Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, Secretary of Labor
417 U.S. 188 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the time of day a job is performed does not constitute a 'working condition' that justifies a wage differential between male and female employees performing equal work. An employer cannot cure a violation of the Act by opening the higher-paying jobs to the lower-paid sex but must instead raise the lower wage rate to match the higher one.
Facts:
- Prior to 1925, Corning Glass Works (Corning) employed only women for inspection work on its day shift.
- Between 1925 and 1930, Corning established a night shift, but state laws in New York and Pennsylvania prohibited women from working at night.
- To staff the new night shift, Corning recruited male employees who demanded and received a higher base wage than the female day inspectors.
- In 1944, a new collective bargaining agreement established a plant-wide shift differential for all employees, which was paid in addition to the higher base wage already received by the male night inspectors.
- Before the Equal Pay Act's effective date in 1964, the state laws were amended to permit women to work at night.
- Beginning in June 1966, Corning began allowing female employees to bid for the higher-paying night inspection jobs as vacancies occurred, but did not change the base wage differential between the day and night shifts.
- In 1969, a new agreement established a uniform wage for all new inspectors but preserved the higher wage rate for pre-1969 male night inspectors through a 'red circle' rate, perpetuating the pay gap for existing employees.
Procedural Posture:
- The Secretary of Labor filed separate lawsuits against Corning Glass Works in two federal district courts, one in New York and one in Pennsylvania, for alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act.
- In the New York case, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York found in favor of the Secretary of Labor. Corning Glass Works appealed.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding Corning had violated the Act.
- In the Pennsylvania case, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found in favor of Corning Glass Works. The Secretary of Labor appealed.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding no violation of the Act.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the direct conflict between the rulings of the Second and Third Circuits.
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 paying male night shift inspectors a higher base wage than female day shift inspectors for the same tasks violate the Equal Pay Act of 1963?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall
Yes. Paying male night-shift inspectors a higher base wage than female day-shift inspectors for equal work violates the Equal Pay Act. The term 'working conditions,' as used in the Act, refers to physical surroundings and hazards, not the time of day. While a pay differential for night work can be justified as a 'factor other than sex,' the burden is on the employer to prove it. Here, the wage disparity originated from Corning's need to attract male workers to what was considered 'women's work' at a time when women were legally barred from the night shift, not as a neutral compensation for night work. The later addition of a separate plant-wide shift differential reinforces that the original base wage gap was not for the night work itself. Furthermore, an employer cannot cure such a violation by merely opening the higher-paid jobs to women; the Act requires that the lower wage rate be raised to the level of the higher rate.
Dissenting - The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Blackmun, and Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No. The dissenters would uphold the Third Circuit's ruling, which found no violation of the Act. The reasoning of that lower court opinion, which the dissent adopts, was that the time of day constitutes a different working condition. Therefore, the Secretary of Labor failed to meet the initial burden of proving that the day and night shifts constituted 'equal work on jobs... performed under similar working conditions.' Because the jobs were not performed under similar working conditions, the wage differential did not violate the Act.
Analysis:
This landmark decision clarifies key elements of the Equal Pay Act. By narrowly defining 'working conditions' to mean physical surroundings and hazards, the Court shifted the analysis of shift-based pay gaps to the employer's affirmative defenses, placing the burden on them to justify such differentials based on a 'factor other than sex.' The ruling also established a critical remedial principle: equality must be achieved by raising the wages of the underpaid sex, not simply by providing equal opportunity to obtain the higher-paying job. This prevents employers from perpetuating the effects of past discrimination by leaving a lower-paid, historically female job classification intact.
Unlock the full brief for Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, Secretary of Labor