American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees AFL-CIO (AFSCME) v. Washington
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
578 F. Supp. 846 (1983)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
In 1974, the State of Washington (defendant) commissioned a study to examine whether there was a wage gap between job classes held predominately by males and job classes held predominately by females. The study concluded that women’s job classes tended to be paid roughly 20 percent less than men’s job classes for jobs of comparable worth. In 1976, Washington’s governor announced a $7-million budget appropriation to begin eliminating sex-based wage discrimination in state employment. However, a new governor eliminated that appropriation the following year despite the state having a budget surplus. The state legislature authorized further study of the wage gap and instructed two state agencies to give the governor further data. In 1982, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) (plaintiffs), labor unions that represented 15,500 state workers in jobs held primarily by females, sued the state in federal district court. The unions alleged that the state was discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by paying employees in predominately female job classes at lower rates than employees in predominately male job classes. The unions sought remedies including injunctive relief. While the litigation was pending, the state legislature enacted legislation providing for a comparable-worth compensation scheme to be implemented over 10 years.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tanner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.