George Schatzki


The ultimate legal question is: Does Title VII incorporate the comparable worth doctrine? The courts are saying, "No." Their reasoning is, at best, unpersuasive. Indeed, often their reasoning is nothing more than mere conclusion. Given what I have described briefly as the legal arguments pro and con, one can easily understand that so long as Griggs remains a part of the Title VII scene, there is a rational but not compelling argument to incorporate comparable worth into the Act. How, then, does a court decide? The following discussion is offered not as an example of desirable or undesirable judicial analysis. It is, I believe, a fairly realistic description of what the courts are probably considering, perhaps consciously. I leave to others the plaudits for, or condemnation of, what I suggest is judicial thinking.