Equal Work for Equal Pay? Not in the U.S. of A.

Pay discrimination is alive and well in the United States. A woman makes an average of 75 cents to a man’s dollar. But it’s hard for us to know if we’re experiencing gender discrimination in the workplace because our coworkers’ salaries are usually confidential. And, even if you know that unfair pay is going on, it’s a big risk to bring it out into the open.

To make matters worse, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on May 29, 2007, that a woman must file a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission soon after her unfair pay is set.

Before the ruling, a woman could file within 6 months of her last discriminatory paycheck. This previous legal precedent acknowledged that pay discrimination is an ongoing practice, not just a single event.

But five men on the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., decided that pay discrimination is a one-time choice, instead of an ongoing rebuke, and that a woman has just six months from the original pay decision to file her claim.

The case - Herstory

Lilly M. Ledbetter was the only supervisor at the Goodyear Tire plant in Gadsden Alabama. After twenty years with the company, she discovered that she had consistently been paid less than her male coworkers (including those with less seniority). Although her salary was at first equal to her male colleagues, she received smaller raises over the course of her career and by the time she sued Goodyear in 1998, her salary was 40 percent less than her male colleagues’.

The Supreme Court decided that she took too long to sue (even though she didn’t find out about the pay discrepancy until the end of her career). The majority found that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employees to file a complaint within 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.”

The dissenting opinion, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, emphasized the real-life experience of pay discrimination. In addition to the secrecy around salaries, Ginsberg explained that women “trying to succeed in a nontraditional environment” tend to avoid “making waves.”

Ginsberg read her dissent aloud, a rare theatrical event that signifies that the dissenter believes the majority is dead wrong. She explained that the majority misunderstood Congress’ intent with Title VII: "Congress never intended to immunize forever discriminatory pay differentials unchallenged within 180 days of their adoption." She added that the majority view could keep racial and other minorities from gaining similar relief for past discrimination.

The effects

Legal experts agree that the ruling will make it more difficult for women and minorities to sue employers for pay inequity. Establishing a pattern of discrimination over time is no longer a legal option unless victims sue under the Equal Pay Act.

However, the Equal Pay Act is limited to cases where the victim can point to a higher-paid male coworker with the same qualifications and seniority. Title VII allows a woman to sue if she can prove that her employer paid her less because of her gender, even if she has no male counterpart to point to.

Response from Congress

In her dissent, Ruth Bader Ginsberg called on Congress to remedy the Court’s mistake. Congress’ has responded. Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton (NY), Tom Harkin (IA), Edward Kennedy (MA), and Barbara Mikulski (MD) have proposed a bill that would remove the technical hurdle laid down by the Supreme Court decision.

The legislation would give women and minorities 180 days after each discriminatory paycheck to file a complaint, effectively rewriting Title VII to clearly allow for the realities of the workplace.

Understanding discrimination

Almost everyone says that he or she disagrees with discrimination, but people don't agree about the extent to which discrimination affects people's lives or about the actions that are necessary to stop discriminatory practices, behaviors, and speech.

By informing and educating ourselves,WomenMatter hopes to help us gain the confidence to recognize and speak out against all forms of discrimination.

For more on this, click here.

What do you think?

Do you support the bill to clarify Title VII and acknowledge pay discrimination as an ongoing injury? If not, what should Congress do to widen the legal options available to women and minorities who experience pay discrimination?

There’s time to tell your Senators what you think!

About WomenMatter

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue. To participate in our blog, click here.

WomenMatter is the place where we can take one issue at a time, match what we do about it every day of our lives to the facts of the bigger system that we all live in and recognize that every idea for making it better has tradeoffs.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.