## Facts

- Miller Brewing Company employed laboratory technicians in multiple labs at its Milwaukee facility, including an Analytical Laboratory and a Materials Quality Control/packaging-related laboratory operation.
- Three female laboratory technicians worked in the Analytical Laboratory and were paid lower hourly rates than certain male technicians working in other lab areas.
- The district court found the women’s work was substantially equal in skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, compared to the higher-paid male technicians.
- Miller attempted to address pay disparities in part by reducing certain male technicians’ wage rates rather than raising women’s wages.
- The Secretary of Labor sued to enjoin Equal Pay Act violations, and the three women sued for back pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees; the actions were consolidated and tried together.
- After trial and an on-site inspection of the workplace by the district judge, the court ordered Miller to raise Analytical Laboratory wages by $0.70 per hour, awarded back pay, liquidated damages equal to back pay, and attorneys’ fees, and denied prejudgment interest.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported the finding that the female technicians performed substantially equal work to higher-paid male technicians under the Equal Pay Act.
2. Whether Miller proved a statutory affirmative defense justifying the wage differential, including a “factor other than sex.”
3. Whether Miller established “good faith” and “reasonable grounds” under 29 U.S.C. § 260 to avoid liquidated damages.
4. Whether the district court erred in denying prejudgment interest on the back-pay awards when liquidated damages were awarded.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the finding that Miller violated the Equal Pay Act by paying female Analytical Laboratory technicians less than male technicians performing substantially equal work.
- The court affirmed rejection of Miller’s asserted justifications because Miller did not carry its burden to prove a statutory defense.
- The court affirmed the injunction requiring Miller to cease violations and to equalize wages by increasing Analytical Laboratory technicians’ pay by $0.70 per hour.
- The court affirmed the award of back pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees, holding Miller failed to satisfy the statutory prerequisites to reduce or eliminate liquidated damages.
- The court affirmed the denial of prejudgment interest on back pay.

## Legal Principles

- Equal Pay Act “equal work” is determined by the actual job content and whether the work is substantially equal in skill, effort, responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions; job titles are not controlling.
- Once a wage disparity for substantially equal work is shown, the employer bears the burden to prove one of the statute’s affirmative defenses (seniority, merit, production-based earnings, or a factor other than sex).
- Liquidated damages under the FLSA/Equal Pay Act are generally awarded; an employer may avoid or reduce them only by proving both subjective good faith and objectively reasonable grounds for believing its conduct was lawful.
- A court may deny prejudgment interest on back pay when liquidated damages are awarded, because liquidated damages serve to compensate for delay in payment.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that substantial equality of laboratory technician work supported Equal Pay Act liability, that Miller failed to prove a statutory defense or good-faith compliance sufficient to avoid liquidated damages, and that the injunction, wage equalization order, and damages awards were proper while prejudgment interest was properly denied.


Hodgson v. Miller Brewing Co., 457 F.2d 221 (7th Cir. 1972)