Editing Equal pay for equal work (section)

==Legal situation by jurisdiction==

===European Union/European Economic Area===
Post-war Europe has seen a fairly consistent pattern in women's participation in the labour market and legislation to promote equal pay for equal work across Eastern and Western countries.<ref>{{cite book |first1=Angela |last1=Movileanu |chapter=Equal Pay |title=Encyclopedia of Women in Today's World |editor1-first=Mary Zeiss |editor1-last=Stange |editor2-first=Carol K. |editor2-last=Oyster |editor3-first=Jane E. |editor3-last=Sloan |publisher=SAGE |year=2011 |pages=491–93, at p. 492 }}</ref><ref name="Koldinskà 2007">{{cite journal |last1=Koldinskà |first1=Kristina |title=Gender Equality: Before and After the Enlargement of EU: The Case of the Czech Republic |journal=European Law Journal |date=March 2007 |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=238–252 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00366.x |s2cid=154210678 }}</ref>

Some countries now in the EU, including France, Germany, and Poland, had already enshrined the principle of equal pay for equal work in their constitutions before the foundation of the EU (see table below). When the [[European Economic Community]], later the [[European Union]] (EU), was founded in 1957, the principle of equal pay for equal work was named as a key principle. Article 141 of the Treaty of Rome says "each Member State shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is applied."<ref>{{CELEX|12002E141|format=HTML|text=Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Three: Community policies - Title XI: Social policy, education, vocational training and youth - Chapter 1: Social Provisions - Article 141 - Article 119 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) - Article 119 - EEC Treaty}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.unionhistory.info/equalpay/roaddisplay.php?irn=785|title=Winning Equal Pay: The value of women's work|last=University|first=London Metropolitan|website=www.unionhistory.info|language=en|access-date=2019-08-28}}</ref> While socially progressive, this decision does not necessarily indicate widespread progressive attitudes among the signatories to the treaty:

::While this is often viewed as an example of the progressive nature of the European community, some argue that Article 141 (previously 119) was included largely as a concession to the French who already had equal pay legislation and feared that they would be at a comparative disadvantage.<ref>New JNCHES Equality Working Group, 'The Gender Pay Gap - A Literature Review', p. 7 fn. 15, citing Townsend-Smith, ''Sex Discrimination in Employment'' (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1989).</ref>

The EEC's legislation was clarified in 1975 by the binding and directly applicable equal pay directive 75/117/EEC.<ref>{{CELEX|31975L0117|text=Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women}}</ref> This prohibited all discrimination on the grounds of sex in relation to pay; this and other directives were integrated into a single Directive in 2006 (2006/54/EC).<ref>New JNCHES Equality Working Group, 'The Gender Pay Gap - A Literature Review', p. 7.</ref>

At the national level the principle of equal pay is in general fully reflected in the legislation of the 28 EU member states and the additional countries of the [[European Economic Area]] (EEA), Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The [[EU candidate countries]] of Macedonia and Turkey also adapted their legislation to EU standards.<ref name="ec.europa.eu"/> The main national legislation concerning pay equity between men and women for different European countries is as follows.<ref name="eurofound.europa.eu"/>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Country
! Main legal provisions
|-
| Austria
| The 1979 Act on Equal Treatment on Men and Women (as amended since)
|-
| Belgium
| The 1999 Law on Equal Treatment for Men and Women (Articles 12 and 25) and the Royal Decree of 9 December 1975
|-
| Bulgaria
| Equal pay for equal work included in the labour code<ref name="ec.europa.eu">{{Cite web|url=https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality_en|title=Gender equality|website=European Commission - European Commission|language=en|access-date=2019-11-18}}</ref>
|-
| Czech Republic
| Remuneration for work is regulated by Act no. 262/2006 Coll., the labour code, and by Act no. 234/2014  Coll., Civil Service Act.
|-
| Denmark
| The 1976 Act on Equal Pay for Men and Women, as amended since to include additional points
|-
| Finland
| The 1995 Constitution (section 5, paragraph 4) and the Act on Equality between Men and Women (section 8, paragraph 2)
|-
| France
| The 1946 Constitution and Articles L.140.2 and thereafter of the Labour Code
|-
| Germany
| The 1949 Constitution or "Basic Law" (Article 3)
|-
| Greece
| The 1975 Constitution (Article 22(1)), as amended in 2001, and Law 1484/1984 (Article 4)
|-
| Hungary
| Equal pay for equal work was previously included in the constitution,<ref name="ec.europa.eu"/> but it has changed; there is now only equality between men and women, and the pay is in the Labour Code.
|-
| Iceland
| The 1961 Equal pay act (#60/1961),<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.althingi.is/thingstorf/thingmalalistar-eftir-thingum/ferill/?ltg=81&mnr=59|title=Launajöfnuður karla og kvenna|website=Alþingi|access-date=27 March 2018}}</ref> 1976 Law for Equality between women and men (#78/1976<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.althingi.is/thingstorf/thingmalalistar-eftir-thingum/ferill/?ltg=97&mnr=192|title=Jafnrétti kvenna og karla|website=Alþingi|access-date=27 March 2018}}</ref>), 2008 Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men (#10/2008) and the amendment added to the law in 2017: Law on equal pay certification <ref name="althingi.is">{{cite web|url=http://www.althingi.is/lagas/148a/2008010.html|title=10/2008: Lög um jafna stöðu og jafnan rétt kvenna og karla|website=Alþingi|access-date=27 March 2018}}</ref> according to the Equal Pay Standard introduced in 2012 (ÍST 85:2012<ref name="stadlar.is">{{cite web|url=http://www.stadlar.is/verslun/p-54558-st-852012-e.aspx|title=Staðlabúðin - ÍST 85:2012 (e)|website=www.stadlar.is|access-date=27 March 2018|archive-date=26 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170826122623/http://www.stadlar.is/verslun/p-54558-st-852012-e.aspx|url-status=dead}}</ref>)
|-
| Ireland
| The 1998 Employment Equality Act (IE9909144F),<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/article/1999/the-implications-of-the-employment-equality-act-1998|title=The implications of the Employment Equality Act 1998|website=Eurofound|language=en|access-date=2019-08-28}}</ref> repealing the 1974 Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act and the 1977 Employment Equality Act
|-
| Israel
| The 1998 Law for Option Equality at Work and the 1996 Law for Equal Pay for Female Worker and Male Worker
|-
| Italy
| The Constitution (Articles 3 and 37),<ref>{{cite web|title=The Italian Constitution|url=http://www.quirinale.it/page/costituzione|publisher=The official website of the Presidency of the Italian Republic}}: "Working women are entitled to equal rights and, for comparable jobs, equal pay as men. Working conditions must allow women to fulfil their essential role in the family and ensure appropriate protection for the mother and child."</ref> Law 903/1977 (Article 2), and Law 125/1991
|-
| Latvia
| Equal pay for equal work included in the labour code<ref name="ec.europa.eu"/>
|-
| Liechtenstein
| Equal pay for equal work included in the civil code<ref name="ec.europa.eu"/>
|-
| Lithuania
| Equal pay for equal work included in the labour code<ref name="ec.europa.eu"/>
|-
| Luxembourg
| The 1981 law relating to equal treatment between men and women and the 1974 Grand-Ducal Regulation of relating to equal pay for men and women (Articles 1, 2, 3(1), 3(2) and 4)
|-
| Malta
| The Constitution (Article 14) and the Equality for Men and Women Act
|-
| Netherlands
| The Constitution (Article 1) and the 1994 Law on Equal Treatment
|-
| Norway
| The 1978 Act on Gender Equality
|-
| Poland
| The 1997 Constitution, Chapter II, Article 33.2 enshrined the equal pay for equal work principle, already included in the 1952 Constitution.
|-
| Portugal
| The Constitution (Article 59) and Law 105/1997 relating to equal treatment at work and in employment
|-
| Romania
| Equal pay for equal work included in the constitution<ref name="ec.europa.eu"/>
|-
| Slovakia
| Equal pay for equal work included in the constitution<ref name="ec.europa.eu"/>
|-
| Spain
| The Constitution (Article 35) and the Workers' Statute (Articles 17 and 28).
|-
| Sweden
| The 1980 Act on Equality between Men and Women/Equal Opportunities Act, as amended since
|-
| UK
| The [[Equal Pay Act 1970]], as amended by Equal Value Regulations of 1983, and the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 and 1986, superseded by the [[Equality Act 2010]]
|}

'''2018 Update'''
''Law on Equal Pay Certification based on the Equal Pay Standard in Iceland''

Iceland introduced an Equal Pay Standard in 2012, ÍST 85:2012<ref name="stadlar.is"/> (Equal wage management system - Requirements and guidance).  The standard was developed by the Icelandic trade unions, the employers' confederation and government officials with the goal in mind that it would help employers prevent salary discrimination and enable them to become certified.

In 2017, the Icelandic government decided to add an amendment to the 2008 laws Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men (#10/2008).<ref name="althingi.is"/>  The amendment is a law on equal pay certification and was put into effect on January 1 in 2018.<ref name="althingi.is"/> According to the amendment companies and institutions employing 25 or more workers, on annual basis, will be required to obtain equal pay certification of their equal pay system and the implementation thereof. The purpose of this obligatory certification is to enforce the current legislation prohibiting discriminatory practices based on gender and requiring that women and men working for the same employer shall be paid equal wages and enjoy equal terms of employment for the same jobs or jobs of equal value.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.government.is/news/article/2018/01/04/New-Icelandic-law-on-Equal-Pay-Certification-entered-into-force-on-January-1-2018/|title=New Icelandic law on Equal Pay Certification entered into force on January 1, 2018|website=www.government.is|access-date=27 March 2018}}</ref>

===United States===
{{See also|Gender pay gap in the United States}}

====Federal law: Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964====

{{Main|Equal Pay Act of 1963|Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964}}

By the 20th century, women made up about a quarter of United States workforce but were still paid far less than men, whether it was the same job or a different job. There were different laws for women in some states such as, not working at night and restriction of their working hours. Women started entering more factory jobs when World War II began to replace men who were enlisted in the military. The wage gap continued to escalate during the war. The National War Labor Board put policies in place to help provide equal pay for women who were directly replacing men.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Equal Pay Act|url=https://www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/equal-pay-act|access-date=2020-11-22|website=HISTORY|language=en}}</ref>

The first attempt at equal pay legislation in the United States, H.R. 5056, "Prohibiting Discrimination in Pay on Account of Sex", was introduced by Congresswoman [[Winifred C. Stanley]] of Buffalo, New York, on June 19, 1944.<ref name="National Archives">{{cite book | url=https://research.archives.gov/description/4397822 | archive-url=https://archive.today/20150424143806/http://research.archives.gov/description/4397822 | url-status=dead | archive-date=April 24, 2015 | title=H.R. 5056 Prohibiting Discrimination in Pay on Account of Sex, HR 78A-B1, 06/19/1944, Records of the U.S. House of Representatives (ARC 4397822) | access-date=April 24, 2015 | date=1944-06-19 | series=Series: Bills and Resolutions Originating in the House, 1789 - 2015 }}</ref>  Twenty years later, legislation passed by the federal government in 1963 made it illegal to pay men and women different wage rates for equal work on jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and are performed under similar working conditions.<ref>[http://finduslaw.com/equal_pay_act_of_1963_epa_29_u_s_code_chapter_8_206_d Equal Pay Act of 1963] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111123114909/http://finduslaw.com/equal_pay_act_of_1963_epa_29_u_s_code_chapter_8_206_d |date=2011-11-23 }}, finduslaw.com</ref>  One year after passing the Equal Pay Act, Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Title VII of this act makes it unlawful to discriminate based on a person's race, religion, color, or sex.<ref>"Civil Rights Act of 1964."  42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2000e-17</ref>  Title VII attacks sex discrimination more broadly than the Equal Pay Act extending not only to wages but to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment.  Thus with the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, an employer cannot deny women equal pay for equal work; deny women transfers, promotions, or wage increases; manipulate job evaluations to relegate women's pay; or intentionally segregate men and women into jobs according to their gender.<ref>Williams, Robert et al.  Closer Look at Comparable Worth: A Study of the Basic Questions to be Addressed in Approaching Pay Equity.  National Foundation for the Study of Equal Employment Policy: Washington, DC, 1984, pg. 28.</ref>

Since Congress was debating this bill at the same time that the Equal Pay Act was coming into effect, there was concern over how these two laws would interact, which led to the passage of Senator Bennett's Amendment.  This Amendment states: "It Shall not be unlawful employment practice under this subchapter for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of sex ... if such differentiation is authorized by the provisions of the [Equal Pay Act]."   There was confusion on the interpretation of this Amendment, which was left to the courts to resolve.<ref>Webber, Katie.  "Comparable Worth—Its Present Status and the Problem of Measurement."  Hamline Journal of Public Law, Vol. 6, No. 38 (1985), pg. 37.</ref>
Thus US federal law now states that "employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment."<ref name=EEOC>U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. [http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-epa.cfm ''EEOC Facts About Equal Pay and Compensation Discrimination''], accessed on August 26, 2011.</ref>

====New York state====
In 1944, the state of New York outlawed wage discrimination based on one's gender.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=1946|title=N. Y. Labor Law, Section 199-a: "Equal Pay for Equal Work"|journal=Columbia Law Review|volume=46|issue=3|pages=442–452|doi=10.2307/1118140|issn=0010-1958|jstor=1118140}}</ref> On 10 July 2019, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law legislation guaranteeing equal pay for equal work regardless of one's gender.<ref name="victoryequal">{{Cite web|url=http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Cuomo-Signs-Equal-Pay-Law-on-Day-NYC-Honors-USWNT-Champs-512530142.html|title=Cuomo Signs Equal Pay Law on Day NYC Honors USWNT Champs|website=NBC New York|language=en|access-date=2019-08-28}}</ref><ref name="victoryparade">{{Cite web|url=https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-cuomo-de-blasio-women-equal-pay-soccer-20190710-j6lyznjec5covcbeqsmfiqnbm4-story.html|title=Cuomo and de Blasio trumpet equal pay at World Cup ticker-tape parade — but women soccer heroes grab spotlight|last=Slattery|first=Dave Goldiner, Denis|website=nydailynews.com|access-date=2019-08-28}}</ref> This builds on the 1944 law by prohibiting employers from asking job candidates about their previously salary, a loophole that has had a history of enforcing pay inequality based on gender.<ref name=victoryequal /> Cuomo signed the law in tandem with the [[2019 FIFA Women's World Cup|2019 Women's World Cup victory parade]] in New York City.<ref name=victoryequal /><ref name=victoryparade />

====Washington state====

In [[Washington (state)|Washington]], Governor Evans implemented a pay equity study in 1973 and another in 1977.<ref name=Remick>Remick, Helen.  "'A Want of Harmony': Perspectives on Wage Discrimination and Comparable Worth."  Ed. Remick, Helen.  Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimination: Technical Possibilities and Political Realities.  Temple University Press: Philadelphia, 1984, pg. 102.</ref>  The results clearly showed that when comparing male and female dominated jobs there was almost no overlap between the averages for similar jobs and in every sector, a twenty percent gap emerged.  For example, a food service worker earned $472 per month, and a Delivery Truck Driver earned $792, though they were both given the same number of "points" on the scale of comparable worth to the state.<ref name=Remick/> Unfortunately for the state, and for the female state workers, his successor Governor Dixie Lee Ray failed to implement the recommendations of the study (which clearly stated women made 20 percent less than men).<ref>Stewart, Debra A.  "State Initiatives in the Federal System: The Politics and Policy of Comparable Worth in 1984."  Publius, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Summer 1985), pg. 84.</ref>   Thus in 1981, [[AFSCME]] filed a sex discrimination complaint with the [[EEOC]] against the State of Washington.  The District Court ruled that  since the state had done a study of sex discrimination in the state, found that there was severe disparities in wages, and had not done anything to ameliorate these disparities, this constituted discrimination under Title VII that was "pervasive and intentional".<ref>American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME), et al. v. State of Washington et al.  No. C 82-465T (District Court for the Western District of Washington), 1983.</ref>   The Court then ordered the State to pay its over 15,500 women back pay from 1979 based on a 1983 study of comparable worth.<ref>Legler, Joel Ivan.  "City, County and State Government Liability for Sex-Based Wage Discrimination After County of Washington v. Gunther and AFSCME v. Washington."  The Urban Lawyer, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Spring 1985), pg. 241.</ref>  This amounted to over $800&nbsp;million.  However, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] overturned this decision, stating that Washington had always required their employees' salaries to reflect the free market, and discrimination was one cause of many for wage disparities.  The court stated, "the State did not create the market disparity ... [and] neither law nor logic deems the free market system a suspect enterprise."<ref>American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME), et al. v. State of Washington et al.  770 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir), 1985.</ref>   While the suit was ultimately unsuccessful, it led to state legislation bolstering state workers' pay. The costs for implementing this equal pay policy was 2.6% of personnel costs for the state.<ref>"[http://www.pay-equity.org/info-Q&A.html National Committee on Pay Equity]," pay-equity.org, Accessed Nov. 8, 2010</ref>

====Minnesota====

In [[Minnesota]], the state began considering a formal comparable worth policy in the late 1970s when the Minnesota Task Force of the Council on the Economic Status of Women commissioned Hay Associates to conduct a study.   The results were staggering and similar to the results in Washington (there was a 20% gap between state male and female workers pay).  Hay Associates proved that in the 19 years since the Equal Pay Act was passed, wage discrimination persisted and had even increased over from 1976 to 1981.<ref>Cook, Alice H.  Comparable Worth: A Case book of experiences in states and localities.  Industrial Relations Center: University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1985, pg. 141</ref>  Using their point system, they noted that while delivery van drivers and clerk typists were both scaled with 117 points each of "worth" to the state, the delivery van driver (a male-dominated profession) was paid $1,382 a month while the clerk typist (a female dominated profession) was paid $1,115 a month.<ref>"Pay Equity: The Minnesota Experience: Fifth Edition."  Legislative Commission on the Economic Status of Women, April 1994, pg. 13.</ref>   The study also noted that women were severely underrepresented in manager and professional positions, and that state jobs were often segregated by sex.   The study finally recommended that the state take several courses of action: 1) establish comparable worth considerations for female-dominated jobs; 2) set aside money to ameliorate the pay inequity; 3) encourage affirmative action for women and minorities and 4) continue analyzing the situation to improve it.   The Minnesota Legislature moved immediately in response.  In 1983 the state appropriated 21.8&nbsp;million dollars to begin amending the pay disparities for state employees.<ref>Stewart, Debra A.  "State Initiatives in the Federal System: The Politics and Policy of Comparable Worth in 1984."  Publius, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Summer 1985), pg. 91.</ref>  From 1982 to 1993, women's wages in the state increased 10%.  According to the Star Tribune, in 2005 women in Minnesota state government made 97 cents to the dollar, ranking Minnesota as one of the most equal for female state workers in the country. Five years later in 2010, full pay equity for women in state employment was finally achieved, with recurring, typically minor pay adjustments in local governments occurring regularly.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-s-pay-equity-achievement/202027901/|title=EDITORIAL {{!}} Minnesota's pay equity achievement|website=Star Tribune|access-date=2019-10-08}}</ref>

====Federal law: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act====
In 2009, [[President Obama]] signed the [[Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act]], permitting women to sue employers for unfair pay up to 180 days after receiving an unfair paycheck. On 29 January 2016, he signed an [[executive order]] obliging all companies with at least 100 employees to disclose the pay of all workers to the federal government, with breakdowns of pay by race, gender, and ethnicity. The goal is to encourage employers to give equal pay for equal work by increasing transparency.<ref name="atlantic">{{cite news|last1=Lam|first1=Bourree|title=Obama's New Equal-Pay Rules|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/eeoc-pay-discrimination-obama/433926/|access-date=1 February 2016|publisher=The Atlantic|date=29 January 2016}}</ref>

==== Massachusetts ====
In August 2016, Massachusetts Governor [[Charlie Baker]] signed a bill to improve upon the already existing Massachusetts Equal Pay Act. On July 1, 2018, this updated amendment went into effect to protect employees from being asked their previous salary by their current employer.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Asgari|first1=Maryam M.|last2=Carr|first2=Phyllis L.|last3=Bates|first3=Carol K.|date=April 5, 2019|title=Closing the Gender Wage Gap and Achieving Professional Equity in Medicine|url=http://weli.pedsanesthesia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Closing-the-Gender-Wage-Gap-and-Achieving-Professional-Equity-in-Medicine.pdf|journal= JAMA|volume=321|issue=17|pages=1665–1666|doi=10.1001/jama.2019.4168|pmid=30951141|s2cid=96436112}}</ref> Governor Baker sought change in the current system after recognizing that women in their respective fields, on average, were making 76 cents on the dollar compared to men doing the same job.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Efforts To Close The Gender Pay Gap In Massachusetts|url=https://www.npr.org/2018/06/30/624911791/efforts-to-close-the-gender-pay-gap-in-massachusetts|access-date=2021-02-28|website=NPR.org|language=en}}</ref> Under the updated Massachusetts Equal Pay Act, employers are not allowed to have disparity in pay for employees doing a job that requires the same level of skill, effort, and responsibility.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Section 105A|url=https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter149/Section105A|website=The 192nd General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts}}</ref> The Massachusetts Equal Pay Act only permits differences in pay when it is based on merit, seniority, revenue generated, education, and location or travel.<ref name=":02">{{Cite web|title=Learn more details about the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act {{!}} Mass.gov|url=https://www.mass.gov/service-details/learn-more-details-about-the-massachusetts-equal-pay-act|access-date=2021-02-28|website=www.mass.gov|language=en}}</ref> At the time of its arrival in 2018, the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act became the strongest advocate for equal pay between genders in the United States.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=Alford|first1=Catherine|last2=Lehmann|first2=Jee-Yeon|last3=Mann|first3=Charlotte|last4=Neyens|first4=Liz|last5=Seitz|first5=Shannon|date=April 25, 2018|title=Proactive Pay Equity Studies Can Shield Mass. Employers|url=https://www.analysisgroup.com/uploadedfiles/content/insights/publishing/2018-alford-lehmann-seitz-proactive-pay-equity-studies.pdf|journal=Law360|publisher=Analysis Group, Inc.}}</ref> It became the first state to provide affirmative defense to employers under the condition they have performed a self-audit of their pay practices.<ref name=":02" /><ref name=":1" /> In order to be protected, there needs to be proven record of efforts made to close the disparity in pay before they become liable for double of the discriminated employee's lost wages.<ref name=":02" />

====State and local laws, 2010s====

California and New York City have adopted laws which prohibit employers from asking about salary history to determine the salary that will be offered for a new job.  This is intended to narrow the gender pay gap by reducing the impact of past discrimination. Many other U.S. states were considering similar laws, as of May 2017.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2017/05/30/528794176/proposals-aim-to-combat-discrimination-based-on-salary-history|title=Proposals Aim To Combat Discrimination Based On Salary History|website=NPR.org}}</ref>

===Australia===
{{Main|Gender pay gap in Australia}}
In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights started to recognize equal pay for equal work.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Equal pay handbook|url=http://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/sex_discrim/equal_pay.pdf}}</ref> The Equal Remuneration Convention was released in 1951 by the International Labour Organization. The convention stated that it recommends jobs to be classified according to the nature of the work rather than who is performing the work. Women and men participated in protests, calling the government to fix the 1951 convention and make equal pay the law in Australia.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McIntyre |first=Iain |date=2023-11-18 |title=Jean Young, Kath Williams and the Fight for Equal Pay |url=https://commonslibrary.org/jean-young-kath-williams-and-the-fight-for-equal-pay/ |access-date=2025-02-05 |website=The Commons Social Change Library |language=en-AU}}</ref> Industrial action in some industries set a precedent for change, such as the national granting of equal pay for hotel workers in 1968 by the Federal arbitration commission following stop work meetings and a coordinated strike the previous year.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McIntyre |first=Iain |date=2023-11-18 |title=Jean Young, Kath Williams and the Fight for Equal Pay |url=https://commonslibrary.org/jean-young-kath-williams-and-the-fight-for-equal-pay/ |access-date=2025-02-05 |website=The Commons Social Change  Library |language=en-AU}}</ref> In 1969, there was a case brought to the ACAC by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union against the  Meat and Allied Trades Federation. Workers argued for equal pay for every employee and the ruling of the commission was that the general female award minimum wage at 85 per cent of the male wage. This decision helped equal pay for women who were working the same job that traditionally the men would do, but all the other women got the 85 per cent. In 1972 the decision was reassessed and rules that either women or men who are working at a similar job that has a similar value, are eligible for the same working rate.<ref>{{Cite web|last=corporateName=National Museum of Australia; address=Lawson Crescent|first=Acton Peninsula|title=National Museum of Australia - Equal pay for women|url=https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/equal-pay-for-women|access-date=2020-11-22|website=www.nma.gov.au|language=en}}</ref>

Under Australia's old centralised wage fixing system, "equal pay for work of equal value" by women was introduced in 1969. Anti-discrimination on the basis of sex was legislated in 1984.<ref>Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, {{cite web |url=http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/women.html |title=About Australia: Women—Towards Equality |access-date=2014-02-06 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120206144556/http://dfat.gov.au/facts/women.html |archive-date=2012-02-06 }}</ref>

===Canada===
In Canadian usage, the terms ''pay equity'' and ''pay equality'' are used somewhat differently from in other countries. The two terms refer to distinctly separate legal concepts.

''Pay equality'', or equal pay for equal work, refers to the requirement that men and women be paid the same if performing the same job in the same organization. For example, a female electrician must be paid the same as a male electrician in the same organization. Reasonable differences are permitted if due to seniority or merit.

''Pay equality'' is required by law in each of [[Women's rights in Canada|Canada]]'s 14 legislative jurisdictions (ten provinces, three territories, and the federal government). Note that federal legislation applies only to those employers in certain federally regulated industries such as banks, broadcasters, and airlines, to name a few. For most employers, the relevant legislation is that of the respective province or territory.

For federally regulated employers, pay equality is guaranteed under the [[Canadian Human Rights Act]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/index.html|title=Welcome|last1=Commission|first1=Canadian Human Rights|last2=personne|first2=La Commission canadienne des droits de la|date=2013-03-19|website=www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca|access-date=2019-08-28|archive-date=2013-06-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130621033613/https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/index.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> In Ontario, pay equality is required under the Ontario Employment Standards Act.<ref name="OESA">{{Cite web|url=https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/|title=Employment Standards|last=Government of Ontario|first=Ministry of Labour|website=www.labour.gov.on.ca|access-date=2019-08-28}}</ref>{{Failed verification|date=April 2016}} <!-- According to this site and http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/guide/equalpay.php , OESA guarantees pay equity, not pay equality --> Every Canadian jurisdiction has similar legislation, although the name of the law will vary.

In contrast, ''pay equity'', in the Canadian context, means that male-dominated occupations and female-dominated occupations of comparable value must be paid the same if within the same employer. The Canadian term ''pay equity'' is referred to as "comparable worth" in the US. For example, if an organization's nurses and electricians are deemed to have jobs of equal importance, they must be paid the same. One way of distinguishing the concepts is to note that ''pay equality'' addresses the rights of women employees as individuals, whereas ''pay equity'' addresses the rights of female-dominated occupations as groups.

Certain Canadian jurisdictions have ''pay equity'' legislation while others do not, hence the necessity of distinguishing between ''pay equity'' and ''pay equality'' in Canadian usage. For example, in Ontario, ''pay equality'' is guaranteed through the Ontario Employment Standards Act<ref name='OESA'/> while ''pay equity'' is guaranteed through the Ontario Pay Equity Act.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.payequity.gov.on.ca/Pages/default.aspx|title=Pay Equity Commission {{!}} Pay Equity Commission|website=www.payequity.gov.on.ca|access-date=2019-08-28|archive-date=2016-04-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160409155341/http://www.payequity.gov.on.ca/Pages/default.aspx|url-status=dead}}</ref> On the other hand, the three westernmost provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan) have ''pay equality'' legislation but no ''pay equity'' legislation. Some provinces (for example, Manitoba) have legislation that requires ''pay equity'' for public sector employers but not for private sector employers; meanwhile, ''pay equality'' legislation applies to everyone.

===India===
==== Constitutional protections ====
As part of its [[Directive Principles in India|Directive Principles of State Policy]], the [[Constitution of India]] through Article 39 envisages that all states ideally direct their policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women, and also ensuring that men and women have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. While these [[Directive Principles in India|Directive Principles]] are not enforceable by any court of law, they are crucial to the governance of the country and a state is duty bound to consider them while enacting laws.<ref name="Myth">{{cite book|last1=Devi|first1=Kovuru|title=Women's Equality in India: A Myth Or Reality?|date=January 1, 2000|isbn=81-7141-563-6|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LS8wJlfjUcUC|pages=49–50|publisher=Discovery Publishing House }}</ref>

While "equal pay for equal work" is not expressly a constitutional right, it has been read into the Constitution through the interpretation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 – which guarantee equality before the law, protection against discrimination and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.<ref name="Myth"/><ref>{{cite web|title=The Constitution of India, Articles 14 - 16 |url=http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140909230437/http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf |archive-date=2014-09-09 }}</ref> The [[Supreme Court of India]] has also declared this to be a constitutional goal, available to every individual and capable of being attained through the enforcement of their fundamental rights set out in Articles 14 through 16.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Union of India v. Dineshan K.K.|year=2008 |volume=1 |journal=SCC |page=586}}</ref> In a popular Supreme Court decision, the conditions of employment of the air-hostesses of Air India was challenged. The terms of employment required the mandatory retirement of females: (i) upon attaining the age of 33; (ii) if they were married within four years of service; or (iii) upon their first pregnancy. The court however struck down these provisions and held them to be arbitrary and discriminatory as it violated Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.<ref>{{cite book|title=Air India vs. Nargesh Mirza|publisher=AIR 1981 SC 1829}}</ref>

====Statutory Protection====
In 1976, the Equal Remuneration Act was passed with the aim of providing equal remuneration to men and women workers and to prevent discrimination on the basis of gender in all matters relating to employment and employment opportunities. This legislation not only provides women with a right to demand equal pay, but any inequality with respect to recruitment processes, job training, promotions, and transfers within the organization can also be challenged under this Act.<ref>{{cite web|title=Section 4 and 5, Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 |url=http://pblabour.gov.in/pdf/acts_rules/equal_remuneration_act_1976.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150421031623/http://pblabour.gov.in/pdf/acts_rules/equal_remuneration_act_1976.pdf |archive-date=April 21, 2015 }}</ref> However, its scope does not extend to situations where: (i) a woman is attempting to comply with the requirements of laws giving women special treatment; and (ii) a woman is being accorded special treatment on account of the birth of a child, or the terms and conditions relating to retirement, marriage or death.<ref>{{cite web|title=Section 15, Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 |url=http://pblabour.gov.in/pdf/acts_rules/equal_remuneration_act_1976.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150421031623/http://pblabour.gov.in/pdf/acts_rules/equal_remuneration_act_1976.pdf |archive-date=April 21, 2015 }}</ref> Companies and individual employers can both be held accountable to maintain the standards prescribed under this Act.<ref>{{cite web|title=Section 11, Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 |url=http://pblabour.gov.in/pdf/acts_rules/equal_remuneration_act_1976.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150421031623/http://pblabour.gov.in/pdf/acts_rules/equal_remuneration_act_1976.pdf |archive-date=April 21, 2015 }}</ref> In various cases, the [[Supreme Court of India]] has also held that discrimination on the basis of gender only arises when men and women perform the same work or work of a similar nature. However, it clarified that a flexible approach is required to be taken while deciding which kinds of work may be similar by considering the duties actually performed as a part of the job, and not the duties potentially capable of being performed.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D' Costa & Another|year=1987 |volume=2 |journal=SCC |page=469}}</ref>

===Taiwan===
Taiwan legislated the Act of Gender Equality in Employment in 2002.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/women-and-employment-in-taiwan/|title=Women and employment in Taiwan|last=Yu|first=Wei-hsin|date=14 September 2015|website=Brookings|language=en-US|access-date=2019-07-12}}</ref> It regulates that an employer must give the same salary to the workers who do the same work. The law prescribes that employers shall not discriminate against employees because of their gender or sexual orientation in the case of paying wages. Employees shall receive equal pay for equal work or equal value. However, if such differentials are the result of seniority systems, award and discipline systems, merit systems or other justifiable reasons of non-sexual or non-sexual-orientation factors, the above-mentioned restriction shall not apply. Employers may not adopt methods of reducing the wages of other employees in order to evade the stipulation of the preceding paragraph.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Taiwan - Women's Declaration International |url=https://womensdeclaration.com/en/country-info/taiwan/ |access-date=2023-03-30 |website=womensdeclaration.com |language=en}}</ref>