DANIEL TAYLOR vs. JAMES RIVER CORPORATION
Charge:
Race discrimination in employment practices.
Discussion:
Federal District Court found that thecompany's system for selection into the Pipefitter and Millwright Apprenticeship
Programs did not result in discriminatorypractices. Selection process consisted of two basic components: (1) A battery
of fivewritten tests which the consultant concluded from the PAQ data would be predictive of job performance success
of apprentice applicants, and (2) A structured board interview. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, James
River Corporation, and the case was dismissed.
THOMAS JOHNSON vs. UNCLE BEN'S INC., Civil Action 74H-435
Charge:
Race discrimination in employment practices.
Discussion:
The District Court found that the company's job classification system validated independently by the PAQ did not result
in discriminatory practices in pay, hiring, or promotion, and this was affirmed upon appeal.
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS (Females) vs. MAJOR COMPUTER SYSTEMS MANUFACTURER
Charge:
Pay inequity; comparable worth.
Discussion:
Settled prior to completion of trial in District Court. The PAQ was used to establish comparability of jobs held by
females and males. Female plaintiffs settled for over $1 million back pay award.
EEOC vs. MAJOR SOUTHWESTERN WHOLESALE GROCER
Charge:
Pay inequity; comparable worth.
Discussion:
The PAQ was used to establish that the defendant's job evaluations were accurate and that the positions held by females
(pricers and checkers) were not comparable to the positions held by males (selectors).
|
AFSCME vs. STATE OF WASHINGTON
Charge:
Comparable worth.
Discussion:
PAQ job evaluation data and related testimony was developed to establish that Washington's 1974, 1976 comparable worth
evaluation studies were in error and that differences between male and female jobs (in terms of classification grades)
did not exist to the extent reported in the 1974-76 analyses. The evidence and testimony was not allowed by the District
Court under the theory that the State had "accepted" the original 1974-76 studies. The case was appealed by Washington
and the Appellate Court considered the results of the PAQ analyses in reversing the District Court. Subsequently the
case was settled.
EEOC vs. MAJOR MIDWESTERN UTILITY
Charge:
Pay inequity; comparable worth.
Discussion:
PAQ was used to establish that certain jobs are not comparable in terms of job evaluation results or job content parameters.
EEOC vs. MAJOR SOUTHWESTERN UTILITY
Charge:
Sex discrimination in pay; class action.
Discussion:
The Utility had no formal job evaluation or compensation program at time of lawsuit, but installed a formal system
based on the PAQ in 1972-73. The company agreed, in the settlement, that they had underpaid certain jobs held by females
prior to installing the PAQ system. A pool of back-pay was established to remedy the past. The court held that once
the PAQ system was installed, the company's liability ended. EEOC agreed PAQ system was nondiscriminatory.
|
