## Facts

- Washington set civil-service pay to reflect prevailing labor-market rates, using biennial salary surveys of public and private employers and fixing salaries through the budgeting and legislative process.
- In 1974, Washington commissioned a consultant study comparing job classifications that were at least 70% female with classifications at least 70% male, using a job-evaluation methodology to assess relative job “worth.”
- The study reported that predominantly female classifications received lower wages than predominantly male classifications assessed as comparably valuable.
- Washington’s executive and legislative branches considered proposals to address the disparity, including appropriations and later a phased, long-term plan, but did not immediately implement full adjustments.
- AFSCME and related plaintiffs brought a class action on behalf of roughly 15,500 state employees in job categories that were at least 70% female, alleging Washington knowingly maintained a compensation structure that underpaid those female-dominated classifications.
- Plaintiffs asserted violations of Title VII under both disparate treatment (intentional discrimination) and disparate impact (facially neutral practice with discriminatory effects).
- The district court found for plaintiffs on both theories and ordered monetary and injunctive relief; Washington appealed, and plaintiffs cross-appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a pay disparity between predominantly female and predominantly male job classifications of comparable evaluated worth, combined with the employer’s knowledge of that disparity, proves intentional sex discrimination under Title VII.
2. Whether reliance on a market-rate compensation system that yields lower pay in predominantly female classifications constitutes an unlawful disparate impact employment practice under Title VII.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment for plaintiffs, holding that a Title VII violation was not established.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to prove disparate treatment because the evidence did not show Washington adopted or maintained its market-based pay policy because of sex.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to establish a viable disparate impact claim because the theory effectively sought to impose a comparable-worth wage mandate not required by Title VII and did not properly identify a specific neutral employment practice causing the disparity.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII pay discrimination requires proof that compensation decisions were made “because of” sex; knowledge of a sex-correlated disparity, without evidence of sex-based motive, is insufficient to show disparate treatment.
- Title VII does not require employers to set wages according to job-evaluation “comparable worth” determinations when jobs are dissimilar and pay is based on external labor-market rates.
- A disparate impact claim requires identification of a specific facially neutral employment practice that causes the challenged disparity; treating the wage outcomes of a market-based system as the “practice” is inadequate.
- An employer’s use of prevailing market wages, even if the market reflects historical sex-based wage differences, does not alone establish Title VII liability absent proof of discriminatory intent or a properly framed disparate impact challenge.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Washington’s market-based compensation policy, and its failure to immediately implement comparable-worth adjustments after internal studies showed disparities, did not establish either intentional sex discrimination or an actionable disparate impact under Title VII, and it reversed the district court’s liability finding and remedies.


Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps., AFL-CIO v. Washington, 770 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1985)