The Equal Pay Act of 1963: Origins and legislative intent

Equal Pay Act (EPA)

No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility..."

Equal Pay Act of 1963 (Pub. L. 88-38)

The right of employees to be free from discrimination in their compensation is protected under several federal laws, including the following enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): the Equal Pay Act of 1963,

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (EEOC, n.d.)

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) (P.L. No. 88-38, 77 Stat. 56, 59) prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of gender by compensating workers differently for jobs that require equal skill, effort and responsibility. In adopting the EPA, an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Congress hoped to eliminate wage differentials because they were thought to depress wages and the standard of living, prevent maximum utilization of available labor resources, lead to labor disputes, and constitute an unfair method of competition. Congress also strove to eliminate stereotypes and misconceptions regarding the value of work performed by women. (Equal Pay Act of 1963, n.d.)

Details of the Equal Pay Act

Section One of the EPA provided that those employers covered by the Fair Labor Standards Acts (FLSA) must provide equal pay for equal work regardless of gender, and Section Two of the bill amends the FLSA to state that wage differentials based solely on the gender of the employee are an unfair labor standard. Section Three lists special circumstances and exemptions to the act. Section Four, among other things, gives employers bound by collective bargaining agreements a one-year moratorium on enforcement, or until the collective bargaining agreement expired, whichever came first, before compliance was required. (Equal Pay Act of 1963, n.d.)

We have already discussed the basic idea that employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment. There are actually five parts of that statement that are best clarified with more definition. (EEOC, n.d.)

Skill equates to Ability, Experience, Education, and Training - the key issue is what skills are required for the job, not what skills the individual employees may have. In other words, one employee may have far more education or experience, but if those two skills are not relevant to the job, then the two employees are considered equal. (EEOC, n.d.)

Effort equals the amount of physical or mental effort required to do the job. If a job requires more physical or mental effort than similar jobs, such as heavy lifting, then the person doing that job, whether man or woman, might be entitled to more compensation than the worker down the line who doesn't have to do the heavy lifting.

Responsibility is the amount of answerability a person has in performing a task. If there are a dozen secretaries and one of them has to lock up the safe at night and ensure confidential information is stored properly, that one secretary may be due more compensation than the rest.

Working Conditions encompasses physical surroundings and hazards. If either of these is significantly different or more dangerous than similar workers are exposed to, those conditions may warrant more pay.

Establishment means that unequal compensation can only be prohibited within the same business premises. This does not include a "business" which has many locations. It does include distinct, physical place of business. There are exceptions to this rule. (EEOC, n.d.)

Some may not realize that pay differentials are permitted when they are based on seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production, or a factor other than sex. However, these are known as "affirmative defenses" and it is the employer's burden to prove that they apply. (EEOC, n.d.)

It is important to note that the EPA does not contain any intent requirement within the statutory language. Liability under the EPA is established by meeting the three elements of the case, regardless of the intention of the employer. As such, the EPA imposes strict liability on employers who engage in wage discrimination based on gender. (Absoluteastronomy.com, n.d.)

Intent

Congress stated that its intent in enacting the Equal Pay Act was to establish a "broad charter of women's rights," designed to remedy a "serious and endemic" problem of sex discrimination in the workplace. (Novelguide.com, n.d.)

In adopting the EPA, Congress hoped to eliminate wage differentials because they were thought to depress wages and the standard of living, prevent maximum utilization of available labor resources, lead to labor disputes, and constitute an unfair method of competition. Congress also strove to eliminate stereotypes and misconceptions regarding the value of work performed by women.

The EPA was "the first step towards an adjustment of balance in pay for women." As a part of the FLSA, the EPA was subject to the scope and exceptions of covered employees and employers contained within that act. On the floor of the House of Representatives, many Representatives voiced their concern that the EPA should act as the starting point for establishing pay parity for women. Subsequent to the enactment of the EPA, congress undertook two actions which broadened the scope of federal protection against wage discrimination on the basis of sex.

Absoluteastronomy.com, n.d.)

Impact -- Economic and Other

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women's salaries vis-a-vis men's have risen dramatically since the EPA's enactment, from 62% of men's earnings in 1970 to 80% in 2004. Nonetheless, the EPA's equal pay for equal work goals have not been achieved, as demonstrated by the BLS data and Congressional findings within the text of the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act. (EEOC, n.d.)

Senator Hillary Clinton first introduced the "Paycheck Fairness Act" on April 20, 2005, which, among other provisions, proposes to amend the EPA's fourth affirmative defense to permit only bona fide factors other than sex that are job-related or serve a legitimate business interest. Representative Rosa DeLauro first introduced an identical bill in the House of Representatives on the same day. These Congresswomen have introduced identical legislation in their respective chambers annually since 2005. The Act was most recently introduced on March 6, 2007. (Absoluteastronomy.com, n.d.)

The Congress did not ignore the EPA's economic consequences on the salaries and employment opportunities for both men and women. First, as an amendment of the FLSA, the EPA is part of the same legislative structure that houses the federal minimum wage laws. The EPA acts as a wage equalizer between men and women for equal jobs, and has the potential of acting as a price floor on the salaries of men or women for particular jobs. As such, the EPA had the potential of causing some of the same problems observed by minimum wage laws: unemployment, and additional discrimination. (Absoluteastronomy.com, n.d.)

Litigation

From the EEOC's initial enforcement of the Equal Pay Act in 1979 through the end of May 2003, the Commission has filed approximately 364 lawsuits under the EPA and under EPA/Title VII alleging unlawful discrepancies in wages based on gender. The Commission has resolved 359 of these suits obtaining over $28 million in monetary relief for charging parties and securing significant injunctive and remedial relief. (EEOC, 2003)

During the 1970s two court cases further defined the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Company was heard by the Third Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, and Corning Glass Works v. Brennan was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Schultz v. Wheaton, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals determined that jobs do not need to be identical but rather substantially equal in order to be protected under the Equal Pay Act. (Encyclopedia of Business, 2nd ed., 1999)

Furthermore, in 1974 the Supreme Court determined in Corning Glass Works v. Brennan that women could not be paid less simply because they would work at a lower pay rate than men. At the same time the Supreme Court confirmed the constitutionality of the Equal Pay Act.

Equal Pay Today? An Update variety of explanations for a persistent wage gap have been offered. One is that older women are factored into the wage gap equation, and many of these women from an older generation work in jobs still subject to the attitudes and conditions of the past. In contrast, the rates for young women coming of age in the 1990s reflect women's social and legal advances. In 2005, for example, women under 25 working full-time earned 93.2% of men's salaries compared to those 25 and older, who earned 79.4% of what men made. (Brunner, n.d.)

Does this imply that once the oldest generation of women has retired the wage gap will shrink considerably? Perhaps. But even the narrow wage gap of 92.1% that applies to women under 25 looks less rosy when you consider commentator Katha Pollitt's take on it:

Young men and women have always had earnings more compatible than those of their elders: starting salaries are generally low, and do not accurately reflect the advantages that accrue, or fail to accrue, over time as men advance and women stay in place, or as women in mostly female kinds of jobs reach the end of characteristically short career paths." (the Nation, April 14, 1997)

Women have made enormous progress in the workforce since the Equal Pay Act, but the stubborn fact remains that four-and-a-half decades later the basic goal of the act has not been realized. (Brunner, n.d.)