CORNING GLASS WORKS v. BRENNAN Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employer paid male night-shift inspectors more than female day-shift inspectors for identical work. The Supreme Court held this violated the Equal Pay Act, finding that time of day is not a “working condition” but a factor the employer failed to justify as being non-sex-based.
Legal Significance: Established that under the Equal Pay Act, “working conditions” refers to physical surroundings and hazards, not time of day. An employer cannot cure a historical, sex-based pay disparity by merely opening the higher-paid jobs to the discriminated class without equalizing the base wages.
CORNING GLASS WORKS v. BRENNAN Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Historically, Corning Glass Works employed only women as day-shift inspectors. When the company instituted a night shift, state laws prohibited women from working at night. To attract men to the inspector positions, Corning paid them a higher base wage than their female counterparts on the day shift. This pay disparity existed before and was maintained in addition to a later, plant-wide shift differential applicable to all employees. After the Equal Pay Act of 1963 took effect and state laws changed, Corning began allowing women to bid for the higher-paying night-shift jobs as they became available, but it did not raise the base wage for the predominantly female day-shift inspectors. In 1969, a new collective bargaining agreement equalized wages for new hires but preserved the higher wage for incumbent night-shift inspectors through a “red circle” rate. The Secretary of Labor sued, alleging that the pay practice violated the Equal Pay Act. The Second and Third Circuit Courts of Appeals issued conflicting rulings on the matter.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does an employer violate the Equal Pay Act by paying male night-shift inspectors a higher base wage than female day-shift inspectors for performing equal work, when that pay differential originated based on sex and the employer fails to prove it is based on a factor other than sex?
Yes. Corning’s pay practice violated the Equal Pay Act. The Court held Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor s
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does an employer violate the Equal Pay Act by paying male night-shift inspectors a higher base wage than female day-shift inspectors for performing equal work, when that pay differential originated based on sex and the employer fails to prove it is based on a factor other than sex?
Conclusion
This landmark decision narrowly defined "working conditions" under the Equal Pay Act Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis n
Legal Rule
Under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1), a plaintiff establishes Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt
Legal Analysis
The Court first clarified the Equal Pay Act's burden-shifting framework: the Secretary Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Under the Equal Pay Act, “similar working conditions” is a technical