29 C.F.R. § 1620.18

Jobs performed under similar working conditions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general. In order for the equal pay standard to apply, the jobs are required to be performed under similar working conditions. It should be noted that the EPA adopts the flexible standard of similarity as a basis for testing this requirement. In determining whether the requirement is met, a practical judgment is required in light of whether the differences in working conditions are the kind customarily taken into consideration in setting wage levels. The mere fact that jobs are in different departments of an establishment will not necessarily mean that the jobs are performed under dissimilar working conditions. This may or may not be the case. The term “similar working conditions” encompasses two subfactors: “surroundings” and “hazards.” “Surroundings” measure the elements, such as toxic chemicals or fumes, regularly encountered by a worker, their intensity and their frequency. “Hazards” take into account the physical hazards regularly encountered, their frequency and the severity of injury they can cause. The phrase “working conditions” does not encompass shift differentials.

(b) Determining similarity of working conditions. Generally, employees performing jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility are likely to be performing them under similar working conditions. However, in situations where some employees performing work meeting these standards have working conditions substantially different from those required for the performance of other jobs, the equal pay principle would not apply. On the other hand, slight or inconsequential differences in working conditions which are not usually taken into consideration by employers or in collective bargaining in setting wage rates would not justify a differential in pay.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Deborah Cullen v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 338 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2003).
Deborah Cullen v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 338 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2003). “‘Hazards’ take into account the physical hazards regularly encountered, their frequency and the severity of injury they can cause.”
Dr. Leonard Chukwualuka Onyiah v. St. Cloud State Univ., 684 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2012). “Onyiah directs this court to 29 C.F.R. § 1620.18 as the appropriate standard for determining similarly situated employees.”
Nyman v. Chairman, Fed. Deposit Ins., 967 F. Supp. 1562 (D.D.C. 1997). “Pierce are substantially equal with respect to the' level of skill, effort and responsibility required by each position.”
Mehus v. Emporia State Univ., 222 F.R.D. 455 (D. Kan. 2004). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 1620.18 (a). “Generally, employees performing jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility are likely to be performing them under similar working conditions.”
Cooke v. United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 325 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.18 (a). In determining whether similar working conditions exist, the Court must make a practical judg *347 ment as to whether any differences are of the kind an employer customarily considers when setting wage levels.”
Pfeiffer v. Lewis Cnty., 308 F. Supp. 2d 88 (N.D.N.Y. 2004). “’ ” 29 C.F.R. 1620.18(a). “ ‘Surroundings’ measures the elements .”
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees v. Nassau, 799 F. Supp. 1370 (E.D.N.Y 1992). “17 (a); and “working conditions” include surroundings and hazards, 29 C.F.R. §§ 1620.18 (a). These determinations are to be made on the basis of “actual job performance and content — not job titles, classifications or descriptions.”
Prewett v. Alabama Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 533 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (M.D. Ala. 2007). “29 C.F.R. § 1620.18 ; Corning Glass Works, 417 U.”
Prewett v. State of Alabama Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 419 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (M.D. Ala. 2006). “29 C.F.R. § 1620.18 . See also Corning Glass Works, 417 U.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Delaware Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 865 F.2d 1408 (3rd Cir. 1989). “29,816, 29,818 (1986); 29 C.F.R. § 1620.18 (1988). Under these circumstances, it was error to apply the cited examples, Wetzel v.”
Martin v. Delta Cnty. Mem'l Hosp. Dist. (D. Colo. 2021). · cites it 4× “See also 29 C.F.R. § 1620.18 (a) (“‘Surroundings’ measure the elements, such as toxic chemicals or fumes, regularly encountered by a worker, their intensity and their frequency.”
Flannery v. Riverside Rsch. Inst. (S.D. Ohio 2021). “29 C.F.R. § 1620.18 (a). If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one of the affirmative defenses applies.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1620.18(a) — 1 case
Pfeiffer v. Lewis Cnty., 308 F. Supp. 2d 88 (N.D.N.Y. 2004). “’ ” 29 C.F.R. 1620.18(a). “ ‘Surroundings’ measures the elements .”
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.