Editing Equal pay for equal work (section)

===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>