Employment Practices Decisions Archive: 1937 - 1995, [EMPLOYMENT-PRACTICES ¶6,477] , NO BIAS IN DENYING FEMALE SUPERVISOR’S SALARY WHERE SHE DID NOT PERFORM SUPERVISORY FUNCTIONS, (Oct. 29, 1974), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (Oct 29, 1974)

[EMPLOYMENT-PRACTICES ¶6,477] NO BIAS IN DENYING FEMALE SUPERVISOR’S SALARY WHERE SHE DID NOT PERFORM SUPERVISORY FUNCTIONS

Decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

No. 75-057October 29, 1974

Title VII--Civil Rights Act of 1964

Sex Discrimination--Equal Pay for Equal Work--Performance of Supervisory Functions.--Lacking any evidence that a female worker ever performed any supervisory functions, it could not be concluded that the worker was denied compensation commensurate to supervisory duties because of her sex. Furthermore, the worker didnot possess any experience or length-of-service qualifications which might call for a higher salary even though she might not be acting in a supervisory capacity.

Full Text of EEOC Decision

Summary of Charge

Charging Party alleges that Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by denying her and females as a class equal compensation because of their sex, and by discriminating against females as a class with respect to hiring, recruitment, and job classification.

Jurisdiction

Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Title VII, employing approximately 13,600 persons campus-wide. Approximately 250 work at the situs of the instant charge. The charge was timely filed.

Summary of Investigation

The facts of this case are intertwined with those presented in another EEOC-related case, No. 75-058, [CCH EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES GUIDE ¶6478 ] also decided today. Accordingly, the text of that Decision is hereby incorporated by reference into the instant one. The related case resolves Charging Party’s class allegations and sets out the somewhat complicated series of personnel actions which transpired in Respondent’s Media Services unit during 1972 and 1973. What remains is to analyze Charging Party’s individual complaint against that background of facts.

Charging Party was hired by Respondent on January 17, 1972 as a Technical Assistant at a salary of $7,296 per year. She alleges that sometime in December 1972 she assumed the duties of Editor but was denied commensurate compensation because of her sex. As outlined in the related case, Respondent admits, and we find as a matter of fact, that another female functioned as the deposed male Editor’s supervisor between December 1972 and February 1973 when he was discharged. Charging Party did receive a pay increase to $7,728 per year in December 1972 and was given the title Special Projects Editor. However, there is no independent evidence of record that Charging Party ever performed any supervisory function in connection with this change in status.

Charging Party received another pay raise to $8,568 per year shortly after she filed the instant charge but she still does not work in a supervisory capacity, as the other female presently. Further, she does not have as much experience or length of service as several other employees in the Media Services unit. We further note that Respondent hired a female Technical Assistant in July 1972. That person possesses extensive outside experience and earns $12,168 per year approximately $1,500 more than the male employee who is her supervisor. There is no further evidence that Charging Party was paid less than other employees performing substantially similar work because of her sex.

Decision

There is not reasonable cause to believe the charge is true.