establish a prima facie case under the EPA, an employee must prove: “(1) that her employer has paid different wages to employees of opposite sexes; (2) that said employees hold jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility; and (3) that such jobs are performed under similar working conditions.” Brinkley v. Harbour Recreation Club, 180 F.3d 598, 613 (4th Cir.1999) (citing Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 189, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974)); see also Mansfield v. U.S., 71 Fed. Cl. 687, 692-93 (2006); Hauschild v. U.S., 53 Fed. Cl. 134, 138 (2002); Lissak v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 281, 284 (2001); Allison v. U.S., 39 Fed. Cl. 471, 475 (1997); Raymond v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 514, 518 (1994); Molden v. United States, 11 Cl. Ct. 604, 610 (1987).  A plaintiff is free to select her comparators, and comparators can include current and former employees.  See Brinkley-Obu v. Hughes Training, Inc., 36 F.3d 336, 343 (4th Cir. 1994).  

Under the second and third prongs of a prima facie case, courts must evaluate actual job requirements and performance; job titles are not dispositive.  See Brennan v. Prince William Hosp. Corp., 503 F.2d 282, 288 (4th Cir.1974) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 800.121 (1973); Hodgson v. Brookhaven General Hosp., 436 F.2d 719, 724 (5th Cir.1970)).  It is not necessary, however, for the plaintiff to prove that the work of her comparators is identical in every aspect, but only that it requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that it is performed under similar working conditions.  See Corning Glass Works, 417 U.S. 188, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 41 L.E. 2d 1 (1974); Hauschild, 53 Fed. Cl. at 138 (“In the context of the Equal Pay Act, ‘equal’ work does not mean ‘identical’ work).  The U.S Department of Labor, through federal regulation, provides some insight into how to determine what constitutes equal skill, effort, and responsibility.



29 C.F.R. § 1620.14(a) (emphasis added).  

Once an employee establishes a prima facie violation of the EPA, the burden shifts to the employer to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the wage differential was due to (1) a seniority system, (2) a merit system, (3) a system pegging earnings to quality or quantity of production, or (4) any factor other than sex. See 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) (1982); see also Brewster v. Barnes, 788 F.2d 985, 991-992 (4th Cir. 1986); Hauschild, 53 Fed. Cl. at 138 (citing Corning Glass Works, 417 U.S. at 196, 94 S.Ct. 2223); County of Wash. v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161, 170, 101 S.Ct. 2242, 68 L.Ed.2d 751 (1981); Mansfield, 71 Fed. Cl. at 693; Allison, 39 Fed. Cl. at 475-76.  The ultimate burden rests with the plaintiff who must show that the employer's state business reason was but a pretext for discrimination.  

Equal Pay Act relief is intended to make the individual “whole” – in other words, to put the individual in the place she would have been had a violation not occurred including the back-pay differential between what your male comparator earned (including any benefits) what you earned during the same period and an additional amount equal to the back pay award, called "liquidated damages."  The EPA also contains a fee shifting provision:  “The court in such action shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.”  29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

When a violation of the EPA is found, the presumption is that the aggrieved employee should, as a matter of right, receive liquidated damages.

Regarding Title VII - you have to file a charge with the EEOC within 300 days before you can sue.  It's pretty easy to do yourself.  After the EEOC completes its investigation it'll issue you a right to sue letter which will give you 90 days to file your claims in court.  You can look up your field office here:  http://www.eeoc.gov/field/

OSHA does pretty good work.  They just have limited resources.  If you file a complaint with your regional investigator, they have to follow fixed timeline.  Here's some more info about the process:  https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_02-03-003.pdf, and info about the various statutes administered by OSHA:  http://www.whistleblowers.gov/

Again, a degree was/is not a requirement, written or unwritten, for the position and the company has no incentive policy on the matter. Subjectively, it matters but it's not the type of job where it "really" matters. I'm viewing this from the legal perspective where, if I'm interpreting correctly, if it's not a positional requirement then it doesn't account for much.

"That guy" is so irreplaceable that he has taken several weeks worth of vacation/business travel in the past couple months while the wife absorbed his responsibilities. They frequently share duties and cover for each other when one is out. She has approached the appropriate person on multiple occasions to discuss a raise and been shut down each time. "Negotiation" hasn't been in play outside of the initial hiring when the salary differential was unknown. "Raise or I quit" is the only play available at that point and that's not a bluff we can afford to have called.

Discrimination is a troublesome thing to prove from the outside. I will say that of the individuals in like positions throughout the company (less than 10) no male is making less than 30% more than a female counterpart regardless of seniority or qualifications.

Good info. Thanks.

Who makes more, the 2 year degree employee or the 4 year degree employee (with more seniority)?



Nevermind.  Answered while I was typing

Then I doubt you can afford the retainer for an attorney, much less the hourly nut + expenses.

Your wife needs to find another job.  If there are few opportunities in her field, she needs a new career.

So go about it the other way.
Tell the wife unit to slack off and do nothing, get fired and then file a complaint that she did the same thing as the man but he wasn't punished.
Tell her to perform the quality and quantity appropriate for her salary.

Or not. Either way, I'm tagging the shit outta this thread. In for more NotAFudd comments too

ETA: does your family income need a bump? If you all are fine at her current rate, tell her to take it on the chin and karma will work for her in the long run

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Free Internet legal advice.  

You get what you deserve.  

4-year. Both have been with the company less than 2 years and I believe the seniority is ~6 months. He asked for, and received, a raise in the last year and never made less than 30% over the 2-year.

Not that its right, or wrong but it should be up to the business to decide what they are willing to pay for whatever reason.

Obviously the job was worth doing for the pay or you wouldn't have done it.

Already in progress. Been on the hunt for a few months.

Which they did when they set the pay rate for the position.

Unless those reasons are discriminatory in nature.

When it comes down to taking a crap job or keeping the lights on you take the crap job. It is what it is.

"Need" is relative but recouping the salary differential would mean the difference in paying off debts accrued during periods where one or the other of us weren't getting paid. Sequestration last year was a bitch and hit at pretty much the worst possible time. Things like home and vehicle maintenance take a hit. Kids lose out on the kinds of things kids should have. We've made ends meet for the most part but it's been at the expense of one thing or another that needed doing.

We're either going to take it on the chin or we're not. Karma is all well and good but I'm not above helping Karma out if it needs some helping. The pay practices is far from the only issue present.

In the long run this is right. In the short run, I understand your feelings, but expecting the Gov't to not discriminate is foolish. They "Reverse Discriminate"... in everything they do in this administration. Just watch the news. They should just enact minimum wage for all Gov't jobs like they want to do.

The desired end state would be her as her own boss. The vision and capability are there, the funding is not.

Legal expenses could be dealt with. That's simply a matter of gauging the likelihood of success which, ultimately, is what this thread is about.

So it's fine for employers to blackball an employee for seeking relief under the law, and organizations that protect an employee's right to be treated fairly under the law are somehow the bad guys?

Nope. But I do believe in the right to negotiation and living up to your contracts. That happens to be VERY "free market". Being able to negotiate for wages is the same as setting prices in the marketplace. You get the best price you can based on circumstances.