Chapter 14 Cases - Chapter 14 Cases Corning 1. Summarize...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Chapter 14 Cases Corning 1. Summarize the facts of the case. Prior to 1925, Corning operated its plants only during the day. At the time a night shift was introduced, New York and Pennsylvania law prohibited women from working at night and the men that were recruited to work the night shift demanded more pay to do so. In 1944, Corning plants at both locations were organized by a labor union and a collective bargaining agreement was negotiated for all production and maintenance employees. This agreement for the first time established a plantwide shift differential, but this change did not eliminate the higher base wage paid to male night inspectors. 2. Who brought the two court actions against Corning Glass Works? The Secretary of Labor brought these cases to enjoin Corning from violating the Equal Pay Act and to collect back wages allegedly due female employees because of past violations. 3. Does the statutory term “working conditions” encompass the time of day worked? No. The fact of the matter is that the concept of “working conditions,” as used in the specialized language of job evaluation systems, simply does not encompass shift differentials. Gunther 1. What does the Bennett Amendment provide? It shall not be an unlawful employment practice under this subchapter for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of sex in determining the amount of the wages or compensation paid or to be paid to employees of such employer if such differentiation is authorized by the provisions in Section 206(d) of Title 29. 2. What did the employer argue was the purpose of the Bennett Amendment? Petitioner argues that the purpose of the Bennett Amendment was to restrict Title VII sex-based wage discrimination claims to those that could also be brought under the Equal Pay Act, and thus that claims not arising from “equal work” are precluded. Respondents, in contrast, argue that the Bennett Amendment was designed merely to incorporate the four affirmative de- fenses of the Equal Pay Act into Title VII for sex-based wage discrimination claims. 3. State the Supreme Court’s decision. The Supreme Court set forth the narrow holding that the plaintiffs’ claim of low pay because of discrimination based on sex was not barred by Section 703(h) of Title VII, the Bennett Amendment, merely because the plaintiffs did not perform work “equal” to that of the male corrections officers. 4. If the equal work standard were to apply, could situations exist where a discriminatorily underpaid woman would be unable to obtain a remedy? Yes. Zippittelli 1. If a conversation that an employee had with her supervisor about applying for a promotion results in a question about age and a response by the supervisor when she found out that the applicant was 63 that the applicant would “probably not” get the position, coupled with the fact that the applicant had better performance evaluations than the younger woman who was awarded the position, would not a
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 5

Chapter 14 Cases - Chapter 14 Cases Corning 1. Summarize...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online