A nursing home, formerly known as Edgewood Manor, has agreed to settle an Equal Pay Act lawsuit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that 12 Licensed Practical Nurses were paid at a rate lower than it paid to its male LPNs. The EEOC alleged that Edgewood paid female LPNs a range of $20-$26.50 per hour (depending on experience) compared to a range of $25 to $27 per hour for its male LPNs who had the same or less experience. The alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits pay discrimination based on sex. See EEOC v. Edgewood Manor OPCO LLC, No. 4:19-cv-760 (W.D. Mo.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a company allegedly making discriminatory wage payments. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that Covenant had paid one of its female business intelligence developers a lower salary than it paid to two male employees who performed the same work and held the same position as the female employee. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits paying less to employees because of their sex when they perform the same or equal work. See EEOC v. Covenant HealthCare, No. 2:20-cv-10662 (E.D. Mich.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit for $20,000 in which the EEOC had alleged that a company paid one of its female welders less than it paid to its male welders who had the same amount of experience and skill. The Equal Pay Act prohibits employers from paying its employees less because of their sex, and this alleged conduct is a violation of the Equal Pay Act. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. SnoBear USA, Inc., No. 18-cv-3446-JNE-KMM (D. Minn.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity reached a settlement of over $36,000 with a company providing commercial janitorial services that allegedly had discriminated against a female employee by paying her less than a male counterpart and then retaliating against her. Rivera worked as a day porter who janitorial services. The EEOC claims that Rivera complained about the difference in her wages compared to male employees and that she requested a raise. Instead of receiving the raise, the EEOC alleges that Rivera was assigned more work, subject to verbal harassment by the company, and then terminated. See EEOC v. Vador Ventures, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01083 (E.D. Va.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached an agreement with a car dealership to settle a national origin discrimination lawsuit alleging that the dealership paid certain employees less money because of their country of origin. The lawsuit claimed that the dealership had paid Chinese emergency and accessory installation technicians $3 less than its non-Chinese employees in the same position, even when certain non-Chinese employees had little or no relevant experience for the job. The lawsuit further alleges that the company reprimanded Chinese employees who complained about the unfair pay treatment and threatened to fire Chinese employees if they sought legal advice. The alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin. See EEOC v. Chas. S. Winner, Inc., No. 1:16-06137 (D.N.J.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit with Spec Formliners, Inc. that alleged the company had made wage decisions on the basis of its employees’ sex. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that the company had paid one of its female sales representatives less than a male sales representative, and also that the company required her to make more sales than the male representative in order for her to earn the same sales commission. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits paying an employee less on the basis of her sex. See EEOC v. Spec Formliners, Inc., No. 8:16-cv-02066 (C.D. Cal.).
The United States Department of Labor recently filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase & Co., which alleges that JPMorgan Chase discriminated against female employees in certain positions by paying them less than it paid male counterparts. The Department of Labor found that JPMorgan Chase has paid nearly one hundred female employees less than male comparators in various positions at the company. The lawsuit was filed by the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, which alleges that JPMorgan Chase has violated an executive order that prohibits federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes disparate payment because of a person’s sex.
NFI RoadRail, LLC and NFI Industries, Inc. have reportedly agreed to pay $45,000 to settle a gender discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that the companies paid a female director less than three male directors who had worked in the same role. The female director discovered the pay disparity after she saw a pay stub for one of the former male directors. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits employers from paying women a lower salary than men for equal work. See EEOC v. NFI Industries, No. 3:14-cv-00181 (N.D. Tex. 2014).
SOCI Petroleum/Santmyer Oil Company has been charged by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of violating federal equal pay laws by paying a female employee less than the male predecessor in her position for performing substantially the same work. The EEOC’s Complaint states that in 2009 Lori Bowersock, who had worked for SOCI in Wooster, Ohio since 2006, replaced the former male human resources manager but was paid less than him. The Complaint also alleges that SOCI condoned derogatory remarks made to female employees and that its gave female employees less credit for their accomplishments than their male counterparts. These alleged actions violate the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division. The EEOC seeks permanent injunctive relief to prohibit SOCI from future discrimination by providing equal pay to women for equal work, access to equal employment opportunities for women, lost wages, compensatory and punitive damages. See EEOC v. SOCI Petroleum/Santmyer Oil Co., No. 5:15-cv-02017 (N.D. Ohio).
The EEOC has sued Extended Stay Hotels for allegedly paying their male employees higher wages than their female employees, even though they all performed equal work, in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Latoya Weaver worked as a guest services representative for five years at Extended Stay Hotels. Extended Stay Hotels, however, allegedly paid new male employees more than it paid Ms. Weaver, even though they allegedly performed equal work. See EEOC v. HVM L.L.C., No. 8:13-cv-01980 (D. Md.).
Pursuant to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, an employer cannot pay a woman less than a man (or vice-versa) for a job that requires equal skill, effort and responsibility and that is performed under similar working conditions. Exceptions are permitted when the payment is made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or any other legitimate business reason.