Why is this so hard? Employer pays $105K to end equal pay suit

It seems like a pretty basic and commonsense rule: Pay people equal pay for equal work – regardless of their gender.

But if the allegations presented in a just-resolved EEOC lawsuit are true, it’s a rule that not all employees steadfastly follow.

The agency sued Inova Home Health, LLC in a Virginia federal district court in February, accusing the home healthcare coordination services provider of violating the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. Both of those federal laws prohibit pay discrimination based on sex.

The case specifically involved employees who held positions as Post-Acute Care Coordinators, or PACCS.

According to the EEOC’s federal suit, Invova paid female PACCS less than their male counterparts, even though they performed equal work and their working conditions were similar.

Newly hired males were paid more than more experienced incumbent females, the suit said.

Even after receiving a complaint of pay discrimination, Inova and part owner/manager Alternate Solutions Health Network, Inc. refused to raise female PACCS’ wages, the EEOC further alleged.

It’s really pretty simple

“Equal pay for equal work – it’s a simple premise and important legal obligation,” Debra Lawrence, EEOC’s regional attorney in Philadelphia said at the time. “The EEOC will hold employers accountable when they violate this obligation.”

The suit sought various forms of relief, including:

• Back pay.
• Liquidated damages.
• Punitive damages.
• Compensatory damages.
• Elimination of pay disparities.
• Injunctive relief that is designed to prevent future pay discrimination.

The case moved quickly, and the EEOC announced the settlement in mid-July.

Equal pay allegations lead to $105K payment

To end the case, Inova and Alternate Solutions agreed to pay $105,000 to three female PACCs who were named in the suit. In addition, they agreed to take steps so that future pay discrimination is avoided.

Specifically, they agreed to:

• Implement enhanced compensation and discrimination policies.
• Train HR and management officials who are involved in making compensation decisions.
• Notify employees about their rights.
• Execute an internal compensation audit.

Inova and Alternate Solutions also agreed to raise the pay of any female employees who may still be affected by a gender-based pay discrepancy.

What does the Equal Pay Act say?

The mandate of the federal Equal Pay Act is fairly straightforward and simple: Pay men and women in the same workplace equal pay for equal work.

Remember that for equal pay to be required, the jobs need not be identical; instead, it is enough for them to be substantially equal. This means that a significant portion of the job tasks are the same and that the jobs require similar skill and exertion levels.  The jobs must also be performed under similar working conditions and involve similar levels of responsibility and accountability.

Remember too that the law applies to all forms of pay, including salary, overtime, bonuses and profit sharing.

Another important point: Improper disparities may not be remedied by reducing the wage of either sex to equalize pay.

Title VII more generally bans sex-based discrimination, and that includes discrimination with respect to pay.

Sometimes, a pay disparity between a male employee and a female employee in a similar position is justified. For example, an employee may be paid more based on seniority or exceptional job performance. Other examples include increased pay based on a shift differential or an incentive system.

Helpful tips

Here are tips for avoiding illegal gender-based pay discrimination, courtesy of EEOC Washington Field Office District Director Mindy Weinstein:

• Proactively assess compensation systems.
• Identify whether any pay disparities exist between employees of the opposite sex who perform the same work.
• If such disparities exist, determine whether there are real, job-related factors that explain and justify the disparity in pay.