Ark. Code Ann. » Title 11 Chapter 04
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-610 (2026)

Wage discrimination between sexes prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. No employer shall discriminate in the payment of wages as between the sexes or shall pay any female in his or her employ salary or wage rates less than the rates paid to male employees for comparable work.
  2. Nothing in §§ 11-4-607 — 11-4-612 shall prohibit a variation in rates of pay based upon a difference in seniority, experience, training, skill, ability, differences in duties and services performed, differences in the shift or time of the day worked, or any other reasonable differentiation except difference in sex.

History. Acts 1955, No. 361, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 81-624.

Publisher's Notes. This section may be partially superseded. See publisher's note to § 11-4-607.

Case Notes

Voluntary Termination.

There is nothing in §§ 11-4-607—11-4-612 which even remotely suggests that an employee may voluntarily quit her job because of an isolated incident which might arguably be in violation of one of those sections and thereby preserve unemployment insurance benefits. Graham v. Daniels, 269 Ark. 717, 601 S.W.2d 225 (Ct. App. 1980).

Cited: Meredith v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 272 Ark. 498, 616 S.W.2d 471 (1981); Holt v. Deer-Mt. Judea Sch. Dist., 135 F. Supp. 3d 898 (W.D. Ark. 2015).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2015–2024 · leading case: Holt v. Deer-Mt. Judea Sch. Dist., 135 F. Supp. 3d 898 (W.D. Ark. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Holt v. Deer-Mt. Judea Sch. Dist., 135 F. Supp. 3d 898 (W.D. Ark. 2015). · cites it 15× “The School District’s Motion to Dismiss argues that Holt’s claims are time barred by the relevant statutes of limitations and administrative exhaustion requirements, 1 and that Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-610 does not apply to Holt.”
Mundell v. Acadia Hosp. Corp., 92 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “For similar reasons, I do not find much insight into how the Maine Law Court would construe the MEPL in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ("SJC") construction of that state's equal-pay measure in Jancey v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.