## Facts

- Labor unions (AFSCME and WFSE) and individual state employees brought a Title VII class action on behalf of roughly 15,500 Washington state workers in job classifications held primarily by women.
- Washington set state-employee salaries principally by reference to “prevailing” market rates obtained through biennial salary surveys of thousands of employers; the process informed executive budgeting and legislative salary enactments.
- In 1974, Washington commissioned a consultant (the “Willis study”) to evaluate job classifications and assess whether predominantly female jobs were paid less than predominantly male jobs of comparable assessed value.
- The Willis study evaluated many male- and female-dominated classifications using a point-factor method (skill, effort, responsibility, working conditions) and reported that female-dominated classes were paid about 20% less than comparable male-dominated classes.
- A governor proposed a multi-million-dollar appropriation to begin correcting the disparity; a later administration eliminated the funding in the next budget cycle, and the legislature opted for further study rather than immediate broad correction.
- During the litigation, the state adopted legislation providing for a multi-year (ten-year) phased implementation of a comparable-worth plan; plaintiffs asserted it was inadequate and too delayed and sought declaratory, injunctive, and back-pay relief.
- The district court bifurcated proceedings into liability and remedies phases; the reported decision primarily addressed liability and prospective relief, reserving back pay for later proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington violated Title VII by paying employees in predominantly female job classifications less than employees in predominantly male classifications where a job-evaluation study found the work of comparable assessed value.
2. Whether continued reliance on prevailing market rates, despite knowledge that it perpetuated undervaluation of female-dominated jobs, constituted actionable discrimination under disparate treatment and/or disparate impact theories.
3. Whether declaratory and injunctive relief was warranted to require a nondiscriminatory compensation system notwithstanding the state’s later adoption of a phased comparable-worth plan.

## Decision

- The court held Washington’s compensation system, as implemented and applied, violated Title VII by maintaining wage disparities between female-dominated and male-dominated classifications that the state’s own evaluation found comparable in assessed value.
- The court treated the Willis study as persuasive evidence of discriminatory compensation practices and rejected the view that the state could disregard its own findings while continuing the existing pay structure.
- The court found that, after obtaining official notice of the disparity, the state’s inaction and delay in correcting it supported Title VII liability.
- The court issued declaratory relief and directed development of injunctive relief to bring the compensation system into compliance; back-pay issues were left for later proceedings.
- The decision was later reversed by the Ninth Circuit on the liability determination.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII prohibits compensation discrimination because of sex; liability may be shown where an employer maintains a pay system that systematically disadvantages a protected group.
- Title VII does not, by itself, require adoption of a particular job-evaluation method or a “comparable worth” regime, but employer-generated job-evaluation evidence may be used to prove discriminatory compensation practices.
- A facially neutral pay-setting practice (including market-rate reliance) may be actionable under disparate impact if it disproportionately harms a protected group and is not justified by business necessity.
- Evidence of employer knowledge of a discriminatory disparity, coupled with deliberate policy choices that maintain the disparity, may support an inference of intentional discrimination.

## Conclusion

The district court concluded that Washington’s continued maintenance of market-based wages, despite a state-commissioned study indicating significant underpayment of female-dominated classifications relative to comparable male-dominated classifications, violated Title VII and warranted declaratory and prospective injunctive relief, with monetary remedies reserved for later proceedings.


Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps., AFL-CIO v. State of Wash., 578 F. Supp. 846 (W.D. Wash. 1983)