CORNING GLASS WORKS v. BRENNEN, 417 U.S. 188 (1974)

Equal Pay Act – Chapter 5

Sara E. Reese

Key Facts of the EPA

• The EPA requires equal pay for equal work• and equal benefits

• To be considered “equal work” skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions must be SUBSTANTIALLY similar (NOT identical).• must be the SAME ESTABLISHMENT

• Most employers are covered, but it depends on the TYPE and VOLUME of business that employer does (not the amount of employees).

Exceptions to the EPA

• SENIORITY

• MERIT

• QUANTITY/QUALITY OF PRODUCTION

• ANY FACTOR OTHER THAN SEX• Corning V. Brennen (night shift – psychologically trying)

CORNING v. BRENNEN

History Behind Corning V. Brennan

• Men working night shift were paid more than women working day shift.• old laws - men would not work at low rates - job market for cheaper

labor

• Corning provided opportunities for women to work the night shift after EPA was passed, but did not change the base rate for day workers.

• A Job analysis was completed in 1969… people hired after this date received equal wages - RED CIRCLE

Three Questions to Consider

• 1. Did Corning ever violate the EPA by paying male night shift inspectors more than female day shift inspectors?

• 2. If so, did Corning cure its violation of the Act in 1966 by permitting women to work as night shift inspectors?

• 3. If the violation was not remedied in 1966, did Corning cure its violation in 1969 by equalizing day and night inspector wage rates buy establishing higher “red circle” rates for existing employees working on the night shift?

Technicalities

• Any factor other than sex:• “It would not violate the EPA for an employer to pay a shift

premium to all workers on the night shift…” (Guerin & DelPo, 2013)

• “Working conditions”:• Encompasses physical surroundings/hazards – NOT time of day

Conflicting Statements

• Third Circuit: Congressman Goodall’s statement:• “standing as opposed to sitting…hours of work, difference in shift,

all would logically fall within the working conditions factor” WRONG

• Second Circuit: House Committee Report:• “…shift differentials…would also be excluded” in regard to the 4th

exception RIGHT

EPA Amendment

• Include language concerning job evaluation and classification systems

• Skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions all considered

• Allows for legitimate differential in pay

Corning Asked:

• To differentiate between jobs although, their job evaluation did not differentiate

• Uh oh!

Technicalities

• Any factor other than sex:• “It would not violate the EPA for an employer to pay a shift premium

to all workers on the night shift…” (Guerin & DelPo, 2013)

• Where Corning went wrong: “red circle” rate – this perpetuated the discrimination

• “Working conditions”:• Encompasses physical surroundings/hazards – NOT time of day

• Where Corning went wrong: night inspection was not equal to day inspection, but their job evaluation treated them as equal…

• Corning’s Manager of Job Evaluations testimony

Questions

• What do you think about working conditions not taking into consideration the time of day? How is/is not working at night different from dangerous terrain or exposure to toxic chemicals?

• Should the psychological and physiological hazards of night shift work justify a differential in “working conditions”?