## Facts

- The Secretary of Labor sued Behrens Drug Company under the Equal Pay Act, alleging women warehouse order clerks were paid less than men for equal work.
- Behrens employed female “order clerks” whose primary duties were warehouse tasks such as filling orders and stocking shelves.
- Behrens also employed male “sales trainees” who spent substantial time performing the same warehouse tasks under similar working conditions.
- The male sales trainees were paid higher wages than the female order clerks during periods when they performed the same warehouse work.
- Behrens asserted the pay differential was justified because the men were in a sales-training program aimed at preparing them for outside sales positions.
- The alleged training program had no written plan, no defined stages, and no fixed end point; advancement depended largely on vacancies.
- The sales-trainee program had never included women; Behrens recruited only men for these positions based on beliefs about suitability for traveling sales work.
- The district court found a violation, enjoined further violations, and ordered $17,423.99 in back wages; Behrens appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether female order clerks and male sales trainees performed “equal work” requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions within the meaning of the Equal Pay Act.
2. Whether Behrens proved the wage differential was justified by “a factor other than sex,” specifically a bona fide training program.
3. Whether injunctive relief and restitution of back wages were authorized remedies on the Secretary’s suit.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The court held the female order clerks and male sales trainees performed substantially equal warehouse work for Equal Pay Act purposes.
- The court held Behrens failed to establish that the pay differential resulted from a bona fide training program or any other factor other than sex.
- The court upheld the injunction against future violations and the order restraining continued withholding of $17,423.99 in back wages.

## Legal Principles

- Equal Pay Act “equal work” analysis turns on actual job content—skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions—not job titles or employer characterizations.
- After a plaintiff shows a wage disparity between sexes for substantially equal work, the employer bears the burden to prove an affirmative defense under the Act’s exceptions.
- A “factor other than sex” defense based on a training program requires proof the program is bona fide and that the wage differential is genuinely based on the program rather than sex.
- A purported training program lacking formal structure, paying more for substantially identical current work, and excluding women supports a finding that the differential is not justified by a sex-neutral factor.
- Injunctive relief and restitution of withheld wages are available remedies in enforcement actions by the Secretary under the Fair Labor Standards Act provisions applied to Equal Pay Act violations.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed liability and remedies under the Equal Pay Act because Behrens paid men more than women for substantially equal warehouse work and did not prove the difference was based on a bona fide, sex-neutral training program or another permissible factor.


Hodgson v. Behrens Drug Co., 475 F.2d 1041 (5th Cir. 1973)