Forsberg v. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co.
840 F.2d 1409, 1988 WL 7507 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Equal Pay Act, a technologically advanced job is not 'substantially equal' to its manual predecessor if the automation transfers complex analytical and diagnostic skills from the human operator to a machine, thus requiring a qualitatively different and lower level of skill.
Facts:
- In 1979, Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company employed Test Desk Technicians (TDTs), a predominantly male, 'craft' level position, to manually diagnose malfunctions in customer telephone lines using a complex testboard.
- TDTs received a description of a customer's complaint, performed a series of manual tests, analyzed the results to diagnose the malfunction, and dispatched a repair crew.
- In 1980, the company introduced a computerized testing system (MLT-1) and created the new, non-craft position of Maintenance Administrator (MA), filling the roles with mostly female clerks who would have otherwise been terminated.
- In 1982, an improved system, MLT-2, was introduced, which automated most testing functions and led to the complete phasing out of the TDT position by 1983.
- Under the MLT-2 system, the computer automatically conducts initial tests upon receiving a complaint, generates a report identifying the problem, and suggests a solution.
- The MA's role is to analyze the computer-generated report, perform any additional simple verification tests by entering basic keystrokes, and relay the computer's diagnosis to a repair technician.
- The company paid MAs, including Stephanie Forsberg, at a G-8 clerk rate, which was substantially less than the craft-level wages paid to the former TDTs.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephanie Forsberg filed a lawsuit against Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, alleging sex discrimination under the federal Equal Pay Act, Title VII, and various state laws.
- The district court granted the company's motion to join the workers' union and its locals as parties to the lawsuit.
- The district court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over Forsberg's Oregon Equal Pay Act and Wage Claim Statute claims, but retained her Oregon Fair Employment Practices Act claim.
- The district court denied Forsberg’s motion for class certification for all claims.
- The company then moved for summary judgment on all of Forsberg’s remaining individual claims.
- The district court granted the company's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Forsberg's claims.
- Forsberg, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment and denial of class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 violate the Equal Pay Act by paying predominantly female Maintenance Administrators less than it paid predominantly male former Test Desk Technicians, when the new computerized MA role replaces the manual TDT role but does not require substantially equal analytical and problem-solving skills?
Opinions:
Majority - Wallace, Circuit Judge
No. An employer does not violate the Equal Pay Act when the jobs being compared are not substantially equal in skill. When new technology automates complex analytical tasks and transfers them from a human to a computer, the resulting job requires a qualitatively different and lower level of skill than its predecessor, even if the overall function of the jobs is the same. The Equal Pay Act requires that jobs be substantially equal in skill, effort, and responsibility. The skill required for the TDT position involved analytical, 'puzzle-solving' abilities to manually diagnose problems from raw test data. In contrast, the MA position primarily involves reading a computer's diagnosis and performing simple, pre-programmed commands. The challenging analytical and decision-making tasks were transferred from the TDT to the MLT-2 computer. Because the jobs are not substantially equal in skill, the EPA claim fails, and it is unnecessary to analyze the other factors of effort, responsibility, or working conditions.
Dissenting - Pregerson, Circuit Judge
A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the two jobs are substantially equal, and therefore summary judgment was inappropriate. The majority's reasoning would incorrectly preclude a finding of substantial equality whenever technological advances lead to the use of updated equipment. The fact that MAs do not operate the old testboard does not mean the jobs lack equal skill; a modern bus driver who cannot operate a manual transmission still holds a job substantially equal to one who could. Forsberg presented evidence that MAs still perform analysis by assessing the computer's report and recommendations. Given the conflicting evidence on skill, as well as on effort and responsibility, the question of whether the jobs are substantially equal should be decided by a jury, not by a judge on summary judgment.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its application of the Equal Pay Act to workplaces transformed by technology. The court's holding establishes that if automation deskills a job by removing complex analytical or diagnostic functions, the new role may not be considered 'substantially equal' to its higher-paid predecessor, even if it serves the same ultimate purpose. This creates a higher bar for plaintiffs in EPA cases involving technological succession, requiring them to show that core skills, not just job functions, remain comparable. The decision prioritizes a strict, element-by-element analysis of job content over a more holistic view, potentially limiting the EPA's reach in rapidly automating industries.
