| Politics of a Portlander |
 |
|
 |
| Women are paid 74 cents for every dollar paid to a man in the same job at the same company, not because of differences in education or experience, but because they are women. There is already a law that prohibits this, but it is currently impossible to enforce. Employers can simply say in court that it was due to "factors other than gender" with no evidence and the case is dismissed. There are other problems, which are apparent in the bullet points below that describes what the Paycheck Fairness Act would do. This is a serious issue of equality and resolving it would go a long way toward helping pull families out of poverty. If working women earned the same as men (who work the same number of hours, have the same education, age, and union status and live in the same region of the country) these women’s annual family income would rise by $4,000 and poverty rates would be cut in half. 72% of 2 parent families are supported by both a male and female income, and another 7.6 million families were dependent solely on a woman's income. These working families can provide better lives for the children of America if we simply pay women equally to men. Below are the provisions that the Paycheck Fairness Act sponsored by Sen. Clinton and Rep. DeLauro would make: Improving Equal Pay Act Remedies The Paycheck Fairness Act will toughen the remedy provisions of the EPA by allowing prevailing plaintiffs to recover compensatory and punitive damages. The EPA currently provides only for liquidated damages and back pay awards, which tend to be very insubstantial. The change will put gender-based wage discrimination on an equal footing with wage discrimination based on race or ethnicity, for which full compensatory and punitive damages are already available. Making it Easier to Bring Class Action Equal Pay Act Claims The Paycheck Fairness Act will allow an EPA lawsuit to proceed as a class action in conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). Currently it is very difficult to proceed as a class action because the EPA, adopted prior to the current federal class action rule (FRCP Rule 23), requires plaintiffs to opt in to a suit. Under the federal rule, class members are automatically considered part of the class until they choose to opt out of the class. Class actions are important because they ensure that relief will be provided to all those who are injured by the unlawful practice. Improving Collection of Pay Information by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) This provision will require the EEOC to issue regulations within 18 months requiring employers to submit pay data identified by the race, sex, and national origin of employees. This data will enhance the EEOC’s ability to detect violations of law and improve its enforcement of the laws against pay discrimination. Prohibiting Employer Retaliation Many employers place a “gag rule” on discussions of salaries among employees. The Paycheck Fairness Act would prohibit employers from punishing employees for sharing salary information with their co-workers. Without the ability to learn about wage disparities, it is difficult for employees to evaluate whether they are experiencing wage discrimination and to take action to assert their rights under the law. Closing an Affirmative Defense Loophole in the EPA Under the EPA, when an employer is found to be paying female employees less than male employees for equal work, the employer may assert an affirmative defense that the pay differential is based on a “factor other than sex.”17 Some employers have argued for interpretations of this affirmative defense that are so broad (e.g., to include factors such as a male worker’s stronger salary negotiation skills or higher previous salaries) that they would seriously undermine the EPA.18 The Paycheck Fairness Act would tighten this affirmative defense so that it can excuse a pay differential for men and women only where the employer can show that the differential is truly caused by something other than sex and is related to job performance -- such as differences in education, training, or experience. Eliminating the “Establishment” Requirement Under the EPA, in order to determine that there is wage discrimination, the wage comparison must be made between employees working at the same “establishment.”19 Some courts have interpreted this to mean that wages paid in different facilities or offices of the same employer cannot be compared even if the employer is paying workers different salaries for the same work.20 The Paycheck Fairness Act will clarify that a comparison need not be between employees in the same physical place of business. Developing Voluntary Guidelines The Paycheck Fairness Act directs the Labor Department to develop guidelines to enable employers voluntarily to compare wages paid for different jobs to determine whether their pay scales accurately reflect the requirements of the jobs, in order to help them eliminate unfair disparities between occupations traditionally dominated by men and by women. Increasing Training, Research, and Education The Paycheck Fairness Act would provide for increased training for EEOC employees to identify and respond to wage discrimination claims. It also calls for enhancing various research and education programs at the Labor Department, including conducting research in ways to eliminate gender-based pay disparities and providing information to employers to assist them in eradicating such disparities. Recognizing Model Employers The bill establishes an award, to be administered by the Labor Department, to recognize and promote the achievements of employers who have made strides to eliminate pay disparities. |
| Latest Issues |
| The Paycheck Fairness Act Is Designed to Close Loopholes That Have Hindered Efforts to Secure Equal Pay for Equal Work |