I am a woman and work for a computer company. I started out on the front desk in the office. The manager who directed all the tec. people and who was over me did nothing. He was paid a big salary. He was fired for doing a poor job. Since I was doing most of his job I was asked if I would like his Job. I said yes. I was told that I would be given a big raise, an office, and another employee would be hired to work the front desk. But several months into the new job I have been told that I will have to do both jobs with little pay increase. I have had my evaluation and it was excellent on both jobs. I feel that this is discrimination because I am a woman and he was a man. He was paid a big salary and I am expected to to both jobs for what I was making just on the front desk. Do I have a case for discrimination?

Only if the reason they are paying you less is because you are a woman. If itis because they don't feel two positions are necessary because you seem able to handle it, there are financial issues, you were making less before so your increase brings you in under what he was making, you have different levels of education and/or experience, they realized they were paying too much with the other guy, the market has dropped in IT, or yu have not approached anyone about a raise in pay, it is not.

What makes you think that you are being paid less and not being given the assistant because of your gender?

Probably not based solely on one comparison. It is very difficult to establish gender based pay biases based on a single incident and you're not remotely the first person of either gender who has been asked to take on another job (even the boss's job) and not had a corresponding pay increase.

If they won't give you the title and the compensation for the job you're doing, your recourse is to take your newly acquired skills and find a new employer who will.

Contact EEOC and discuss your situation. If you and your predecessor actually performed the same job and he was paid considerably more, you may have a claim. However, it's going to depend upon your employer's reasons for paying him what it did and paying you what it is paying you. Basing pay on anything other than gender is acceptable.

It may be that you aren't performing all the duties the male did and don't have the same responsibilities. A difference in either of those could justify a difference in pay.

As could differences in length of tenure, previous experience, skill sets, education, negotiation at hire, or just about any reason that is NOT a protected characteristic, including that the other employee played golf with the boss or was the brother-in-law of the chairman of the BOD. It may not be fair, but unless it is BECAUSE of your gender (or other characteristic protected by law) it is legal.

While the difference in pay might result from any factor, the poster hasn't presented anything that rules out sex. She presents the situation of a female allegedly assuming the duties and responsibilities of a higher paying managerial position with the promise of an increase in pay and perks. That her employer made that promise suggests that it valued the job at a higher pay than she was then earning. It paid the higher salary when the job was held by a man, but isn't going to do so now that job is held by a female. On the surface, that's about all it takes to have a viable claim of a violation of the Equal Pay Act. The burden is on the the employer to provide legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the difference in pay.

I'm not saying she has. I'm not ruling out sex either. I am pointing out that there are considerable legal reasons for the differential.