Skip to main content

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Liggett & Myers Incorporated, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Liggett & Myers Incorporated

4th CircuitSeptember 28, 1982No. 81-2186, 81-2203Cited 41 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Winter, Phillips, Ervin
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage TheftDiscrimination

Outcome

The court affirmed the finding that the company violated the Equal Pay Act by paying 22 female employees less than comparable male employees, awarding back pay with prejudgment interest. However, the court vacated and remanded the back pay calculations, finding the district court erred in its methodology for computing the remedy amounts.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** This case involved 22 female employees at Liggett & Myers Incorporated who were being paid less than male employees doing similar work. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the company on behalf of these women, claiming the pay differences violated the Equal Pay Act, which requires employers to pay men and women equally for substantially similar jobs. **What the Court Decided** The appeals court ruled that the company did break the law by paying women less than men for comparable work. The court confirmed that the female employees deserved back pay (money to make up for their lower wages) plus interest on that money. However, the court found that the lower court made mistakes in calculating exactly how much money the women should receive. The case was sent back to the lower court to recalculate the proper amounts. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling reinforces that employers cannot legally pay women less than men for doing essentially the same job. When companies violate equal pay laws, workers can recover the money they should have earned, plus interest. The case shows that courts take pay discrimination seriously, even though calculating fair compensation can be complex.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.