hardlj@drutx.UUCP (hardouinLJ) (09/06/85)
The judicial system finally got one right yesterday. The following is an AP news story: "SAN FRANCISCO - The nation's first statewide "comparable worth" ruling was overturned Wednesday by a federal appeals court, which said the state of Washington did not have to offer women equal pay for jobs of equal worth. "Neither law nor logic deems the free market a suspect enterprise," said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in reversing a decision that could have provided as much as $1 billion in damages to 15,500 worders. A three-member panel of the court said federal laws banning sex discrimination in employment do not require an employer to provide equal pay for different jobs, even if the employer's own studies say the jobs have the same value. In holding the state liable for damages in 1983, U.S. District Judge Jack Tanner had cited a study commissioned by the state government showing a 20 per cent salary gap between workers in predominantly female and predominantly male jobs that required similar levels of skill, mental demands, accountability and working conditions. But the appeals court said a wage gap, by itself, does not show that the state intentionally discrimminated against women. The 1964 federal Civil Rights Act "does not obligate (Washington) to eliminate an economic inequality which it did not create," said the opinion by Judge Anthony Kennedy. In language that could be devastating to the comparable-worth theory, Kennedy said an employer can follow prevailing market wages in setting salaries, even if those wages underpay women. "The state did not create the market disparity and has not been shown to have been motivated by impermissible sex-based considerations in setting salaries," Kennedy said. Larry Hardouin ihnp4!drutx!hardlj