29 C.F.R. § 1620.22
Employment cost not a “factor other than sex.”
A wage differential based on claimed differences between the average cost of employing workers of one sex as a group and the average cost of employing workers of the opposite sex as a group is discriminatory and does not qualify as a differential based on any “factor other than sex,” and will result in a violation of the equal pay provisions, if the equal pay standard otherwise applies.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · leading case: Eisenhauer v. Culinary Inst. of Am., 84 F.4th 507 (2d Cir. 2023).
Eisenhauer v. Culinary Inst. of Am., 84 F.4th 507 (2d Cir. 2023). “188, 209 (1974); (4) “claimed differences between the average cost of employing workers” of different sexes as groups, 29 C.F.R. § 1620.22 ; and (5) collective bargaining agreements to “unequal rates of pay,” 29 C.”
Aileen Rizo v. Jim Yovino, 887 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2018). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1620.22 (2017). Thus, although the catchall exception applies to a wide variety of job-related factors, it does not encompass reasons that are simply good 18 Because the plaintiffs alleged a violation of Title VII based on unequal wages for equal work, the Equal…”
U.S. Equal Emp. Opp. Comm'n v. Newport Mesa Unif. Sch. Dist., 893 F. Supp. 927 (C.D. Cal. 1995). “7 (f) (1994) (emphasis added); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1620.22 (1994) (sim *932 ilar interpretation of analogous clause in Equal Pay Act).”
Aileen Rizo v. Jim Yovino (9th Cir. 2018). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1620.22 (2017). Thus, although the catchall exception applies to a wide variety of job-related factors, it does not encompass reasons that are simply good 18 Because the plaintiffs alleged a violation of Title VII based on unequal wages for equal work, the Equal…”
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.