9 Fair Emplpraccas 502 9 Fair Emplpraccas 508 19 Wage & Hour Cas’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
29 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Grigoletti v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1990), Danz v. Jones (1978)
29 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 10 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Baumgartner v. United States · United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co. · Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. · Weeks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. · George P. Shultz, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. First Victoria National Bank, George P. Shultz, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. American Bank of Commerce
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) No employer . . . shall discriminate . . . between employes on the basis of sew by paying wages to employes . . . at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employes of the opposite sew . . . for equal work on jobs, the performance of which, requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (1) a seniority system; (2) a merit system; (3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (4) a differential based on any other factor other than sex. . . . (Emphasis added.)”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Act was intended as a broad charter of women’s rights in the economic field. It sought to overcome the age-old belief in women’s inferiority and to eliminate the depressing effects on living standards of reduced wages for female workers and the economic and social consequences which flow from it.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the [federal] Civil Rights Act is much broader than the Equal Pay Act, its provisions regarding discrimination based on sex are in pari materia with the Equal Pay Act. . . . Since both statutes serve the same fundamental purpose against discrimination based on sex, the Equal Pay Act may not be construed in a manner which by virtue of § 703(h) [identical to A.R.S. § 41-1463(H)] would undermine the Civil Rights Act.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.