Equal Pay No Way

PREV 2 of 2

Today, few men would admit as much out loud, and even fewer may recognize the gender discrimination—often subconscious but nonetheless insidious—influencing their pay decisions. Bosses often assume they can pay women less because they are not the so-called head of household and therefore don’t need the money as much. According to a 43-year-old executive in the hedge fund sector, who asked not to be identified and who called the ruling irrational, “They think they can pay me less because—and I had it said to me—I am married. Never mind that I am the main breadwinner!”

What’s more, co-worker salaries, which are not always handed out simultaneously, are usually treated as not only confidential but as a taboo subject that’s often dangerous to discuss. So just how does the Supreme Court expect an employee to prove her pay is lower than a colleague’s within a six-month period? Kate Riley, who spent 25 years at I.B.M., MCI, and several internet providers, says people usually learn what someone else makes accidentally, via gossip or a co-worker’s gloating. Even if you do find out, Riley adds, “you could get fired if you talked about what you or other people made.”

Women are not unreasonable: They understand companies need some protections. Ilana Diamond, the chief executive of Sima Products, which provides electronic accessories for Best Buy and Circuit City, says that, as a C.E.O., she knows the law is meant to protect firms like hers from “bogus claims.” Indeed, a statute of limitations is necessary to be fair to employers. But six months? “In my view,” says Diamond, “the ruling was a misapplication of intent of the law.”

From a legal perspective, female attorneys disagree on how much the court’s ruling will hurt women. Debra L. Raskin, a partner at the New York-based labor and employment law firm Vladeck, Waldman, Elias, & Engelhard, insists the ruling is a big deal and will curtail any meaningful salary-discrimination claims brought under Title VII. But lawyer Sara Begley, of Reed Smith, in Philadelphia, which represents employers in discrimination cases, says the court’s opinion does not adversely affect women. According to Begley, even if the 180-day period has passed, women can still file discrimination claims under the Equal Pay Act, which has time limit of two years.

Raskin, on the other hand, says that it “makes no sense” to claim that the two statutes give women equal protection under the law. She argues that in certain cases it is harder to prove discrimination under the Equal Pay Act, since women must show that they are being paid less than a given man with a similar job description and performance. Says Raskin, “Title VII takes into account a whole spectrum of discrimination where you do not have to have a twin.”

In her dissent, Ginsburg wrote, “… the ball is in Congress’ court. As in 1991, the Legislature may act to correct this court’s parsimonious reading of Title VII.” That’s right: It will take an act of Congress to remedy this situation.

PREV 2 of 2