Equal Pay Act cases highlight lawsuits, employee rights, and industries most affected by wage discrimination and gender-based pay disparities. Major settlements against corporations like Family Dollar, Activision Blizzard, and Disney show the law’s impact on compensation fairness.
By Brad Nakase, Attorney
Email | Call (888) 600-8654
Have a quick question? I answered nearly 1500 FAQs.
Men and women must be paid equally for doing comparable jobs at the same establishment, according to the Equal Pay Act. It was enacted in 1963. While they need to be almost equal, the jobs don’t have to be the same. Employers are prohibited by the EPA from paying men and women differently for positions that involve essentially the same level of ability, effort, and accountability under comparable conditions of employment in the same business. The content of a job is more important than its title. Differences in pay are acceptable if they are founded on rank, experience, or the volume or caliber of output.
Irrespective of your gender, you have a right to equal compensation for equal work according to the EPA. This law applies to all types of compensation, including:
Employers are required to increase compensation to close any gender wage disparity. They are unable to lower either person’s pay.
You must demonstrate in Equal Pay Act cases and settlements that you are paid less than your male coworkers despite the fact that your jobs require the same amount of:
Although compensation disparities between male & female employees are common in the following sectors, wage discrimination can happen in any industry:
Yes, there have been numerous examples of Equal Pay Act cases and settlements in the past. Let us go through some of them.
In a lawsuit alleging they were paid less than their male counterparts, a group of female retail managers won $45 million against Family Dollar. The class action judgment was approved by a federal judge. Title VII (1964 Civil Rights Act) and the Equal Pay Act were the legal grounds for the pay discrimination charges.
Case Background
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received complaints of discrimination from almost 50 female supervisors of Family Dollar stores. They suspected that they were receiving lower compensation from the corporation than male managers in comparable positions. Over the following ten years, the plaintiffs’ claim was “fervently litigated” in federal court.
One of the disputed issues was whether or not the class action was allowed to continue in view of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on class action matters in the 2011 Walmart v. Dukes case. After both sides eventually came to an understanding on settlement in 2017, the court held a hearing and on 14th March 2018, approved the settlement.
Relief provided by the settlement contract
The settlement stipulates that a total of $45 million will be awarded to the affected female managers of the Family Dollar store. Under the court-appointed compensation administrator, the funds will be disbursed to the class members. In addition to the approximately a million dollars in legal costs, the class’s lawyers will get one-third of this sum, or $15 million. Family Dollar must also, among other tasks, review its store manager remuneration policies and seek advice from labor economists throughout the process.
The relationship between EPA and Title VII in charges of wage discrimination
The Equal Pay Act & Title VII (1964 Civil Rights Act) are two important federal regulations. They guarantee that female employees receive the same compensation as men when they are doing similar work. Wage discrimination is covered by both acts, but there are some important distinctions. You should be aware of them because they may significantly affect your case. These differences are relevant in both glass ceiling cases of prejudice and standard gender wage discrimination claims. While there are many parallels between the EPA and Title VII, there are also some significant differences that could impact your possible case (all of the following points presume the claim is made against an independent employer):
Activision Blizzard was sued by the Civil Rights Department for failing to compensate women in California who performed work that was largely comparable to that of their male counterparts for five years, from 12th October 2015 to 31st December 2020.
The lawsuit also asserted that throughout that period, women experienced extra discrimination based on their gender and declined opportunities for promotions.
The CRD believed that the claimed behavior was unlawful. The government filed a lawsuit against Activision Blizzard, claiming that the company had violated the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and Equal Pay Act.
Settlement of Fair Equal Pay
A press release issued on 15th December stated that the CRD & Activision Blizzard had reached a settlement to terminate the litigation. If the deal is approved by the judiciary, Activision Blizzard is going to:
A move for initial authorization of a $43.25 million compensation in a gender wage discrimination class action was filed by class representatives representing current and past female employees of specific Disney-affiliated enterprises in California.
In their 2019 lawsuit, the women alleged that Disney had denied the class millions of dollars in wages. The female employees argued that Disney’s actions violated the Equal Pay Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act of California because it paid women less than men for tasks that were essentially identical and because its compensation policies had a discriminatory impact on women. In 2023, the EPA class received its certification.
The plaintiffs asserted, among other matters, that before 2018, Disney had an enterprise-wide wage structure that, in part, would base initial wages on previous salary, which traditionally includes gender-based inequalities, and thus started new female employees at lower wages than the male applicants for similar jobs. While Disney contested that study, the plaintiffs based their arguments on a labor economist’s public assessment that was submitted to the judge in 2023 at the stage of class certification.
Disney consented to pay an independent industrial advisor to train employees on standards for structuring jobs within its job architecture and benchmarking occupations to outside market information as part of the agreement. Additionally, Disney has committed to hiring a labor economics consultant for the period of three years to use the Plaintiff’s expert’s framework to conduct a pay equity evaluation of all permanent, non-union California workers below the vice president level and to remedy any statistically noteworthy pay disparities that are discovered.
Without these brave women, this resolution would not have been achieved. Women can anticipate fair treatment at Disney going forward. The judge acted quickly and sanctioned the compensation to these diligent ladies.
With its headquarters in Burbank, California, Disney runs amusement parks, hotel chains, media production companies, broadcast channels, publishing houses, and other consumer businesses all over the world.
Among the plaintiffs are women who worked in California between 1st April 2015 and 28th December 2024 in salaried, non-union positions with specific positions and below the rank of vice president.
Have a quick question? We answered nearly 2000 FAQs.
See all blogs: Business | Corporate | Employment Law
Most recent blogs:
Contact our attorney.