Corning Glass Works v. Brennan

PETITIONER: Corning Glass Works
RESPONDENT: Brennan
LOCATION: California Employment Development Department

DOCKET NO.: 73-29
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1972-1975)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

CITATION: 417 US 188 (1974)
ARGUED: Mar 25, 1974
DECIDED: Jun 03, 1974

ADVOCATES:
Allan A. Tuttle - for respondent in No. 73—29 and for petitioner in No. 73—695

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Corning Glass Works v. Brennan

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 25, 1974 in Corning Glass Works v. Brennan

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 03, 1974 in Corning Glass Works v. Brennan

Warren E. Burger:

Mr. Justice Marshall has three judgments and opinions of the Court to announce.

Thurgood Marshall:

First, I have the opinion and judgment in Number 73-29, Corning Glass Works versus Brennan, and 73-695, Brennan against the Corning Glass Works.

These cases are here on writs of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Both cases arise under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which requires employers to pay men and women equal pay for equal work.

The Courts below were in conflict on the principle question presented which seems to be whether Corning Glass Works violated the Act by paying a higher base wage to male night shift inspectors than it pay to female inspectors performing the same tasks on the day shift, where the higher wage is paid in addition to separate night shift differentials paid to all employees for night work.

But the reason set forth in an opinion filed with the clerk today, we agree with the Second Circuit; the night inspection work is performed under similar working conditions to day inspection work, as the words “working conditions” are used in the Act.

We, therefore, conclude that Corning violated the Act by paying women less than men for equal work. We also hold that Corning could not remediate this violation except by raising the wages of female day shift inspectors.

Therefore, the judgment in Number 73-29 is affirmed; the judgment in 73-695 is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Chief justice, Mr. Justice Blackmun and Mr. Justice Rehnquist have filed dissenting statement.

Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the decision of these cases.