The Equal Pay Act of 1967 (EPA)

History and Background

The bill’s language held up and ultimately became part of the EPA. On June 10, 1963, President
John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, and the law took effect on June 11, 1964 as part of
Kennedy’s New Frontier Program.

Major Components of the EPA

EPA was signed by President J. F. Kennedy on June 10, 196.

Equal Pay Act (EPA) prohibits pay discrimination based on sex

EPA was enacted to eradicate gender-based pay discrimination regarding pay

Its states that men and women must be paid equally for equal work done.

All forms of compensation and welfare packages are included.

Individuals can file for pay discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Employers are legally prohibited from retaliating against employees who file lawsuits under
EPA.

(Palk & Grunsted, 2018)

Observations on the EPA

In 2013, the gender pay gap (unadjusted), or “a measure of unequal pay for women
compared to men,” is still prevalent and persistent in the U.S. When the EPA was signed in
1963, women earned on average 59% of what men were paid – that is, 59 cents for every dollar
men made. Fast forward 50 years: women earn on average 77% of what men are paid, or 77
cents for every dollar men make. That is an increase of less than 4 cents per decade. A recent
analysis by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research on the trajectory of the gender pay gap
from 1960-2012 is an excellent illustration of how progress in shrinking the gap has stalled since
2002. While many blatantly sexist discriminatory practices in the workplace might have
dissipated or transmitted over the years, unequal pay has not.
The gender pay gap affects all women, though it has never affected all women equally.
According to a study that compared cross-racial/ethnic gender pay differentials in 2012, the
median weekly earnings of women of all racial/ethnic groups were less than that of their male
counterparts: 12% less among Hispanic or Latino/a, 10% less among African Americans, 19%
less among Whites, and 27% less among Asian Americans. The median weekly wages of white
men are higher than all others

Court Case on EPA

In April 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Rizo v. Yovino. Rizo
was a new hire at the Fresno (CA) County Office of Education which had a policy of paying new
hires 5% more than the new hire’s current salary. When Rizo, who relocated from Arizona,
learned that that her male coworkers earned more than she did, she sued under the EPA. Her
employer argued that its policy was not gender-discriminatory, based on an objective factor, and
was applied equally to all new hires, regardless of gender. The court, however, found that
“factors other than sex” is limited to legitimate job-related factors such as experience, education,
prior work performance, and skills, and that past compensation isn’t a permissible consideration
under the EPA. Specifically, it noted

Reliance on past wages simply perpetuates the past pervasive discrimination that the Equal
Pay Act seeks to eradicate. Therefore, past salary may not be used as a factor in initial
wage setting, alone or in conjunction with less invidious factors.

It further noted “prior salary alone or in combination with other factors cannot justify a wage
differential” and that relying on prior pay was inconsistent with the EPA’s express purpose, “to
put an end to historical wage discrimination against women.”
References

Mello, J. A. (2019). Why the Equal Pay Act and Laws Which Prohibit Salary Inquiries of Job
Applicants Can Not Adequately Address Gender-Based Pay Inequity. SAGE Open.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019869106

Palk, L., & Grunsted, S. (2018). Born free: Toward an expansive definition of sex. Mich. J. Gender &
L., 25, 1.

Watkins, T. A. (2018). The ghost of salary past: Why salary history inquiries perpetuate the gender
pay gap and should be ousted as a factor other than sex. Minnesota Law Review, 103, 1041-1088.

Timpson, C. (2019). Rizo v. Yovino: Another Step Toward Equality Through the Equal Pay Act. Golden
Gate UL Rev., 49, 49.

Rizo v. Yovino, 887 F.3d 453 (2018).