Arthur v. College of St. Benedict

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that employer may not use employer’s prior rate of compensation to justify disparate salaries if it perpetuates past discrimination
• explaining that employer may not use employer’s prior rate of compensation to justify disparate salaries if it perpetuates past discrimination
• stating that the EPA “does not require perfect diversity between the comparison classes,” but when the challenged policy affects both men and women equally, “there can be no EPA violation”
• finding that gender distributions of 47% male and 53% female lower-paid class versus 76% male and 24% female higher-paid class “undermines any suggestion that the difference in the benefits was based on sex,” and ultimately entering summary judgment for defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).