Congress passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to remedy the problem that women performing the same jobs as men were usually being paid much lower wages by their employers. The Act provides that employers may not discriminate on the basis of sex by providing unequal pay for "equal work." The Act, which applies to nearly all employers, including state and local governments, was passed prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although it serves some of the same functions as Title VII, it remains in full force today.

The Act allows employees who believe that their rights have been violated to file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It also allows them to instead choose to file a direct civil action against the employer. If a violation is established, the employee may receive back pay or an injunction to prevent future discrimination. If a willful violation is established, the employee may receive an additional year of back pay.

What is Equal Work?

To make out a prima facie case under the Act, the burden falls on the employee to show that the skill, effort, and responsibility required in his or her job are equal to that required in the job of the higher-paid employee. Similar or equal job titles will not necessary signal equal work. The Act specifically states that jobs entitled to equal pay include those involving:

• equal skill,
• equal effort,
• equal responsibility, and
• equal working conditions

Courts have interpreted "equal" to mean "substantially equal." To be considered substantially equal, jobs must carry substantially the same responsibilities. This does not mean simply that the jobs entail most of the same routine duties. Jobs are still considered unequal--even if they have the same general core responsibilities--if the more highly paid job involves additional tasks that:

• require extra effort;
• consume a significant amount of the time; and
• are of an economic value commensurate with the pay differential.

In a recent case alleging a violation of the Act, female department heads alleged that their county employer was improperly paying them less than male department heads. The court ruled against the employees, finding specifically that although the men and women were all employees who performed similar managerial tasks, the higher paid employees performed tasks that required advanced degrees and specialized skills. Although all directors may have conducted the same routine tasks, such as preparing budgets, monitoring employees, and conducting meetings, the female employees had not shown that the other work was the same. The court stated that it would not hold that similar titles, plus similar generalized responsibilities, constituted equal jobs and equal responsibilities.

Copyright 2009 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.