Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Madison Community Unit School District No. 12
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
818 F.2d 577 (1987)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (plaintiff) sued Madison Community Unit School District No. 12 (Madison) (defendant), claiming that female coaches were paid less than male coaches in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA). The trial established that Luvenia Long, a female, was paid less for coaching girls’ track and tennis than the male coaches of the boys’ track and tennis teams, and less as the assistant coach of girls’ basketball than the male assistant coach of boys’ track. Carol Cole, also a female, was paid less for coaching girls’ volleyball and girls’ basketball than the male boys’-soccer coach, less for coaching girls’ softball than the male coach of boys’ baseball, and less as assistant coach of girls’ track than the male assistant coach of boys’ track. Madison discouraged women from coaching boys’ teams because school authorities were concerned about the “locker room problem.” The district court concluded that Long and Cole’s work and the work of their male counterparts was the same in skill, effort, and responsibility and held that Madison had violated the EPA. Madison appealed, arguing that the wage differential between male and female coaches was based on the sex of the teams and not the sex of the coaches.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
