cause of action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.
2. The equal pay provisions of the Act became effective as to defendant and its employees on June 11, 1964.
3. The plaintiff has carried the burden of proof that female employees received lesser wages than male employees for performing equal work under equal conditions on jobs requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility.
4. Defendant has failed to carry the burden of proof required of it that any wage differentials between male employees and female employees were based on any factor other than sex.
5. When male employees classified as "Extrusion Press Operator and Die Setter" were assigned on regular rotating shifts to work with female employees classified as "Extrusion Press Operator" on the same machines, doing substantially equal work, the female press operators were entitled, under the Act, to receive the same rate for operating these presses as the male employees were receiving.
6. During the period from June 11, 1964 to December 14, 1965, defendant violated the equal pay provisions of the Act by discriminating between employees on the basis of sex by paying female Extrusion Press Operators contract rates 30 cents an hour less than it paid male Extrusion Operators and Die Setters for equal work on jobs, the performance of which required equal skill, effort and responsibility and which was performed under similar working conditions.
7. The equal pay provisions of the Act apply where women are employed to do substantially the same work formerly performed by men, as well as where men and women perform equal work currently and interchangeably.
8. The Act required the Defendant to raise the hourly rate of female Extrusion Press Operators to equal the hourly rates which men formerly received or were awarded, including any contracted future increases, when the males performed the job of Extrusion Operator and Die Setter. Female Extrusion Press Operators were entitled to be paid the same basic hourly wage rate as was paid to the classification of male Extrusion Operator and Die Setter, including the applicable incentive rates computed on this base hourly rate.
9. Defendant has continued to violate the Act since December 14, 1965 by failing to pay female Extrusion Press Operators for their employment since December 14, 1965 the same hourly rates which male employees were entitled to receive for the job of Extrusion Operator and Die Setter.
10. The revision of job titles after December 14, 1965 did not terminate defendant's duty to pay female Extrusion Press Operators the same contract rates which men formerly received when they performed the job classified as Extrusion Operators and Die Setters because the female operators continued to perform substantially the same level of skill, effort and responsibility, and the same principal activities.
11. Defendant's incentive pay system has no relevance in determining an equal pay violation regarding hourly based employees, because the system was plant wide and was applied as a percentage of existing hourly wage rates.
12. Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction restraining defendant against further violations of the equal pay provisions of the Act and restraining the withholding of back wages resulting from violation of these provisions respecting female Extrusion Press Operators.
AND NOW this 15th day of July, 1970, Judgment shall be entered for Plaintiff in accordance with the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Plaintiff shall submit an Order for Judgment and Permanent Injunction in accordance with this Opinion. The proposed Order shall be submitted to opposing counsel for approval as to form only.
Counsel for the parties shall consult and prepare a Stipulation as to the amount of back wages due each affected employee based on each employee's earning records for the period since June 11, 1964, with interest computed at the rate of six percent from the median point of each employee's employment.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.