Circuit split · employment law

Whether courts should defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1), in construing that provision

1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.

United States v. Smith47 F3D 681
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · March 3, 1995
“Since neither of the Supreme Court opinions cited by the majority appears to control the question, I wonder that the majority has chosen to ignore a reasonable agency interpretation of § 206(d)(1) and create a split among the circuits to reach such a seemingly inequitable result which denies restitution to victims of illegal conduct.” — Creates a split
Empirical analysis of this case →

The provision at issue

“(a)(1)(A) The court, when sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense under this title, section 401, 408(a), 409, 416, 420, or 422(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841, 848(a), 849, 856, 861, 863) (but in no case shall a participant in an offense under such sections be considered a victim of such offense under this section), or section 5124, 46312, 46502, or 46504 of title 49, other than an offense described in section 3663A(c), may order, in addition to or, in the case of a misdemeanor, in lieu of any other penalty authorized …”

Read the full section →

What the split turns on

Anchor precedents:: Hisquierdo ·; Guidry ·; Guidry II10 F.3d 705 ·; Guidry III39 F.3d 1081
Statutes:: 45 U.S.C. § 231m(a) ·; § 206(d)(1) ·; 18 U.S.C.A. § 3663(g)

Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. See all circuit splits.