Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Cross-Appellant, and Carol Cole and Luvenia Long, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellees, Cross v. Madison Community Unit School District No. 12, Cross Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit1987Docket #1088136
818 F.2d 577 Employment Discrimination Law Labor Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law

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

4 min read

tl;dr: Female coaches, paid less than male counterparts, sued a school district. The court held that paying female coaches less for coaching the same sport as male coaches violates the Equal Pay Act, but comparing pay across different sports constitutes an invalid “comparable worth” claim.

Legal Significance: This case clarifies the Equal Pay Act’s “equal work” standard, establishing that jobs must be “substantially equal,” not merely “comparable.” It permits comparing male and female coaching jobs for the same sport but rejects comparisons across different sports as an impermissible “comparable worth” theory.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Cross-Appellant, and Carol Cole and Luvenia Long, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellees, Cross v. Madison Community Unit School District No. 12, Cross 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

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and several female coaches sued the Madison Community Unit School District, alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII. The female coaches were paid less than male coaches for various athletic coaching positions. For example, the female coach of the girls’ track team was paid less than the male coach of the boys’ track team, and the female coach of the girls’ softball team was paid less than the male coach of the boys’ baseball team. The district court found these jobs required equal skill, effort, and responsibility, noting that any differences in team size or season length were offset by the male coaches having more assistants. The plaintiffs also compared the pay for coaching girls’ volleyball and basketball to the pay for coaching boys’ soccer. The school district’s pay scale for coaches varied by sport, even among male coaches. Evidence also showed the district discouraged women from applying to coach boys’ teams, citing concerns about the “locker room problem.”

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does paying female coaches of girls’ sports teams less than male coaches of boys’ teams violate the Equal Pay Act’s “equal work” standard where the jobs involve coaching the same sport, and does a claim for pay disparity between coaches of different sports constitute an impermissible “comparable worth” claim?

Affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that comparing 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 do

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

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 paying female coaches of girls’ sports teams less than male coaches of boys’ teams violate the Equal Pay Act’s “equal work” standard where the jobs involve coaching the same sport, and does a claim for pay disparity between coaches of different sports constitute an impermissible “comparable worth” claim?

Conclusion

The case provides a crucial framework for applying 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, qui

Legal Rule

Under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1), jobs need not 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 pariat

Legal Analysis

The court navigated the fine line between the EPA's requirement of "equal 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 lab

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Under the Equal Pay Act, coaching boys’ and girls’ teams of
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

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial