Lexplug logoLexplug

Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
421 F.2d 259, 2 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 10,077, 9 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 502 (1970)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For jobs to be considered 'equal work' under the Equal Pay Act, they must be 'substantially equal,' not identical. Once a plaintiff demonstrates a pay disparity between sexes for such work, the burden shifts to the employer to prove the differential is based on a specific 'factor other than sex,' a burden not met by asserting minor additional tasks or vague economic benefits like 'flexibility' without concrete proof of their value.


Facts:

  • Wheaton Glass Co. employed 'selector-packers' to visually inspect and package glass containers.
  • Prior to 1956, all selector-packers were male.
  • In 1956, due to a labor shortage, Wheaton Glass began hiring women for the role but, at the union's insistence, created a new classification of 'female selector-packer'.
  • The collective bargaining agreement prohibited female selector-packers from lifting cartons weighing more than 35 pounds.
  • Male selector-packers performed the same primary inspection and packing duties as the female employees.
  • In addition to the primary duties, male selector-packers were also tasked with performing miscellaneous jobs, such as heavy lifting and material handling, similar to the work of 'snap-up boys' who earned only slightly more than the female selector-packers.
  • Male selector-packers were paid an hourly wage of $2.355, while female selector-packers were paid $2.14, a differential of about 10%.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Secretary of Labor filed a lawsuit against Wheaton Glass Co. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
  • The complaint alleged that the company's pay practices violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
  • Following a trial, the district court entered a judgment in favor of the defendant, Wheaton Glass Co.
  • The district court concluded that the Secretary had not proven the wage differential was based on sex discrimination and that the company had successfully established that the differential was based on a factor other than sex.
  • The Secretary of Labor, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Locked

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 of 1963 by paying female selector-packers approximately 10% less than male selector-packers, where both perform the same primary tasks, but men also perform additional, secondary tasks that do not account for the entire wage differential?


Opinions:

Majority - Freedman

Yes, this pay structure violates the Equal Pay Act. For jobs to be equal under the Act, they need not be identical, only substantially equal. The court reasoned that the primary job of both male and female selector-packers was identical. The additional tasks performed by the men were minor, did not consume a significant amount of their time, and, critically, were not shown to have an economic value corresponding to the 10% wage differential. The employer's justification of 'flexibility' was a conclusory assertion, and the company failed to meet its burden of proof to show the wage difference was based on a 'factor other than sex,' especially since the extra work performed by men was compensated at a much lower rate than the differential they received. The historical context of the job classification further suggested its purpose was to subordinate female employees rather than reflect genuine differences in work.



Analysis:

This case is significant for establishing that 'equal work' under the Equal Pay Act means 'substantially equal,' not 'identical,' preventing employers from using minor and incidental job differences to justify pay disparities. It firmly places a high burden of proof on the employer to defend a pay differential under the 'factor other than sex' exception, requiring specific evidence of economic value rather than general assertions. This decision strengthened the enforcement of the Act by making it more difficult for employers to evade liability through artificially created job classifications or insignificant variations in duties.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co. (1970) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co.