The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has ruled in favor of the
Federal Aviation Administration after three high-level female
managers sought the difference between their earnings and
those of their male colleagues for equal work.
The court assumed that the plaintiffs could establish that
FAA paid them less than their male colleagues for work that
requires the same skill, effort and responsibility, and that
is performed under similar circumstances.
The burden then shifted to the FAA to show that the
differential was justified according to one of the Act’s
four exceptions, the decision said.
In this case the agency moved for summary judgment under
the affirmative defense that any pay disparities were due
to a “factor other than sex,” according to federal claims
case No. 00-222C. The agency had to prove that gender-based
pay differences are “business related,” rather than merely
a pretext for discrimination–in essence, that the
gender-neutral factor it identified caused the wage
difference.
In determining that, court asked if the pay plan and policies
placing the plaintiffs in it constituted “factors other than
sex,” whether the pay plan and policies had a rational basis,
and if the pay plan and policies were applied in a
discriminatory manner.
It concluded that FAA’s pay plan — in this case for certain
air traffic controllers — is gender-neutral on their face,
and are rationally related to legitimate government interests.
It said no evidence had been identified that would prove
that exceptions to the plan and rules based on gender were
the cause of any pay disparities suffered by plaintiffs.
Further, it said no evidence supported the plaintiffs’
claims of Equal Pay Act violations, and concluded that the
difference in wages was caused by a “factor other than sex,”
and ruled in favor of the government.
