Corning Glass Works v. Brennan

7 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Teachers Exemption In California (00213)

    California Department of Industrial RelationsJanuary 17, 2003

    Moreover, the assertion of an exemption from the overtime laws is considered to be an affirmative defense, and therefore the employer bears the burden of proving the employee's exemption. (Nordquist, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 562; Corning Glass Works v. Brennan (1974) 417 U.S. 188, 196-197 [94 S.Ct. 2223, 2229, 41 L.Ed.2d 1].)” Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785, 794-795.6See Section 1, Applicability, Statement At To the Basis Upon Which Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 4-89 Is Predicated.

  2. Pay Transparency and Equity Issues

    Bryan Cave Leighton PaisnerAllison EckstromMarch 20, 2023

    no private right of action for current employees against their current employers.Takeaways and Best PracticesPay transparency undoubtedly will create challenges for many employers, particularly those employers with a multi-state workforce. Employers should become familiar with the state and local pay transparency laws that apply to the business, as well as consider conducting a pay equity audit to assess any disparity in pay. Finally, employers should be mindful of any recording-keeping requirements and seek the advice of counsel when considering how to communicate any remedial changes to the workforce. According to the United States Government Accountability Office, in 2021, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that women earned about $0.82 for every dollar men earned (an overall pay gap of 18 cents on the dollar), with White women earning about $0.79, Black women earning about $0.63 and Hispanic women earning about $0.58 for every dollar White men earned. Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 195 (1974). Exception: Certain employees (e.g.HR) cannot disclose salary information of other employees as it may violate privacy and confidentiality laws. Colorado requires employers to make reasonable efforts to notify all employees of promotional opportunities.[View source.]

  3. Salary Negotiation Can Provide Affirmative Defense to Equal Pay Act Claim as “Factor Other Than Sex”

    LittlerDecember 10, 2021

    Such disparate salaries should not be implemented unless their fairness can clearly be supported by legitimate business reasons, including documentation of the negotiation processes that led to the agreed rates of pay.Footnotes1EEOC v. Hunter-Tannersville Central School District, No. 121CV0352LEKATB, 2021 WL 5711995 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2021).2The three elements required for aprima faciecase are: (1) the employer pays different wages to employers of the opposite sex; (2) the employees perform equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and (3) the jobs are performed under similar work conditions.Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 196 (1974).3Zhengfang Liang v. Café Spice SB, Inc., 911 F.Supp. 2d 184, 202 (E.D.N.Y. 2012);Aldrich v. Randolph Cent. School Dist., 963 F.2d 520, 525 (2d. Cir. 1992) (“[a] job classification system resulting in differential pay [must be] rooted in legitimate business-related differences in work responsibilities and qualifications ….”).4EEOC v. Hunter-Tannersville Central School District, 2021 WL 5711995, at *3.

  4. OFCCP Week In Review: March 2020

    DirectEmployers AssociationJohn FoxMarch 3, 2020

    e identifies four exceptions to the equal pay requirement: (1) when payment is made pursuant to a seniority system; (2) when payment is pursuant to a merit system; (3) when payment is pursuant to a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (4) when the pay differential is based on any other factor other than sex.[3]However, the Ninth Circuit’s example of a legitimate use of prior pay history (during negotiation of job offers) seems to run contrary to the very reasoning the Ninth Circuit relied upon in rejecting prior pay history as a factor other than sex, since negotiation of job offers is the type of market force that could result in unequal comparable pay. For example, if Susan negotiates for $10/hour, but Bob is only willing to negotiate as low as $13/hour, doesn’t hiring both create the very disparity the Ninth Circuit seeks to prevent? See Rizo, Case No. 16-15372 at pp. 13, 21 (the Rizo court noted with approval the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning in Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 190 (1974), that “market forces” is too broad a term that could lead to improper justifications for unequal pay for comparable work).Update to February 21, 2020 Story: New Boss in Town, Same as the Old Boss: Secretary of Labor Scalia’s Order 01-2020 Allows Secretary of Labor to be Final Arbiter of the Department of Labor’s DecisionsSecretary of Labor Eugene Scalia stamped his imprint on the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) by substantially altering the process by which USDOL determines its final decision on a wide range of labor and employment cases heard by the department’s Administrative Review Board (ARB).[4] Specifically, since the ARB’s creation in 1996 when then-Secretary of Labor Robert Reich delegated the Secretary of Labor’s authority to issue final decisions on certain labor and employment matters to the ARB, the ARB has served as the DOL’s final decision-maker and arbiter on claims brought to the DOL…as a delegate of the Secretary.However, with the concurrent publication of Secretary

  5. Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc., No. 16-1305 (8th Cir. Apr. 3, 2017)

    Outten & Golden LLPPaul MollicaApril 3, 2017

    "Market forces" defense: The district court gave an instruction that, in relevant part, stated that "market forces and economic conditions cannot justify perpetuation of [a pay] differential" between men and women. Allsteel argued that this was in error, but the Eighth Circuit held that it was an accurate statement of Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 205 (1974), that it is not a defense under the Equal Pay Act that an employer pays women less than men "simply because men would not work at the low rates paid women" and market forces therefore dictated lower wages for women. Even if economic conditions might explain pay differential in some circumstances, "Allsteel offered no evidence at trial showing how [its] cost-saving measures caused the plaintiffs to be paid less than their male comparators."2. "Other acts" evidence: The district court admitted evidence of three other women managers who were also paid less than their male counterparts, and two other women who learned (and complained about) salary information showing that men got paid more.

  6. Determination of Exempt or Non-Exempt Status of Officers and "Key Administrative Personnel" Employed by Labor Unions

    California Department of Industrial RelationsMay 23, 2003

    Of course, "[t]he employer bears the burden of proving an employee is exempt. (Corning Glass Works v. Brennan (1974) 417 U.S. 188, 196-197, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 2229, 41 L.Ed.2d 1.) Exemptions are narrowly construed against the employer and their application is limited to those employees plainly and unmistakably within their terms.

  7. Applicability of the Administrative Exemption to Insurance Company Claims Representatives

    California Department of Industrial RelationsOctober 5, 1998

    Accordingly, " [t]he employer bears the burden of proving an employee is exempt. (Corning Glass Works v. Brennan (1974) 417 u. S. 188,·· 196-197) Exemptions are narrowly construed against the employer and their application is limited to those employees plainly and unmistakably within their terms. (Dalheim v. KDFW-TV (5th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 1220, 1224.)"