American Federation of State v. Washington
1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10839, 33 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 33,976, 578 F. Supp. 846 (1983)
Rule of Law:
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer engages in unlawful sex discrimination when it knowingly maintains a compensation system that results in a wage disparity between predominately female and male job classifications of comparable worth, and economic cost is not a valid defense to liability or remedy.
Facts:
- In 1973, following complaints about salary discrimination, the State of Washington conducted a study to evaluate pay differences between job classifications predominately held by men versus those held by women.
- The 1974 'Willis' study concluded that women's job classes were paid approximately 20% less than men's job classes for work of comparable value based on knowledge, skills, mental demands, accountability, and working conditions.
- In 1974 and 1976, then-Governor Daniel Evans publicly acknowledged this disparity and included a $7 million budget appropriation to begin rectifying the inequality.
- In 1977, successor Governor Dixy Lee Ray removed the appropriation from the budget, even though the State had a budget surplus at the time.
- The State Legislature amended compensation statutes in 1977 to require the preparation of supplemental salary schedules showing comparable worth but did not mandate the implementation of those salaries.
- Between 1977 and 1982, the State continued to use the Willis methodology to evaluate jobs but failed to pay the predominately female classifications the evaluated rates.
- In 1983, after litigation had commenced, the State Legislature passed a bill appropriating a token amount and establishing a ten-year plan to achieve comparable worth by 1993.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- The U.S. Department of Justice issued Notices of Right to Sue.
- The Unions (AFSCME and WFSE) filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
- The District Court certified the class of plaintiffs.
- The Court bifurcated the case into a liability phase and a remedy phase.
- The liability phase was tried before the District Court.
- The injunctive relief phase was tried before the District Court.
- The back pay hearing was conducted before the District Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the State of Washington's failure to pay employees in predominately female job classifications the full evaluated worth of their jobs, despite the State's own studies acknowledging a 20% wage disparity based on sex, constitute a violation of Title VII?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Tanner
Yes, the State's persistent failure to rectify the acknowledged wage disparity between male and female job classifications constitutes unlawful discrimination under both disparate impact and disparate treatment theories. The Court reasoned that the State historically engaged in sex-based discrimination and, despite knowing of the discrimination through its own studies since 1974, intentionally perpetuated the disparity. The Court applied the principles of County of Washington v. Gunther and Griggs v. Duke Power Co., finding that the compensation system had a disparate impact on women that was not justified by any legitimate business necessity. Furthermore, the Court found intentional disparate treatment because the State acted in bad faith by acknowledging the wrong yet refusing to pay the evaluated worth due to 'cost.' Relying on Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, the Court held that cost is not a defense to Title VII liability. The Court rejected the State's Tenth Amendment defense and ordered immediate injunctive relief and back pay, stating that the State's proposed ten-year remedial plan was insufficient because Title VII remedies are immediate.
Analysis:
This decision represents a landmark—though controversial—application of the 'comparable worth' theory in sex discrimination litigation. Unlike standard Equal Pay Act cases which require equal pay for substantially equal work, this ruling interpreted Title VII to prohibit setting lower wages for female-dominated jobs that are different in content but determined to be of equal value to the employer. The court's rejection of the 'market rate' defense and the 'cost' defense placed a significant burden on employers to align compensation with internal job evaluations rather than external market forces if those forces reflect historical bias. The decision underscores that once an employer conducts a study proving discrimination, a failure to rectify it creates liability for intentional discrimination.
