Skip to main content

Texas State Agencies to Pay $175,000 to Settle EEOC and DOJ Wage Discrimination Suits

AUSTIN, Texas - Two Texas state agencies will pay $175,000 to settle sex discrimination lawsuits filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, the federal entities announced today. The EEOC and DOJ had charged the state agencies with responsibility for gender-based pay discrimination at another, now-defunct, state agency.

The federal agencies sued the Texas Department of Agriculture and the Texas General Land Office for wage discrimination suffered by former female employees of the now-defunct Texas Department of Rural Affairs (TDRA). The EEOC, which has litigation authority against state and local governments pursuant to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), charged that TDRA paid a former program specialist lower wages than it paid to a comparable male employee in the same division, for substantially equal work, the performance of which required equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which was performed under similar working conditions.

The parallel lawsuit filed by DOJ, which has litigation authority with respect to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for governmental employers, alleged that three female TDRA employees were subjected to wage discrimination because of their sex and terminated in retaliation for complaining about the unfairness. Sex-based wage discrimination and retaliation violate both the EPA and Title VII.

Given the common aspects of the claims, the two lawsuits were consolidated as EEOC and United States of America v. Texas Department of Agriculture and Texas General Land Office, Case No. A-11-CA-827 LY in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.

Judge Lee Yeakel has signed and approved a settlement requiring the Texas departments to pay $175,000 to three female employees who were paid less than their male counterparts, representing back pay as compensation for the difference in wages.

EEOC General Counsel David Lopez said, "This case highlights the fact that there is still much work to be done in the area of equal pay, 49 years after the Equal Pay Act was enacted. This resolution reflects the EEOC's commitment to work collaboratively with its governmental partner to enforce laws that require equal pay for men and women performing the same jobs."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...