29 C.F.R. § 1604.8
Relationship of title VII to the Equal Pay Act
(a) The employee coverage of the prohibitions against discrimination based on sex contained in title VII is coextensive with that of the other prohibitions contained in title VII and is not limited by section 703(h) to those employees covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
(b) By virtue of section 703(h), a defense based on the Equal Pay Act may be raised in a proceeding under title VII.
(c) Where such a defense is raised the Commission will give appropriate consideration to the interpretations of the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor, but will not be bound thereby.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1976–1981 · leading case: Cnty. of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161 (1981).
Cnty. of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161 (1981). “[18] *178 The current Guideline does not purport to explain whether the equal work standard of the Equal Pay Act has any application to Title VII, see 29 CFR § 1604.8 (1980), but the EEOC now supports respondents' position in its capacity as amicus curiae.”
Howard v. Ward Cnty., 418 F. Supp. 494 (D.N.D. 1976). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1604.8 (a) (1975). If I find that the standards of the Equal Pay Act have been violated, I must look to the remedies and the statute of limitations found under Title VII, rather than the slightly different remedies and statute of limitations found under the FLSA.”
Gerlach v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 501 F. Supp. 1300 (E.D. Mich. 1980). “” 29 C.F.R. 1604.8. 24 The new guideline does not appear expressly to adopt the equal work formula, but neither does it expressly reject that formula.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Colby Coll., 439 F. Supp. 631 (D. Me. 1977). “29 C.F.R. § 1604.8 (b), (c) (1976). 7 . The Wage and Hour Administrator in two Opinion Letters has reiterated the clear import of this regulation.”
Manhart v. City of Los Angeles, 553 F.2d 581 (9th Cir. 1976). “Now, 29 CFR § 1604.8 discusses the applicability of' defenses raised under the Equal Pay Act [administered by the Wage and Hour Division] and states that the EEOC will no longer be bound by the interpretations of the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division.”
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.