It would be difficult to prove if there was a difference of pay for a short period of time that it was a matter of sex, but when it lasted as long as it did then it is believable that if Shirey had been a man it would not have lasted as long or would not have existed at all. Because Shirey was a woman and because of her own loyalty to the company, I conclude that the defendant knew and intentionally permitted the difference in pay for Shirey to exist and also took advantage of her as such. Accordingly, it would be an intentional violation of the Equal Pay Act and perhaps the Title VII Act that inequality in pay existed and that Shirey was deprived of equal pay because she was a woman.
As manager of Monroeville, her beginning salary is shown in exhibit 28 as $ 288.47 per week or $ 576.94 for a 2-week period. This figure matches the calculations contained on pg. 4 of exhibit 38 showing back pay calculations for Shirey for the period 07-14-84 to 03-08-86. On plaintiff's exhibit 28, Shirey is shown to have received an increase effective 02-24-86 which would make her new salary $ 317.31 weekly or $ 634.62 every two weeks as shown on pg. 4 of exhibit 38.
The salaries contained on pg. 4, plaintiff's exhibits 39 and 39A, were stipulated to by counsel and will be used to determine back pay calculations for Shirey for the years 1984, 1985 and part of 1986. However, "PAY INCREASE" Located directly below 1986 in the "year" column, the court notes that this increase and the salary differential were calculated for only one pay period:
pe 3/8/86 364.62 769.24 134.62 x 1 pp = 134.62
Therefore, back pay calculations for the period beginning 3/8/86 until 4-30-87 will be taken from pg. 4 of plaintiff's exhibit 38. These figures do not differ from the amounts stipulated by counsel, but merely project the back pay to the present time.
From this date forth, any adjustments which should be made in accordance with this opinion will be made by the defendant to equalize Shirey's pay.
Back pay owed to Shirey is as follows:
Plaintiff's Exhibits pe 7/14/84 $ 2,267.64
39 & 39A, pg. 4 to pe 12/15/84
Plaintiff's Exhibits pe 12/29/84 4,999.80
39 & 39A, pg. 4 to pe 12/14/85
Plaintiff's Exhibits pe 12/28/85 961.50
39 & 39A, pg. 4 to pe 2/22/86
Plaintiff's Exhibit to 4/30/87 1,211.58
38, pg. 4
The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are incorporated in this Opinion in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, TO-WIT, this 20th day of October, 1987, in accordance with the foregoing Opinion and Findings contained therein, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendant in the claim of the plaintiff, EEOC, for inequality in pay and promotions for females as a class, generally, as against males, except in the claim for Patti Shirey, I find a case of discrimination which deprived her of the sum of $ 12,402.16 and judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff for that sum with interest from the date of this judgment.