Question

Midwest Sales, Inc. has a stated written policy by which all similarly situated employees are to be paid the same salary. John Doe (a male), a Senior Executive Vice President for Sales and Marketing for Midwest’s ZONE A, is paid $100,000 a year by Midwest. Jane Roe (a female), a Senior Executive Vice President for Sales and Marketing for Midwest’s ZONE B, is paid $95,000 a year by Midwest. Jane has worked for Midwest two years longer than John. The description of John and Jane’s respective jobs are identical. What is most accurate statement concerning any legal challenge to the differential is pay between what Midwest pays John and Jane?a) The pay difference is not unlawful and cannot be challenged because there is less than a 10% pay difference between what Midwest pays John and Jane.b) The pay difference is unlawful, unless Midwest can establish some significant difference between Zone A and Zone B.c) The pay difference is not unlawful and cannot be challenged in this instance because the "seniority" defense allows for different pay for men and women even though they may be performing "substantially the same job".d) The pay difference is unlawful, not because of the gender difference between John and Jane, but because Midwest is violating its own stated pay policy.

Answer 1

Answer:

b) The pay difference is unlawful, unless Midwest can establish some significant difference between Zone A and Zone B.

Explanation:

The equal Pay Act of 1963 states that men and women should earn the same salary for similar jobs, i.e. there should be no distinction of gender when establishing a person's salary.

The exception to this rule would be that the work carried out in Zone A is much more demanding, challenging, difficult, important or relevant than the work carried out in Zone B. E.g. Zone A represents 75% of total revenue, or includes very large cities.