American Nurses' Association v. Illinois
783 F.2d 716 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's failure to pay employees in female-dominated jobs the same wages as employees in male-dominated jobs of allegedly comparable value is not, by itself, a violation of Title VII. A valid claim for sex-based wage discrimination between different jobs requires proof that the wage disparity is caused by intentional discrimination, not merely by the employer's adherence to market rates.
Facts:
- The State of Illinois employed workers in various job classifications, some of which, like nursing and typing, were predominantly filled by women.
- Other job classifications were predominantly filled by men.
- The State of Illinois paid employees in the predominantly male job classifications higher wages than employees in the predominantly female job classifications.
- The Illinois Commission on the Status of Women commissioned a 'comparable worth' study to evaluate the relative worth of different jobs based on factors like skill, effort, and responsibility.
- The study concluded that predominantly female jobs were paid between 29% and 56% less than predominantly male jobs that were rated as being of comparable or lesser worth.
- After the study was completed, the State of Illinois did not alter its pay scales to align with the study's findings.
Procedural Posture:
- The American Nurses’ Association and 21 individuals filed a class-action lawsuit against the State of Illinois in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (a federal trial court).
- The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
- Before answering, the State of Illinois filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
- The district court granted the State's motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint only stated a claim for 'comparable worth,' which is not a valid cause of action under federal law.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with the State of Illinois as the appellee.
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 an employer's failure to implement a wage system based on 'comparable worth,' where jobs dominated by women are paid less than jobs dominated by men of allegedly comparable value, constitute intentional sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge.
No. A claim based solely on an employer's failure to rectify wage disparities between predominantly male and female jobs of comparable worth does not, by itself, state a valid cause of action for intentional sex discrimination under Title VII. Title VII requires proof of a discriminatory motive, meaning the employer must have paid women less because of their sex, not merely in spite of a wage disparity created by market forces. The court reasoned that both Title VII disparate treatment claims and Equal Protection claims require proof of intentional discrimination. Simply paying market wages, even with knowledge that this results in lower pay for female-dominated jobs, does not establish the required discriminatory intent. An employer must act 'because of,' not merely 'in spite of,' the adverse effect on a protected group. While a comparable worth study can be relevant evidence, an employer's refusal to implement its recommendations is not actionable on its own, as this would discourage employers from conducting such studies. However, the court reversed the dismissal because the plaintiffs' complaint, read generously under federal pleading standards, included allegations that could support a claim of intentional discrimination beyond the comparable worth theory, such as deliberately segregating jobs by sex or willfully paying men more because they are men.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limited the scope of the 'comparable worth' theory as a standalone cause of action under Title VII, aligning the Seventh Circuit with other circuits. It established a clear distinction between a non-actionable claim based on market-driven wage disparities and an actionable claim of intentional, sex-based wage discrimination. The ruling protects employers who pay prevailing market wages from liability but leaves the door open for plaintiffs who can produce specific evidence of discriminatory intent, such as steering women into lower-paying jobs or explicitly basing pay on gender. The case thus raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs in sex-based wage discrimination cases involving different jobs, requiring them to prove a discriminatory 'state of mind' rather than just pointing to a pay gap between jobs of similar value.
Unlock the full brief for American Nurses' Association v. Illinois