Chapman v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.
456 F. Supp. 65 (1978)
Rule of Law:
Under the Equal Pay Act, two jobs are not 'substantially equal' if one requires significantly more travel, has greater financial accountability, and entails different responsibilities, even if they share some similarities. Under Title VII, an employer is liable for discriminatory failure to promote when a qualified employee from a protected class is passed over for a promotion in favor of someone outside the class, and the employer fails to offer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision.
Facts:
- The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company's (Pacific) Directory Department had two sales divisions: telephone sales and premise sales.
- Telephone sales were handled from a San Francisco office by Telephone Sales Representatives (TSRs), who were supervised by first-level management Telephone Sales Supervisors (TSSs). This work did not require travel.
- Premise sales were handled in person at customer locations by Advertising Sales Representatives (ASRs), who were supervised by second-level management Premise Managers (PMs). This work required extensive travel and frequent overnight stays away from home.
- PMs, who were almost exclusively male, earned higher wages than TSSs, who were predominantly female.
- All plaintiffs were at one time employed as TSSs.
- Plaintiff Judy Chapman had an outstanding performance record and received an evaluation stating she was ready for promotion to second-level management.
- Plaintiff Joan Cochran also had an exceptional performance record and an appraisal stating she should be considered for promotion to second-level management.
- Pacific subsequently promoted two men to the PM position without considering either Chapman or Cochran for the role.
Procedural Posture:
- Eight women and one black male employee sued their employer, The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company ('Pacific'), in the United States District Court.
- The complaint alleged sex and race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- The court bifurcated the trial, separating the issue of liability from the issue of remedies.
- A bench trial was held on the issue of liability.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Equal Pay Act, are the jobs of Telephone Sales Supervisor (TSS) and Premise Manager (PM) 'substantially equal' in skill, effort, and responsibility, despite differences in travel requirements and financial accountability? And, did the employer violate Title VII by failing to promote qualified female TSSs to the PM position?
Opinions:
Majority - Schwarzer, District Judge
Regarding the Equal Pay Act claim: No, the jobs are not substantially equal. While the TSS and PM positions have similarities in that they both involve managing sales of directory advertising, the actual job content is markedly different. The PM position requires extensive travel and absence from home, a duty not shared by TSSs. Furthermore, PMs are responsible for a more valuable segment of the sales market, handle expense accounting for their crews, manage field offices, and have direct personal contact with the public as agents of the company. These differences result in a greater degree of effort and responsibility, rendering the positions unequal under the Equal Pay Act standards. Therefore, the pay disparity is not unlawful. Regarding the Title VII claim: Yes, for plaintiffs Chapman and Cochran; No for the other plaintiffs. Chapman and Cochran established a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to promote. They were qualified women who were not considered for promotion to PM when vacancies were filled by men. Pacific failed to rebut this prima facie case by offering any legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its failure to consider them for promotion. The other plaintiffs failed to establish their claims because they were either time-barred, not qualified, not interested in the promotion, or had declined an offer for the position.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the 'substantially equal' standard under the Equal Pay Act, demonstrating that significant differences in working conditions and responsibilities, such as extensive travel and financial accountability, can justify pay differentials even when job titles and basic functions appear similar. The opinion also serves as a straightforward application of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for Title VII disparate treatment claims. It underscores that once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the employer's failure to articulate any legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action is fatal to its defense and will result in a finding of liability.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Chapman v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1978)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"