Skip to main content

Thompson v. Commissioner

Unknown CourtSeptember 21, 1987Cited 36 times
Plaintiff WinPublic Printer
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Scott
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Tax court case regarding characterization of back pay as wages vs. damages for purposes of income exclusion

Related Laws

Claim Types

Discrimination

Outcome

Plaintiff prevailed in class action sex discrimination suit under Title VII and Equal Pay Act, awarded back pay and liquidated damages for wage differential based on substantially equal work performed by male comparators.

Excerpt

Petitioner was the lead plaintiff in a class action sex discrimination suit filed against the Public Printer under tit. VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. sec. 206(d). In 1982, she was awarded back pay under the Equal Pay Act on the basis that her work was similar to, and required skill, effort, and responsibility substantially equal to that required for the bookbinder jobs performed by males. The measure of the back pay owing to her but withheld was the difference in the wages paid to bookbinders and the wages paid to her. In 1982, petitioner was also awarded liquidated damages under the Equal Pay Act. Held, the amount received by petitioner as back pay was not damages for a personal injury but wages due for an action in the nature of breach of contract and therefore the back pay award is not excludable from petitioner's taxable income under sec. 104(a)(2), I.R.C. 1954. Held, further, the liquidated damages award received by petitioner was in the nature of damages for a personal injury and, as such, is excludable from her taxable income undersec. 104(a)(2).

What This Ruling Means

**Thompson v. Commissioner: A Victory for Equal Pay** This case involved a female employee at the Government Printing Office who sued her employer for sex discrimination and unequal pay. Thompson led a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and other female workers, claiming they were paid less than male employees who did similar work. She argued that her job required the same skills, effort, and responsibility as male bookbinders but received lower wages simply because of her gender. The court ruled in favor of Thompson and the female workers. The judge found that the women's work was indeed substantially equal to the men's work, and the pay difference was based on sex discrimination. As a result, Thompson was awarded back pay in 1982 to make up for the wages she should have received. The court also awarded additional damages to compensate for the illegal wage gap. This ruling matters for workers because it reinforces that employers cannot pay women less than men for doing essentially the same job. It shows that employees can successfully challenge pay discrimination through the courts and recover money they were wrongfully denied. The case demonstrates that both Title VII and the Equal Pay Act provide strong protections against gender-based wage discrimination in the workplace.

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.