equal pay

The defendant-appellant, the Court of Common Pleas, appealed a ruling by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”) that the defendant discriminated against female secretaries with respect to compensation. The Court of Common Pleas was directed to upgrade the secretaries’ wages and to provide back pay. The defendant argued that the PHRC could not require it to increase the wages and also that it was not considered an “employer” under 43 P.S.

The plaintiff brought an action against the Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (literally translated: Pension Insurance Institution) claiming a higher pension, arguing that the implementation of an adjustment factor for pensions, established in 2008, resulted in indirect discrimination against women who were disproportionately less likely to qualify for an exceptional pension increase.

This Virginia law prohibits employers from discriminating between employees on the basis of sex by paying less wages to employees of a certain sex than employees of the opposite sex for equal work on jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a differential based on any other factor other than sex.

Article 2 of the Employment Code provides that discriminatory acts are against the principles of labor laws, including any distinction, exclusion, or restriction because of race, color, sex, age, civil status, union participation, religion, political opinion, nationality, ancestry, economic situation, language, or beliefs, among others, that have the goal of eliminating or altering equality of opportunities or of treatment in the workplace.  Article 62 provides that the employer must comply with the principle of equal compensation between men and women who perform the same work. 

The complainant was the Human Resources manager of her company and claimed back-pay arising out of the company’s alleged gender discrimination and gender-pay gap. She contested the pay disparity in comparison to her male colleagues who performed similar tasks, had similar responsibilities, had a similar classification, and occupied a similar place in the company hierarchy. Before this decision, a pay gap could not ground an allegation of discrimination on the basis of sex where the relevant employees exercised different functions.

The Employment (Equal Pay for Men and Women) Act (the “Act”) went into effect on January 1, 1976. The Act is intended to eliminate gender discrimination in wages or salary for similar or substantially similar work, as the Act requires employers to provide “equal pay for equal work.” Employers are permitted to provide accommodations to women in connection with pregnancy and childbirth. The Act requires mediation upon the submission of a valid complaint by an employee against their employer.

The Equal Rights Act (the“Act”) expands upon and enforces Article 29 of the Constitution, with the purpose of ensuring that women are treated as equal to men in politics, employment, economics, and social life. The Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and marital status. The Act also permits women who are mothers to receive protective health benefits and paid maternity leave.

This Act is a comprehensive act that replaced several pieces of legislation, including the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975. In general, The Equality Act 2010 legally protects people from discrimination in the workplace and in wider society, and provides equality provisions, including the following:

The Act requires the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth to make regulations requiring employers to publish information relating to the pay of their employees to show whether there are differences on account gender and the size of such differences (if they exist).

In Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2009), the plaintiff was employed by Wal-Mart as a staff pharmacist for approximately ten years. She was later assigned to serve as a temporary pharmacy manager. During the thirteen months she held that role, she was paid at a lower rate than male pharmacists who served as pharmacy managers.