Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Pay Equity Legislation
"The term “pay equity” originates from the fact that women as a group are paid less than men. In
recent years, for example, women with a strong commitment to the workforce earned about 77 to
80 cents for every dollar earned by men. As women’s earnings as a percentage of men’s earnings
have narrowed by less than 20 percentage points over the past 40-plus years, some members of
the public policy community have argued that current anti-discrimination laws should be
strengthened and that additional measures should be enacted. Others, in contrast, believe that
further government intervention is unnecessary because the gender wage gap will narrow on its
own as women’s labor market qualifications continue to more closely resemble those of men.

The Equal Pay Act (EPA), which amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), prohibits covered
employers from paying lower wages to female employees than male employees for “equal work”
on jobs requiring “equal skill, effort, and responsibility” and performed “under similar working
conditions” at the same location. The FLSA exempts some jobs (e.g., hotel service workers) from
EPA coverage, and the EPA makes exceptions for wage differentials based on merit or seniority
systems, systems that measure earnings by “quality or quantity” of production, or “any factor
other than sex.” The “equal work” standard embodies a middle ground between demanding that
two jobs either be exactly alike or that they merely be comparable. The test applied by the courts
focuses on job similarity and whether, given all the circumstances, they require substantially the
same skill, effort, and responsibility. The EPA may be enforced by the government, or individual
complainants, in civil actions for wages unlawfully withheld and liquidated damages for willful
violations. In addition, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act provides for the awarding of
compensatory and punitive damages to victims of “intentional” wage discrimination, subject to
caps on the employer’s monetary liability..."

No comments: