Did you know that women are still making only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in the same role with the same responsibilities? More than forty years ago, President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act (EPA) into law, making it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform substantially equal work. The following year, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, making it illegal to discriminate, including in wages and pay, on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, and national origin. At the time of the EPA’s passage in 1963, women earned merely 59 cents to every dollar earned by men. Although enforcement of the EPA as well as other civil rights laws has helped to narrow the wage gap, significant disparities remain and need to be addressed.
Women in the United States are still paid only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. And it is worse for women of color. African American women earn 63 cents and Latinas earn 52 cents for every dollar paid to white men.
An earnings gap exists between women and men across a wide spectrum of occupations. In 2006, the median weekly wages earned by women physicians were just 72% of the median weekly wages of male physicians. Women in sales and sales-related occupations earned only about 64% of the median weekly wages of men in equivalent positions. While the gap is narrower in some occupations, it is still substantial. Women in the construction industry, for example, earned median weekly wages that were only 86% of what their male counterparts earned. And women in computer and mathematical occupations had weekly earnings that were 85% of the wages paid their male counterparts.
In some occupations, women have actually lost ground. For example, in a study of management positions in 10 industries that together employ over 70% of women in the workforce, it was found that women managers consistently made less than their male counterparts; in seven of the 10 industries, the pay gap had increased between 1995 and 2000.
Unfortunately, the way courts have interpreted the Equal Pay Act is insufficient to remedy the persistence of wage disparities and demonstrates the need for stronger laws to ensure that women are paid equal wages for equal work.
CHANGE IS REQUIRED!!. Enactment of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, passed by the House of Representatives on July 31, 2007 and rejected by the Senate on 2008, could have started the necessary change. It could have helped to ensure that individuals subjected to unlawful pay discrimination are able to effectively assert their rights under the federal anti-discrimination laws.
WHAT CAN YOU DO? Contact your senators. (See how they voted below).
It’s important for your Senators to know that you are paying attention to these key votes.
If your Senator voted YES:
Call (202) 224-3121. The Capitol operator will connect you to your Senator’s office. Please tell the person who answers the phone in your Senator’s office the following:
I am a constituent. My name is ________.
I would like to thank the Senator for voting in support of moving forward on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
I hope that the Senator will support the bill without amendments.
If your Senator voted NO:
Call (202) 224-3121. The Capitol operator will connect you to your Senator’s office. Please tell the person who answers the phone in your Senator’s office the following:
I am a constituent. My name is ________.
I am disappointed that the Senator voted against moving the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act forward.
I urge the Senator to reconsider his/her vote.
The Senate roll call vote was as follows:
Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), NO, Shelby (R-AL), NO
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), NO, Stevens (R-AK), NO
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), NO, McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), YES, Pryor (D-AR), YES
California: Boxer (D-CA), YES, Feinstein (D-CA), YES
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), NO, Salazar (D-CO), YES
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), YES, Lieberman (ID-CT), YES
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), YES, Carper (D-DE), YES
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), NO, Nelson (D-FL), YES
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), NO, Isakson (R-GA), NO
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), YES, Inouye (D-HI), YES
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), NO, Crapo (R-ID), NO
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), YES, Obama (D-IL), YES
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), YES, Lugar (R-IN), NO
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), NO, Harkin (D-IA), YES
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), NO, Roberts (R-KS), NO
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), NO, McConnell (R-KY), NO
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), YES, Vitter (R-LA), NO
Maine: Collins (R-ME), YES, Snowe (R-ME), YES
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), YES Mikulski (D-MD), YES
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), YES Kerry (D-MA), YES
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), YES, Stabenow (D-MI), YES
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), YES, Klobuchar (D-MN), YES
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), NO, Wicker (R-MS), NO
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), NO, McCaskill (D-MO), YES
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), YES, Tester (D-MT), YES
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Not Voting, Nelson (D-NE), YES
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), NO, Reid (D-NV) *
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), NO, Sununu (R-NH), YES
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), YES, Menendez (D-NJ), YES
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), YES, Domenici (R-NM), NO
New York: Clinton (D-NY), YES, Schumer (D-NY), YES
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), NO, Dole (R-NC), NO
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), YES, Dorgan (D-ND), YES
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), YES, Voinovich (R-OH), NO
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), NO, Inhofe (R-OK), NO
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), YES, Wyden (D-OR), YES
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), YES, Specter (R-PA), YES
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), YES, Whitehouse (D-RI), YES
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), NO, Graham (R-SC), NO
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), YES, Thune (R-SD), NO
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), NO, Corker (R-TN), NO
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), NO, Hutchison (R-TX), NO
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), NO, Hatch (R-UT), NO
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), YES, Sanders (I-VT), YES
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), NO, Webb (D-VA), YES
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), YES, Murray (D-WA), YES
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), YES, Rockefeller (D-WV), YES
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), YES, Kohl (D-WI), YES
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), NO, Enzi (R-WY), NO
*Senator Reid is a strong supporter of the bill, but for technical reasons he had to vote No. As Senate Majority Leader, this will enable him to bring the bill up at another time.
