NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED219043
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1982-Mar
Pages: 41
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: 0
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: N/A
Salary Equity Studies: The State of the Art. ASHE Annual Meeting 1982 Paper.
Hengstler, Dennis D.; And Others
The strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies in conducting salary equity studies are examined. Particular attention is paid to the problems of identifying appropriate matches in the paired-comparison approach and to the sample, predictor and decision-rule problems associated with the regression analysis approach. In addition, highlights of university case studies and court cases are presented, along with current and future trends in salary equity studies. To illustrate the issues, the situation of female faculty members claiming sex discrimination in salaries is assessed with regard to law suits. Three main federal statutes or regulations barring sex discrimination in faculty salaries are the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Executive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Order 11375. The most common and costly type of law suit is the class action suit. Most salary discrimination cases have involved disparate treatment claims, since the requirement of proving a prima facie case is considerably more relaxed than the for a disparate impact claim. The plaintiffs bear the initial responsibility of proving a prima facie case of sex discrimination. In the early discrimination cases before the courts, plaintiffs relied almost exclusively upon the descriptive method for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. The second method for determining possible sex discrimination in faculty salaries is the paired-comparison approach, also referred to as matching, counterparting, or the counter-factual approach. It is suggested that the multiple regression technique is the most effective method for analyzing sex discrimination in faculty salaries. (SW)
Publication Type: Speeches/Meeting Papers; Information Analyses
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers: ASHE Annual Meeting
Note: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (Washington, DC, March 2-3, 1982).