29 U.S.C. § 206(D)

10 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Alberta Gunther v. The Cnty. OF Wash.
  623 F.2d 1303· 9th Cir.· 1979-08-16 ·cited 83×
  The court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Bennett Amendment, may support a theory of sex-based wage discrimination not based on a denial of equal pay, and that the Bennett Amendment incorporates only the Equal Pay Act's defenses into Title V
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. White & SON Enters.
  881 F.2d 1006· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the defendant willfully discriminated based on sex and retaliated against employees for protesting unequal pay, but vacated the damages award for recalculation.
• Usery v. The Honorable Willis W. Ritter
  547 F.2d 528· 10th Cir.· 1977-01-03 ·cited 28×
  The Secretary of Labor is not required to disclose the identity of informants in an Equal Pay Act suit, as the government's interest in confidentiality outweighs the defendants' need for disclosure in this case.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. AETNA Ins. Co.
  616 F.2d 719· 4th Cir.· 1980-02-27 ·cited 27×
  The court held that Aetna's pay differential between male and female employees was justified by factors other than sex, specifically the male employee's superior experience and qualifications, and was not a violation of the Equal Pay Act.
• Am. Fed'n OF State v. State OF Wash.
  770 F.2d 1401· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a state's reliance on prevailing market rates to set compensation, even if it results in lower pay for female-dominated jobs deemed of comparable worth, does not violate Title VII absent proof of discriminatory intent.
• Marshall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist.
  605 F.2d 191· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Dallas Independent School District's custodial employees in different classifications did not perform equal work under the Fair Labor Standards Act's Equal Pay Act, reversing the lower court's finding of discrimination.
• N. Haven Bd. OF Educ. v. Hufstedler
  629 F.2d 773· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-24 ·cited 14×
  Regulations issued by HEW concerning sex discrimination in educational employment are valid under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
• Brobst v. Columbus Servs. Int'l
  761 F.2d 148· 3d Cir.· 1985-05-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the prior consent decree does not automatically extend to all future operations of the defendant and that summary judgment was improperly granted on the plaintiffs' primary claim.
• Bartelt v. Berlitz Sch. OF Languages OF Am., Inc.
  698 F.2d 1003· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the sex discrimination claims were untimely because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charges were not filed within the 300-day limit, and the paychecks did not constitute a continuing violation.
• Hammer v. Hillsborough Cnty.
  927 F. Supp. 1540· M.D. Fla.· 1996-06-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the County had sufficient identity of interest with the Commission to satisfy Title VII's notice requirements for subject matter jurisdiction, and that the Commission could be considered an agent of the County for purposes of liability. However, the court foun