417 U.S. 188 (1974)
Corning Glass Works operated plants in Corning, New York, and Wellsboro, Pennsylvania.1 Prior to 1925 all inspection work occurred during the day and was performed exclusively by women.2 Between 1925 and 1930 Corning introduced automatic production equipment that made night shifts desirable. New York and Pennsylvania law then prohibited women from working at night, so the company recruited male day workers for the new night inspection positions and paid them substantially higher wages than female day inspectors received.3
In 1944 a labor union organized the plants. It negotiated a collective-bargaining agreement that for the first time created a plant-wide shift differential. This differential was superimposed on the preexisting base-wage gap between male night inspectors and female day inspectors.4 Before the Equal Pay Act took effect on June 11, 1964, both states amended their laws to allow women to work at night.5
Beginning in June 1966 Corning opened night inspection jobs to women by consolidating previously separate male and female seniority lists so that women could bid for the positions as vacancies arose.6 On January 20, 1969, a new collective-bargaining agreement instituted a job-evaluation system that set a single base wage for all inspectors higher than the former night rate, while preserving higher red-circle rates for employees hired before that date who worked night inspection shifts.7
The Secretary of Labor sued Corning in two separate actions to enjoin violations and recover back wages allegedly owed female day inspectors.8 One case involved the New York plants and reached the Second Circuit; the other involved the Pennsylvania plant and reached the Third Circuit.9 The circuits reached opposite results, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari and consolidated the cases.10
Whether Corning ever violated the Equal Pay Act by paying male night shift inspectors more than female day shift inspectors?11
Under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. §206(d)(1), the Secretary must prove that an employer pays different wages to employees of opposite sexes for equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under similar working conditions; once shown, the burden shifts to the employer to establish one of four statutory exceptions, including a differential based on any factor other than sex.12 The statutory phrase 'working conditions' incorporates the specialized job-evaluation concepts of surroundings and hazards rather than time of day, so a valid shift differential must be justified under the catchall exception and not rest on sex.13
Yes. The Secretary carried the initial burden by showing that day and night inspection work demanded equal skill, effort, and responsibility and occurred under similar working conditions, as Corning's own job-evaluation plans consistently assigned identical point values to both shifts for all four statutory factors, including working conditions defined strictly as surroundings and hazards.14 The higher base wage paid exclusively to male night inspectors originated before any plant-wide shift differential existed.15 The wage gap arose instead because men refused to accept the lower rates paid to female day inspectors.
Corning could exploit a market that permitted lower pay for women performing identical tasks.16
Corning therefore violated the Equal Pay Act by maintaining a base-wage differential for equal work that was not justified by any factor other than sex.17
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by The Chief Justice And Justice Rehnquist
Justice Blackmun, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Rehnquist, dissented from the majority's conclusion on the first issue. They would have affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. They reached this result for the reasons stated by Judge Adams in his opinion for the Court of Appeals in Brennan v. Corning Glass Works, 480 F.
2d 1254 (CA3 1973). In their view night-shift inspection work is not performed under similar working conditions to day-shift work because of the different time of day. This distinction meant that the wage differential fell outside the scope of the Equal Pay Act altogether.18
Whether Corning cured its violation of the Act in 1966 by permitting women to work as night shift inspectors?19
An employer that has paid unequal wages for equal work in violation of the Equal Pay Act may remedy the violation only by raising the lower wage rate to the level of the higher rate. Permitting some members of the lower-paid sex to transfer into the higher-paid positions does not cure the ongoing depression of wages for those who remain in the lower-paid roles.20
No. Although Corning opened night inspection vacancies to women after June 1966 by consolidating seniority lists, women filled a substantial number of those positions. The company nevertheless left the base wage of day-shift inspectors—virtually all women—unchanged at the lower rate that had been set because of sex.21 The Act's prohibition on reducing any employee's wage to achieve compliance required Corning to increase the day rate to match the night rate rather than merely offering transfer opportunities.22
Corning therefore failed to cure its violation of the Equal Pay Act in 1966.23
Whether Corning cured its violation in 1969 by equalizing day and night inspector wage rates but establishing higher red circle rates for existing employees working on the night shift?24
A new wage structure that equalizes base rates for newly hired employees while preserving higher red-circle rates for incumbent night-shift workers perpetuates an earlier sex-based differential. This occurs when the red-circle rates are themselves the product of the employer's prior failure to equalize wages on the effective date of the Act.25
No. The 1969 collective-bargaining agreement set a uniform job-evaluation base wage for all new inspectors. It retained higher red-circle protection only for pre-1969 night inspectors. Had Corning equalized day and night base wages when the Act took effect, the day inspectors would have received the same red-circle rate.26 The resulting disparity therefore continued to rest on the original sex-based differential rather than on a neutral factor other than sex.27
Corning therefore failed to cure its violation of the Equal Pay Act in 1969.28