Among the most significant questions concerning laws against employment discrimination are the conditions under which employers are liable for sex-based wage discrimination when male and female workers hold different jobs. Much of the debate has centered on the concept of comparable worth, under which women claim legal entitlement to increased wages based on the evaluated worth of their jobs compared to those of men, even though the market price of predominantly female jobs is less than that of predominantly male jobs. Thus far, the courts and enforcement agencies largely have adopted the view that the wage differences between predominantly male and female jobs primarily are the result of competitive labor market conditions and, as such, that employers have relatively little discretion in (and relatively little responsibility for) setting male and female wage rates. There is considerable labor market research which suggests, however, that large segments of the work force are employed in firm-specific, internal labor markets or bureaucratic personnel systems where employers may retain substantial discretion in establishing pay levels, and the discretionary component of pay policies may systematically work to disadvantage jobs held predominantly by women. Drs. Nelson and Bridges seek to advance the empirical analysis of these issues through an intensive analysis of a set of Title VII cases that involved claims of between-job wage discrimination against women. Considerations of inter-job labor market decisions will provide the theoretical contrast for explaining different wages which are paid for predominantly male and female jobs of comparable worth. Using court records, interviews with those involved, and statistical and archival records on the firms involved and their external labor markets, the study will focus on the extent to which wages of large organizations are influenced by internal organizational factors rather than external market conditions, whether internal organizational factors have a depressive influence on female jobs, and whether courts have adequately considered the evidence and empirical issues. This research is important from many theoretical perspectives. Given the relative absence of research that directly examines the wage-setting practices of large organizations, this study will develop a more systematic empirical understanding of organizational pay systems. It will lay the foundation for broader analyses of organizational wage systems and their impact on male-female earnings differences. It also will inspect a fundamental issue relating to equal opportunity and the doctrine of equal worth. The results of the research should have clear relevance to the development and application of antidiscrimination law. Exploring these issues in the context of completed cases may lead to a new perspective on the meaning of existing case law and to a more sophisticated approach to these empirical questions in future work.
