Backgrounder on Wage Discrimination
In 1963, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act (EPA), making it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to women and men who hold the same job and do the same work. A year later, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which more broadly prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and has been used as an effective tool to combat wage discrimination. Today, while the EPA and Title VII have helped women, minorities, and people with disabilities narrow the wage gap, their promise still remains unfulfilled and partly impeded by the Supreme Court.
Are women who make the same career choices as men and work the same hours still earning less than their male counterparts?
Yes. According to a 2003 report by the General Accounting Office, even when accounting for demographic and work-related factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure. Women working full-time earn an average of 80 cents for every dollar earned by men. African-American women in particular earn just 69 cents and Hispanic women earn only 56 cents to every dollar earned by a white man. This earnings gap cannot be explained due to differences in work patterns or histories.
Diluting the power of the EPA.
Lower court decisions, as well as some outdated provisions of the EPA itself, have diluted the effectiveness of the law in addressing wage discrimination.
-
Under current law, an employer may defend itself against a change of gender-based pay discrimination by arguing that the pay differential is based on a "factor other than sex."
-
Some lower courts have interpreted this defense so broadly as to include factors that are inherently discriminatory and contradict the very purpose of the EPA (e.g., the fact that a man previously had a higher salary means that he has to be paid more in a new job).
The impact of wage discrimination in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber (2007).
Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at Goodyear in Gadsden, Alabama, sued her employer for paying her less than her male counterparts. A jury found that Goodyear violated her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But in May 2007 the Supreme Court held Title VII requires employees to file suit within 180 days of the employer’s initial discriminatory pay decision, rather than within 180 days of each act of discrimination, which the Court had previously interpreted to include each discriminatory paycheck.
Unlike other employment decisions, few workers have any idea what their colleagues earn. It is therefore very difficult for a typical worker to have the information necessary to bring a wage discrimination case within the short window of time after a pay decision is made. Each time a person is paid less because of their race, gender, religion or disability, is an act of discrimination that deserves relief.
This decision deprived Lily Ledbetter of any compensation for the years of discrimination she suffered. The Supreme Court’s new narrow interpretation of Title VII shields employers who engage in pay discrimination from lawsuits and is fundamentally unfair to victims of discrimination seeking just compensation.
Why Wage Discrimination Matters.
Wage discrimination remains a serious problem. It not only affects family economic security today, it also reduces the retirement income women receive in later years. Fewer women than men receive pensions--and those who do have a substantially lower pension income. And women of color receive even less. Improving the lives of women and families by realizing the promise of equal pay for equal work is a critical civil rights priority and an economic imperative.
