## Facts

- Four female correction officers worked in the women’s section of the Washington County, Oregon jail.
- They were paid less than male jail guards and alleged the county intentionally set their wage scale lower because of sex.
- The officers sued under Title VII, asserting sex-based wage discrimination.
- The district court found differences between male and female guards’ duties and dismissed the Title VII wage claim on the legal ground that Title VII wage claims require meeting the Equal Pay Act’s “equal work” standard.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding Title VII wage claims are not confined to Equal Pay Act “equal work” situations and may proceed subject to the Equal Pay Act’s statutory defenses.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether the Bennett Amendment to Title VII incorporates only the Equal Pay Act’s four affirmative defenses, or also incorporates the Equal Pay Act’s “equal work” requirement.
2. Whether a plaintiff may pursue a Title VII claim of intentional sex-based undercompensation without proving she performed “equal work” to higher-paid male employees under the Equal Pay Act.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court held that the Bennett Amendment incorporates into Title VII only the Equal Pay Act’s four affirmative defenses (seniority, merit, production, or a factor other than sex), not the Equal Pay Act’s “equal work” requirement.
- A Title VII sex-based compensation claim is not barred solely because the plaintiff cannot show her job is “equal work” to a higher-paid male job within the Equal Pay Act’s meaning.
- The plaintiffs’ Title VII claim could proceed, with the employer permitted to assert the Equal Pay Act defenses through the Bennett Amendment.
- The Court did not decide whether Title VII supports a general “comparable worth” theory; it limited its holding to rejecting dismissal based solely on lack of “equal work.”

## Legal Principles

- Title VII prohibits discrimination because of sex with respect to compensation.
- The Bennett Amendment limits Title VII only to the extent that sex-based wage differentials are “authorized by” the Equal Pay Act’s affirmative defenses.
- Title VII sex-based wage claims are not restricted to “equal pay for equal work” scenarios; a plaintiff may allege intentional sex-based undercompensation even where jobs are not equal under the Equal Pay Act.
- In Title VII compensation cases implicating the Bennett Amendment, the employer may avoid liability by proving the wage differential resulted from: (1) a seniority system, (2) a merit system, (3) a production-based system, or (4) any factor other than sex.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Bennett Amendment does not import the Equal Pay Act’s “equal work” requirement into Title VII, allowing plaintiffs to pursue Title VII claims for intentional sex-based undercompensation even when their jobs are not equal to higher-paid male jobs, subject to the Equal Pay Act’s statutory defenses.


County of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161 (1981)