Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

When P was hired in 1998 as an 'Internal Security Investigator II,' the civil service classification of that job allowed a monthly pay from $ 2,478 to $ 4,466, depending on prior experience and years of service. P, who had been earning $1,925 monthly as a Special Agent with the Southern Illinois Enforcement Group, started with the Department at $2,478, a raise of almost 30%. People who came to the Department from more remunerative positions landed higher salaries (though lower percentage raises). Charles Bingaman hired contemporaneously with P, had a prior salary of $ 3,399 monthly as a Child Welfare Specialist III at the state's Department of Children and Family Services. He received a monthly salary of $3,739 to start his new job, a 10% raise. P and Bingaman do the same work but at substantially different pay as a result of this process for determining initial salaries. P sued D claiming she was due a raise under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). The court held that the Act only covers discrimination based on sex and D had discriminated against P based on prior salary. P also argued about sex discrimination from feeder jobs and D using that basis perpetuated discrimination. The court granted summary judgment to D and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.