## Facts

- Robert Hall Clothes, Inc. operated a retail clothing store in Wilmington, Delaware with separate departments for men’s/boys’ clothing and women’s/girls’ clothing.
- The men’s department was staffed by salesmen and the women’s department was staffed by saleswomen; the government did not challenge the employer’s department staffing practice in this case.
- Sales personnel in both departments performed retail selling tasks for walk-in customers, including assisting customers, presenting merchandise, helping with fit and selection, and completing sales.
- Sales personnel were paid a base salary plus incentive compensation tied to sales.
- Men’s merchandise was generally higher priced and carried a higher profit margin than women’s merchandise.
- As a result, salesmen, on average, generated higher dollar sales and more gross profit per hour than saleswomen.
- Salesmen consistently received higher base salaries than saleswomen, including higher starting salaries and larger or more frequent increases.
- The Secretary of Labor sued under the Equal Pay Act, alleging the store paid women less than men for equal work.
- The district court found the sales jobs were equal but concluded the pay difference was justified by the greater economic return associated with sales in the men’s department.
- The Secretary appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether salesmen in the men’s department and saleswomen in the women’s department performed “equal work” requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions within the meaning of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1).
2. If the work was equal, whether the employer proved the wage differential was “based on any other factor other than sex,” where the employer relied primarily on higher prices, sales volume, and profit margins in the men’s department.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the district court.
- The court held that the sales positions in the men’s and women’s departments were substantially equal in terms of skill, effort, and responsibility, and were performed under similar working conditions.
- The court held the employer did not meet its burden to show that the higher base pay for salesmen was explained by a factor other than sex within the meaning of § 206(d)(1).
- The fact that men’s-department merchandise produced higher dollar volume and greater gross profit did not, standing alone, justify paying women lower base wages for substantially equal sales work.
- The court concluded the employer violated the Equal Pay Act and remanded for entry of appropriate relief consistent with the statute.

## Legal Principles

- The Equal Pay Act bars an employer from paying employees of one sex less than employees of the opposite sex for equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility, performed under similar working conditions.
- “Equal work” is evaluated by comparing the content of the jobs actually performed, not job titles, departmental labels, or the products sold.
- Once the plaintiff shows a wage differential for substantially equal work, the burden shifts to the employer to prove the differential falls within one of the statute’s four exceptions, including a differential “based on any other factor other than sex.”
- The “factor other than sex” defense requires a bona fide, sex-neutral explanation for the wage difference; it cannot rest on general assertions that one department produces more revenue or profit when the work performed is otherwise substantially the same.
- Differences in sales results or profitability may be reflected through commissions or incentive plans, but they do not automatically justify separate base-wage scales where employees perform substantially equal sales work.

## Conclusion

Hodgson v. Robert Hall Clothes, Inc. held that retail salesmen and saleswomen working in separate store departments performed substantially equal work for Equal Pay Act purposes, and that higher gross sales and profit margins in the men’s department were not, by themselves, a valid “factor other than sex” to justify paying women lower base salaries; the Third Circuit reversed and required relief for the wage disparity.


Hodgson v. Robert Hall Clothes, Inc., 473 F.2d 589 (1973)