Sex discrimination in the workplace is a highly controversial issue that has remained relevant for decades, as people hold different definitions of equality and what it should look like. Because sex discrimination cases tend to be quite complex, the law has often struggled to address these issues; the comparatively ambiguous evidence in these cases only complicates the issue. In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (2007), for example, Lily Ledbetter’s case that her lower salary was due to gender discrimination was dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit due to a lack of evidence. 

Another case that dealt with this issue is Bohm v. L.B. Hartz Wholesale Corp (1985), in which Treva Bohm sued L. B. Hartz Wholesale, Inc. for sex discrimination. She argued that she had not received equal pay in comparison to her male counterparts, that Hartz was discriminating against female employees, and that she had been fired due to her complaints about discrimination. More specifically, Bohm took issue with the differences in salary for warehouse positions and clerical positions. Warehouse roles were male-dominated while clerical roles were female-dominated, so Bohm claimed that warehouse employees’ higher salaries were evidence of sex-based discrimination. The court decided against Bohm’s arguments, determining that Bohm did not prove that Hartz engaged in systematic discrimination or that she had been fired due to her complaints. Using comparable worth theory, this article argues that Bohm v Hartz was incorrectly decided regarding the issue of discrimination and that Hartz did discriminate against female employees. 

Bohm used comparable worth theory in her argument, which “postulates that sex-based wage discrimination exists if employees in job classifications occupied primarily by women are paid less than employees in predominantly male classifications, if the evaluated worth of the jobs is equal.” Worth is determined in various ways, but it essentially refers to how useful a certain category of work is to a company. This article will later discuss how companies have used job evaluation surveys to measure worth. Using this theory, Bohm claimed that warehouse and clerical roles were of similar value to the company and required similar skill levels, indicating that Hartz’s wage policy was discriminatory towards female employees. Comparable worth theory is important because it identifies gender discrimination in the workforce that is less obvious: rather than overt discrimination, these kinds of practices perpetuate job segregation, which describes when certain industries or positions are largely female-dominated while others are male-dominated. This perpetuates the obstacles women face when trying to enter certain fields and also contributes to the gender pay gap, as female-dominated industries tend to have lower wages. 

Bohm correctly utilized comparable worth theory because she demonstrated evidence that supports the intent to discriminate, which is a requirement of applying this theory. As previously mentioned, Bohm displayed that there was inequity in wages at Hartz, which the court recognized: “The court determined that the wage discrepancies between male and female employees, coupled with the seemingly gender-based 1981 disparate increases, were facts sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination.” Thus, the court itself agreed that discrimination was, in fact, present. The evidence was that in 1980, clerical workers received an hourly wage of $6.92 while warehouse workers received $8.46 to $9.06. In 1981, there was a wage increase at Hartz, but clerical workers’ wages only increased by 5.97% while others’ wages increased by up to 20%. Therefore, there is an evident numerical gap between clerical and warehouse workers’ wages, which signals a difference in compensation for female and male workers due to the demographics of the two positions. Thus, Bohm satisfied the requirement of displaying evidence of discrimination, and the court even recognized it as proof of discrimination. 

One of the reasons Bohm’s argument was denied, despite this evidence, was that the court argued that they could not ask a private corporation like Hartz to compare the value of their employees. This indicated that the application of comparable wage theory could not be allowed in this case. However, based on precedent, I argue that it would have been fair for the court to implement comparable wage theory. The court argued that Washington County vs Gunther (1981), in which female matrons at the Washington County jail, a government-owned jail, filed a lawsuit for intentional sex discrimination due to lower pay, was irrelevant to this case. In Gunther, the county jail compared female matrons to male guards at the jail and presented a pay gap between the two groups of employees, and the court “accepted a ‘comparable worth-like’ claim” since the county jail had identified this disparity but had not taken action on it.” The court in Bohm argues that this is a different situation because the county jail compared the two groups of employees independently, without the court’s request. However, in Bohm, Hartz also voluntarily provided evidence of the pay gap between the two employee groups. Therefore, these two situations are not actually as different as they may seem. Courts can also use other methods to evaluate jobs. 

For example, in Taylor v. Charley Bros. Co. (1981), the judges had to perform a job evaluation of different roles themselves. In  American Federation of State, County, and Mun. Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME) v. State of Wash (1985), a job evaluation study was also used in order to conclude that women were paid less than men. “If employers will not engage in systematic job reevaluation, employees… can commission and conduct the studies themselves… If the employer were to ignore the job evaluation… that employer would do so at its own peril.” Thus, this reveals the flexibility in utilizing job evaluations in this kind of court case. Bohm could have conducted her own job evaluation study at the time of this case to further strengthen her case that clerical workers and warehouse workers were of similar value to Hartz. This also exposes how the court in Bohm did have the authority of taking a job evaluation into account in order to determine clerical and warehouse workers’ respective value to Hartz, thus utilizing comparable worth theory in their ruling. 

Another concern about implementing comparable worth theory and job evaluations in court cases like Bohm is that this may interfere with the economy. Some scholars posit that had Hartz compared clerical and warehouse workers and set their wages equal to one another, this could have disrupted the Minnesotan job market at the time. In fact, Hartz argued that the reason for the pay gap was that they were simply following compensation patterns in the region, meaning that sex discrimination had not been their intention. However, “[t]his comparable worth job evaluation process would take place within discrete employer systems. Comparable worth does not contemplate a national wage-setting job evaluation mechanism.” In other words, conducting a job evaluation in Bohm would not have caused disorder within the broader job market or dictated wages at similar corporations. The case did not present any evidence that indicated that a change of salary at Hartz would drastically influence similar companies throughout the market. Thus, the effects would have been concentrated within this case and at Hartz. 

Therefore, the decision about Bohm’s claim that there was systematic discrimination based on gender at Hartz was wrongly decided. Comparable worth theory should have been applied to the decision to determine that clerical and warehouse jobs were of similar worth at Hartz and deserved similar pay. Negating the use of comparable worth theory is harmful to gender discrimination in the economy, as “one form of discrimination is the segregation of women into low-paying occupations.” Job segregation is harmful because it solidifies the societal view that certain jobs that receive lower pay are “women’s work.” However, it is also important to acknowledge that comparable worth theory rarely succeeds, especially at a federal court level. Creating a judicial decision on the value of different jobs can be incredibly ambiguous and may unintentionally have wider implications on various markets. Further investigation on how to best implement comparable worth theory would be beneficial in establishing a more standard process for judging sex discrimination in regard to wages. Perhaps comparable worth theory could be limited to government-owned firms and voluntary actors in the private sector due to concerns regarding market sensitivity. Comparable worth theory should not be disregarded as a legal tool due to these challenges in implementation.