Equal Pay Act of 1963
29 U.S.C. § 206(d), 29 CFR Part 1620 · Read 2026-08-15
In force since 1964 as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act. It requires equal pay for substantially equal work at the same establishment, with four statutory defences, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 restarts the limitation period with each discriminatory paycheck.
Identifier
- Identifier
- 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), 29 CFR Part 1620
- Level
- Federal
- Status
- In force
- Adopted
- 1963-06-10
- Applies from
- 1964-06-11
- Supervisory bodies
- EEOC, DOL Wage and Hour Division
Named requirements
Equal work standard
Skill, effort, responsibility and similar working conditions.
Affirmative defences
Seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production, and any factor other than sex.
Remedies
Back pay, liquidated damages and fees.
Official source
United States case law
19 decisions · Read from CourtListener, Free Law Project on 2026-08-22.
- Adele Ruppe v. Marco Rubio
D.C. Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
- Anna Lange v. Houston County, Georgia
11th Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
- Frankie Nelson v. County of Cook
7th Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
- Ayorinde v. Team Industrial
121 F.4th 5005th Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
- Michigan First Credit Union v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
108 F.4th 4216th Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
- Boyer v. United States
98 F.4th 1073Fed. Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
- Mundell v. Acadia Hospital Corp.
92 F.4th 11st Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
- Brooke Clark v. A&L Homecare &Training Ctr.
68 F.4th 10036th Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
- Elizabeth Polak v. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
57 F.4th 4264th Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
- Bostock v. Clayton County
590 U.S. 644SCOTUSFinal, the decision cannot be appealed
- Aileen Rizo v. Jim Yovino
950 F.3d 12179th Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
- Lenzi v. Systemax, Inc.
944 F.3d 972d Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
Change monitoring
The row is re-read against the publisher's own publication on a fixed interval. The dates below can be checked on the spot and travel with the API response.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Register | EEOC — 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), 29 CFR Part 1620 |
| Publisher | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission |
| Last read | 2026-08-15 |
| Interval | Every 30 days |
| Next re-read | 2026-09-14 |
| Status | Checked against the publisher |
Row history
Dated events concerning this exact row, newest first. No event appears here without a date in a primary source.
| Date | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-08-15 | Row read against the official publication | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission |
| 1964-06-11 | Date of application according to the publisher | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission |
| 1963-06-10 | Adopted under 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), 29 CFR Part 1620 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission |
Monitoring states when the row was checked, not how the legal position should be assessed.
Cite this row
The string below travels with a memo, a case file or an agent chain. The same string sits in the citation field of the API response.
29 U.S.C. § 206(d), 29 CFR Part 1620, Equal Pay Act of 1963. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/regler/equal-pay-act (hämtad 2026-08-25, bevis sha256:28d24cc65f86d9ec, bygge legal-2026-08-25).
- sha256:
- 28d24cc65f86d9ec7f74e293638ac8e906efe0a982c467593980b12541df9641
- hämtad:
- 2026-08-25
- source_confidence:
- official
- bygge:
- legal-2026-08-25
Official publication. The address points to the authority or court that published the row. Office of the Federal Register, eCFR.
The row is a source reference with an official identifier. No legal advice and no compliance decision.
Verifiable trust signals
- Six fixed blocks, one source per line
- No sentence written by a language model
- Engine version and read date on every answer
- No customer data, no documents, no advice
- Model card and audit published under the EU AI Act