Введение
Закон о равенстве в оплате труда 1963 года – это закон США, вносящий изменения в Закон о справедливых трудовых стандартах и направленный на устранение разрыва в оплате труда по признаку пола (см. гендерный разрыв в оплате труда). Он был подписан 10 июня 1963 года Джоном Ф. Кеннеди в рамках его программы «Новый рубеж». При принятии законопроекта Конгресс заявил, что дискриминация по признаку пола:
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is a United States labor law amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex (see gender pay gap). It was signed into law on June 10, 1963, by John F. Kennedy as part of his New Frontier Program. In passing the bill, Congress stated that sex discrimination:
depresses wages and living standards for employees necessary for their health and efficiency;
prevents the maximum utilization of the available labor resources;
tends to cause labor disputes, thereby burdening, affecting, and obstructing commerce;
burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and
constitutes an unfair method of competition. The law provides in part that "[n]o employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex [ ]." The issue languished until 10 June 1963, when Congress passed the Equal Pay Act ("EPA" or the "Act") as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, to "prohibit discrimination on account of sex in the payment of wages by employers." Congress included within the text of the EPA a clear and concise policy statement and briefly described the problems it was intended to remedy. The clear statement of Congressional intent and policy guiding the EPA’s enactment indicate the Congressional desire to fashion a broad remedial framework to protect employees from wage discrimination on the basis of sex. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized the view that the EPA must be broadly construed to achieve Congress’ goal of remedying sexual discrimination. Congress passed the EPA out of "concern for the weaker bargaining position of women" to provide a remedy to discriminatory wage structures that reflect "an ancient but outmoded belief that a man, because of his role in society, should be paid more than a woman." The EPA protects both men and women. It also protects administrative, professional and executive employees who are exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The EPA, Section 206(d)(1), prohibits "employer[s] [from] discriminat[ing] on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees [ ] at a rate less than the rate [paid] to employees of the opposite sex [ ] for equal work on jobs [requiring] equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions[.]" To establish a prima facie case under the EPA, an employee must show that:
different wages are paid to employees of the opposite sex;
the employees perform substantially equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility; and
the jobs are performed under similar working conditions. The EPA provides that the employer may not pay lower wages to employees of one gender than it pays to employees of the other gender, employees within the same establishment for equal work at jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions. It is important to note that the EPA does not contain any intent requirement within the statutory language. Liability under the EPA is established by meeting the three elements of the prima facie case, regardless of the intention of the employer. As such, the EPA imposes strict liability on employers who engage in wage discrimination on the basis of gender. Once a plaintiff meets her or his heavy burden and establishes a prima facie case of gender discrimination under the EPA, then the defendant may avoid liability only by proving the existence of one of four statutory affirmative defenses. The EPA’s four affirmative defenses allow unequal pay for equal work when the wages are set "pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) any other factor other than sex[.]"
снижает заработную плату и уровень жизни работников, необходимые для их здоровья и работоспособности;
препятствует максимально эффективному использованию имеющихся трудовых ресурсов;
способствует возникновению трудовых споров, тем самым затрудняя, влияя и ограничивая торговлю;
затрудняет торговлю и свободное перемещение товаров;
является недобросовестной конкурентной практикой.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is a United States labor law amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex (see gender pay gap). It was signed into law on June 10, 1963, by John F. Kennedy as part of his New Frontier Program. In passing the bill, Congress stated that sex discrimination:
depresses wages and living standards for employees necessary for their health and efficiency;
prevents the maximum utilization of the available labor resources;
tends to cause labor disputes, thereby burdening, affecting, and obstructing commerce;
burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and
constitutes an unfair method of competition. The law provides in part that "[n]o employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex [ ]." The issue languished until 10 June 1963, when Congress passed the Equal Pay Act ("EPA" or the "Act") as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, to "prohibit discrimination on account of sex in the payment of wages by employers." Congress included within the text of the EPA a clear and concise policy statement and briefly described the problems it was intended to remedy. The clear statement of Congressional intent and policy guiding the EPA’s enactment indicate the Congressional desire to fashion a broad remedial framework to protect employees from wage discrimination on the basis of sex. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized the view that the EPA must be broadly construed to achieve Congress’ goal of remedying sexual discrimination. Congress passed the EPA out of "concern for the weaker bargaining position of women" to provide a remedy to discriminatory wage structures that reflect "an ancient but outmoded belief that a man, because of his role in society, should be paid more than a woman." The EPA protects both men and women. It also protects administrative, professional and executive employees who are exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The EPA, Section 206(d)(1), prohibits "employer[s] [from] discriminat[ing] on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees [ ] at a rate less than the rate [paid] to employees of the opposite sex [ ] for equal work on jobs [requiring] equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions[.]" To establish a prima facie case under the EPA, an employee must show that:
different wages are paid to employees of the opposite sex;
the employees perform substantially equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility; and
the jobs are performed under similar working conditions. The EPA provides that the employer may not pay lower wages to employees of one gender than it pays to employees of the other gender, employees within the same establishment for equal work at jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions. It is important to note that the EPA does not contain any intent requirement within the statutory language. Liability under the EPA is established by meeting the three elements of the prima facie case, regardless of the intention of the employer. As such, the EPA imposes strict liability on employers who engage in wage discrimination on the basis of gender. Once a plaintiff meets her or his heavy burden and establishes a prima facie case of gender discrimination under the EPA, then the defendant may avoid liability only by proving the existence of one of four statutory affirmative defenses. The EPA’s four affirmative defenses allow unequal pay for equal work when the wages are set "pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) any other factor other than sex[.]"
Закон, в частности, предусматривает, что «[ни] один работодатель, имеющий работников, подпадающих под действие каких-либо положений настоящего раздела [раздел 206 раздела 29 Кодекса США], не должен дискриминировать работников по признаку пола в любом учреждении, где работают такие работники, выплачивая заработную плату работникам этого учреждения по ставке ниже, чем ставка, которую он выплачивает работникам противоположного пола в этом учреждении за равный труд на рабочих местах, выполнение которых требует одинаковой квалификации, усилий и ответственности и которые выполняются в аналогичных условиях труда, за исключением случаев, когда такая выплата производится в соответствии с: (i) системой стажа; (ii) системой оценки заслуг; (iii) системой, измеряющей заработок по количеству или качеству продукции; или (iv) разницей, основанной на любом другом факторе, кроме пола».
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is a United States labor law amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex (see gender pay gap). It was signed into law on June 10, 1963, by John F. Kennedy as part of his New Frontier Program. In passing the bill, Congress stated that sex discrimination:
depresses wages and living standards for employees necessary for their health and efficiency;
prevents the maximum utilization of the available labor resources;
tends to cause labor disputes, thereby burdening, affecting, and obstructing commerce;
burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and
constitutes an unfair method of competition. The law provides in part that "[n]o employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex [ ]." The issue languished until 10 June 1963, when Congress passed the Equal Pay Act ("EPA" or the "Act") as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, to "prohibit discrimination on account of sex in the payment of wages by employers." Congress included within the text of the EPA a clear and concise policy statement and briefly described the problems it was intended to remedy. The clear statement of Congressional intent and policy guiding the EPA’s enactment indicate the Congressional desire to fashion a broad remedial framework to protect employees from wage discrimination on the basis of sex. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized the view that the EPA must be broadly construed to achieve Congress’ goal of remedying sexual discrimination. Congress passed the EPA out of "concern for the weaker bargaining position of women" to provide a remedy to discriminatory wage structures that reflect "an ancient but outmoded belief that a man, because of his role in society, should be paid more than a woman." The EPA protects both men and women. It also protects administrative, professional and executive employees who are exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The EPA, Section 206(d)(1), prohibits "employer[s] [from] discriminat[ing] on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees [ ] at a rate less than the rate [paid] to employees of the opposite sex [ ] for equal work on jobs [requiring] equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions[.]" To establish a prima facie case under the EPA, an employee must show that:
different wages are paid to employees of the opposite sex;
the employees perform substantially equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility; and
the jobs are performed under similar working conditions. The EPA provides that the employer may not pay lower wages to employees of one gender than it pays to employees of the other gender, employees within the same establishment for equal work at jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions. It is important to note that the EPA does not contain any intent requirement within the statutory language. Liability under the EPA is established by meeting the three elements of the prima facie case, regardless of the intention of the employer. As such, the EPA imposes strict liability on employers who engage in wage discrimination on the basis of gender. Once a plaintiff meets her or his heavy burden and establishes a prima facie case of gender discrimination under the EPA, then the defendant may avoid liability only by proving the existence of one of four statutory affirmative defenses. The EPA’s four affirmative defenses allow unequal pay for equal work when the wages are set "pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) any other factor other than sex[.]"
Вопрос оставался нерешенным до 10 июня 1963 года, когда Конгресс принял Закон о равной оплате труда (далее – «Закон») в качестве поправки к Закону о справедливых трудовых стандартах, чтобы «запретить дискриминацию по признаку пола при выплате заработной платы работодателями». Конгресс включил в текст Закона четкое и лаконичное заявление о политике и кратко описал проблемы, которые он намеревался решить. Четкое выражение намерений Конгресса и политики, определяющей принятие Закона, свидетельствует о стремлении Конгресса создать широкую систему средств правовой защиты для защиты работников от дискриминации в оплате труда по признаку пола. Верховный суд прямо признал, что Закон должен толковаться широко для достижения цели Конгресса по устранению гендерной дискриминации. Конгресс принял Закон из-за «обеспокоенности более слабым положением женщин в переговорном процессе», чтобы предоставить средство правовой защиты от дискриминационных структур заработной платы, отражающих «древнюю, но устаревшую веру в то, что мужчине, в силу его роли в обществе, следует платить больше, чем женщине». Закон защищает как мужчин, так и женщин. Он также защищает административных, профессиональных и управленческих работников, освобожденных от ответственности в соответствии с Законом о справедливых трудовых стандартах. Закон, раздел 206(d)(1), запрещает «работодателям дискриминировать по признаку пола, выплачивая заработную плату работникам по ставке ниже, чем ставка, выплачиваемая работникам противоположного пола за равный труд на рабочих местах, требующих одинаковой квалификации, усилий и ответственности и выполняемых в аналогичных условиях труда».
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is a United States labor law amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex (see gender pay gap). It was signed into law on June 10, 1963, by John F. Kennedy as part of his New Frontier Program. In passing the bill, Congress stated that sex discrimination:
depresses wages and living standards for employees necessary for their health and efficiency;
prevents the maximum utilization of the available labor resources;
tends to cause labor disputes, thereby burdening, affecting, and obstructing commerce;
burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and
constitutes an unfair method of competition. The law provides in part that "[n]o employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex [ ]." The issue languished until 10 June 1963, when Congress passed the Equal Pay Act ("EPA" or the "Act") as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, to "prohibit discrimination on account of sex in the payment of wages by employers." Congress included within the text of the EPA a clear and concise policy statement and briefly described the problems it was intended to remedy. The clear statement of Congressional intent and policy guiding the EPA’s enactment indicate the Congressional desire to fashion a broad remedial framework to protect employees from wage discrimination on the basis of sex. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized the view that the EPA must be broadly construed to achieve Congress’ goal of remedying sexual discrimination. Congress passed the EPA out of "concern for the weaker bargaining position of women" to provide a remedy to discriminatory wage structures that reflect "an ancient but outmoded belief that a man, because of his role in society, should be paid more than a woman." The EPA protects both men and women. It also protects administrative, professional and executive employees who are exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The EPA, Section 206(d)(1), prohibits "employer[s] [from] discriminat[ing] on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees [ ] at a rate less than the rate [paid] to employees of the opposite sex [ ] for equal work on jobs [requiring] equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions[.]" To establish a prima facie case under the EPA, an employee must show that:
different wages are paid to employees of the opposite sex;
the employees perform substantially equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility; and
the jobs are performed under similar working conditions. The EPA provides that the employer may not pay lower wages to employees of one gender than it pays to employees of the other gender, employees within the same establishment for equal work at jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions. It is important to note that the EPA does not contain any intent requirement within the statutory language. Liability under the EPA is established by meeting the three elements of the prima facie case, regardless of the intention of the employer. As such, the EPA imposes strict liability on employers who engage in wage discrimination on the basis of gender. Once a plaintiff meets her or his heavy burden and establishes a prima facie case of gender discrimination under the EPA, then the defendant may avoid liability only by proving the existence of one of four statutory affirmative defenses. The EPA’s four affirmative defenses allow unequal pay for equal work when the wages are set "pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) any other factor other than sex[.]"
Для установления первоначального (prima facie) случая в соответствии с Законом работник должен доказать, что:
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is a United States labor law amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex (see gender pay gap). It was signed into law on June 10, 1963, by John F. Kennedy as part of his New Frontier Program. In passing the bill, Congress stated that sex discrimination:
depresses wages and living standards for employees necessary for their health and efficiency;
prevents the maximum utilization of the available labor resources;
tends to cause labor disputes, thereby burdening, affecting, and obstructing commerce;
burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and
constitutes an unfair method of competition. The law provides in part that "[n]o employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex [ ]." The issue languished until 10 June 1963, when Congress passed the Equal Pay Act ("EPA" or the "Act") as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, to "prohibit discrimination on account of sex in the payment of wages by employers." Congress included within the text of the EPA a clear and concise policy statement and briefly described the problems it was intended to remedy. The clear statement of Congressional intent and policy guiding the EPA’s enactment indicate the Congressional desire to fashion a broad remedial framework to protect employees from wage discrimination on the basis of sex. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized the view that the EPA must be broadly construed to achieve Congress’ goal of remedying sexual discrimination. Congress passed the EPA out of "concern for the weaker bargaining position of women" to provide a remedy to discriminatory wage structures that reflect "an ancient but outmoded belief that a man, because of his role in society, should be paid more than a woman." The EPA protects both men and women. It also protects administrative, professional and executive employees who are exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The EPA, Section 206(d)(1), prohibits "employer[s] [from] discriminat[ing] on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees [ ] at a rate less than the rate [paid] to employees of the opposite sex [ ] for equal work on jobs [requiring] equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions[.]" To establish a prima facie case under the EPA, an employee must show that:
different wages are paid to employees of the opposite sex;
the employees perform substantially equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility; and
the jobs are performed under similar working conditions. The EPA provides that the employer may not pay lower wages to employees of one gender than it pays to employees of the other gender, employees within the same establishment for equal work at jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions. It is important to note that the EPA does not contain any intent requirement within the statutory language. Liability under the EPA is established by meeting the three elements of the prima facie case, regardless of the intention of the employer. As such, the EPA imposes strict liability on employers who engage in wage discrimination on the basis of gender. Once a plaintiff meets her or his heavy burden and establishes a prima facie case of gender discrimination under the EPA, then the defendant may avoid liability only by proving the existence of one of four statutory affirmative defenses. The EPA’s four affirmative defenses allow unequal pay for equal work when the wages are set "pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) any other factor other than sex[.]"
различная заработная плата выплачивается работникам противоположного пола;
работники выполняют по существу равную работу на рабочих местах, требующих одинаковой квалификации, усилий и ответственности;
работы выполняются в аналогичных условиях труда.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is a United States labor law amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex (see gender pay gap). It was signed into law on June 10, 1963, by John F. Kennedy as part of his New Frontier Program. In passing the bill, Congress stated that sex discrimination:
depresses wages and living standards for employees necessary for their health and efficiency;
prevents the maximum utilization of the available labor resources;
tends to cause labor disputes, thereby burdening, affecting, and obstructing commerce;
burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and
constitutes an unfair method of competition. The law provides in part that "[n]o employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex [ ]." The issue languished until 10 June 1963, when Congress passed the Equal Pay Act ("EPA" or the "Act") as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, to "prohibit discrimination on account of sex in the payment of wages by employers." Congress included within the text of the EPA a clear and concise policy statement and briefly described the problems it was intended to remedy. The clear statement of Congressional intent and policy guiding the EPA’s enactment indicate the Congressional desire to fashion a broad remedial framework to protect employees from wage discrimination on the basis of sex. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized the view that the EPA must be broadly construed to achieve Congress’ goal of remedying sexual discrimination. Congress passed the EPA out of "concern for the weaker bargaining position of women" to provide a remedy to discriminatory wage structures that reflect "an ancient but outmoded belief that a man, because of his role in society, should be paid more than a woman." The EPA protects both men and women. It also protects administrative, professional and executive employees who are exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The EPA, Section 206(d)(1), prohibits "employer[s] [from] discriminat[ing] on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees [ ] at a rate less than the rate [paid] to employees of the opposite sex [ ] for equal work on jobs [requiring] equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions[.]" To establish a prima facie case under the EPA, an employee must show that:
different wages are paid to employees of the opposite sex;
the employees perform substantially equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility; and
the jobs are performed under similar working conditions. The EPA provides that the employer may not pay lower wages to employees of one gender than it pays to employees of the other gender, employees within the same establishment for equal work at jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions. It is important to note that the EPA does not contain any intent requirement within the statutory language. Liability under the EPA is established by meeting the three elements of the prima facie case, regardless of the intention of the employer. As such, the EPA imposes strict liability on employers who engage in wage discrimination on the basis of gender. Once a plaintiff meets her or his heavy burden and establishes a prima facie case of gender discrimination under the EPA, then the defendant may avoid liability only by proving the existence of one of four statutory affirmative defenses. The EPA’s four affirmative defenses allow unequal pay for equal work when the wages are set "pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) any other factor other than sex[.]"
Закон предусматривает, что работодатель не может платить меньшую заработную плату работникам одного пола, чем он платит работникам другого пола, работникам в одном и том же учреждении за равный труд на рабочих местах, требующих одинаковой квалификации, усилий и ответственности и выполняемых в аналогичных условиях труда. Важно отметить, что в Законе отсутствует требование о наличии умысла в законодательном определении. Ответственность по Закону устанавливается при соблюдении трех элементов первоначального случая, независимо от намерений работодателя. Таким образом, Закон возлагает строгую ответственность на работодателей, допускающих дискриминацию в оплате труда по признаку пола.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is a United States labor law amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex (see gender pay gap). It was signed into law on June 10, 1963, by John F. Kennedy as part of his New Frontier Program. In passing the bill, Congress stated that sex discrimination:
depresses wages and living standards for employees necessary for their health and efficiency;
prevents the maximum utilization of the available labor resources;
tends to cause labor disputes, thereby burdening, affecting, and obstructing commerce;
burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and
constitutes an unfair method of competition. The law provides in part that "[n]o employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex [ ]." The issue languished until 10 June 1963, when Congress passed the Equal Pay Act ("EPA" or the "Act") as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, to "prohibit discrimination on account of sex in the payment of wages by employers." Congress included within the text of the EPA a clear and concise policy statement and briefly described the problems it was intended to remedy. The clear statement of Congressional intent and policy guiding the EPA’s enactment indicate the Congressional desire to fashion a broad remedial framework to protect employees from wage discrimination on the basis of sex. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized the view that the EPA must be broadly construed to achieve Congress’ goal of remedying sexual discrimination. Congress passed the EPA out of "concern for the weaker bargaining position of women" to provide a remedy to discriminatory wage structures that reflect "an ancient but outmoded belief that a man, because of his role in society, should be paid more than a woman." The EPA protects both men and women. It also protects administrative, professional and executive employees who are exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The EPA, Section 206(d)(1), prohibits "employer[s] [from] discriminat[ing] on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees [ ] at a rate less than the rate [paid] to employees of the opposite sex [ ] for equal work on jobs [requiring] equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions[.]" To establish a prima facie case under the EPA, an employee must show that:
different wages are paid to employees of the opposite sex;
the employees perform substantially equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility; and
the jobs are performed under similar working conditions. The EPA provides that the employer may not pay lower wages to employees of one gender than it pays to employees of the other gender, employees within the same establishment for equal work at jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions. It is important to note that the EPA does not contain any intent requirement within the statutory language. Liability under the EPA is established by meeting the three elements of the prima facie case, regardless of the intention of the employer. As such, the EPA imposes strict liability on employers who engage in wage discrimination on the basis of gender. Once a plaintiff meets her or his heavy burden and establishes a prima facie case of gender discrimination under the EPA, then the defendant may avoid liability only by proving the existence of one of four statutory affirmative defenses. The EPA’s four affirmative defenses allow unequal pay for equal work when the wages are set "pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) any other factor other than sex[.]"
Как только истец несет бремя доказывания и устанавливает первоначальный случай гендерной дискриминации в соответствии с Законом, ответчик может избежать ответственности только путем доказательства наличия одного из четырех законных оправданий. Четыре законных оправдания Закона допускают неравную оплату за равный труд, когда заработная плата устанавливается «в соответствии с: (i) системой стажа; (ii) системой оценки заслуг; (iii) системой, измеряющей заработок по количеству или качеству продукции; или (iv) любым другим фактором, кроме пола».
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is a United States labor law amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex (see gender pay gap). It was signed into law on June 10, 1963, by John F. Kennedy as part of his New Frontier Program. In passing the bill, Congress stated that sex discrimination:
depresses wages and living standards for employees necessary for their health and efficiency;
prevents the maximum utilization of the available labor resources;
tends to cause labor disputes, thereby burdening, affecting, and obstructing commerce;
burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and
constitutes an unfair method of competition. The law provides in part that "[n]o employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex [ ]." The issue languished until 10 June 1963, when Congress passed the Equal Pay Act ("EPA" or the "Act") as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, to "prohibit discrimination on account of sex in the payment of wages by employers." Congress included within the text of the EPA a clear and concise policy statement and briefly described the problems it was intended to remedy. The clear statement of Congressional intent and policy guiding the EPA’s enactment indicate the Congressional desire to fashion a broad remedial framework to protect employees from wage discrimination on the basis of sex. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized the view that the EPA must be broadly construed to achieve Congress’ goal of remedying sexual discrimination. Congress passed the EPA out of "concern for the weaker bargaining position of women" to provide a remedy to discriminatory wage structures that reflect "an ancient but outmoded belief that a man, because of his role in society, should be paid more than a woman." The EPA protects both men and women. It also protects administrative, professional and executive employees who are exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The EPA, Section 206(d)(1), prohibits "employer[s] [from] discriminat[ing] on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees [ ] at a rate less than the rate [paid] to employees of the opposite sex [ ] for equal work on jobs [requiring] equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions[.]" To establish a prima facie case under the EPA, an employee must show that:
different wages are paid to employees of the opposite sex;
the employees perform substantially equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility; and
the jobs are performed under similar working conditions. The EPA provides that the employer may not pay lower wages to employees of one gender than it pays to employees of the other gender, employees within the same establishment for equal work at jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions. It is important to note that the EPA does not contain any intent requirement within the statutory language. Liability under the EPA is established by meeting the three elements of the prima facie case, regardless of the intention of the employer. As such, the EPA imposes strict liability on employers who engage in wage discrimination on the basis of gender. Once a plaintiff meets her or his heavy burden and establishes a prima facie case of gender discrimination under the EPA, then the defendant may avoid liability only by proving the existence of one of four statutory affirmative defenses. The EPA’s four affirmative defenses allow unequal pay for equal work when the wages are set "pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) any other factor other than sex[.]"
Намерение Конгресса
После его первоначального принятия, EPA стал "первым шагом к уравновешиванию оплаты труда женщин". Являясь частью Закона о справедливых трудовых стандартах 1938 года, EPA подпадал под сферу действия и исключения охваченных работников и работодателей, предусмотренные этим законом. Во время обсуждения в Палате представителей многие конгрессмены выразили обеспокоенность тем, что EPA должен стать отправной точкой для установления равной оплаты труда для женщин. После принятия EPA Конгресс предпринял два шага, расширивших сферу федеральной защиты от дискриминации в оплате труда по признаку пола. Во-первых, тот же 88-й Конгресс принял Раздел VII Закона о гражданских правах 1964 года. Включив пол в перечень признаков, защищенных от дискриминации, Раздел VII расширил защиту женщин от дискриминации при трудоустройстве, охватив почти всех работников, занятых у работодателей с пятнадцатью и более сотрудниками. Предвидя возможный конфликт между применением двух законов с пересекающимися ограничениями, Конгресс включил поправку Беннетта в Раздел VII Закона о гражданских правах 1964 года, которая включила четыре основания для оправдания, предусмотренные EPA, в Раздел VII. Во-вторых, Конгресс расширил сферу действия EPA на специалистов и других служащих офиса. В течение первых девяти лет действия EPA требование равной оплаты за равный труд не распространялось на лиц, занимающих руководящие, административные или профессиональные должности, или на торговых представителей, работающих вне офиса. Таким образом, EPA лишил женщин-служащих офиса защиты равной оплаты за равный труд. В 1972 году Конгресс принял поправки к законам об образовании 1972 года, которые внесли изменения в FLSA, расширив сферу действия EPA на этих работников, исключив EPA из освобождения для профессиональных работников, предусмотренного FLSA.
Рассмотрение Конгрессом экономических последствий
Конгресс не оставил без внимания экономические последствия закона об оплате равного труда (EPA) для заработной платы и возможностей трудоустройства как мужчин, так и женщин. Во-первых, будучи поправкой к Закону о справедливых трудовых стандартах (FLSA), EPA является частью той же законодательной структуры, что и федеральные законы о минимальной заработной плате. EPA выступает в качестве уравнителя заработной платы между мужчинами и женщинами при выполнении одинаковой работы и потенциально может служить минимальным уровнем оплаты труда для мужчин или женщин на определенных должностях. Экономисты, такие как Томас Соуэлл, утверждают, что EPA приводит к безработице и дополнительной дискриминации в отношении женщин, исключая их с рынка труда. Во-вторых, ряд членов Палаты представителей выразили опасения, что негативное влияние установления минимального уровня оплаты труда для женщин приведет к сокращению числа доступных рабочих мест для женщин. Несмотря на отмеченные в протоколах Конгресса возможные побочные эффекты закона, он был принят при незначительном сопротивлении и не содержит указаний на то, что какое-либо из четырех предусмотренных оправданий должно было смягчить или ограничить его негативные последствия.
Разрыв в заработке
Средняя заработная плата американок выросла по отношению к заработной плате мужчин с момента принятия закона об охране окружающей среды, с 62,3% от доходов мужчин в 1979 году до 81,1% в 2018 году.
Дальнейшее законодательство
Первоначально закон об оплате труда равного труда (EPA) не распространялся на руководителей, администраторов, торговых представителей и специалистов, но поправки к закону об образовании 1972 года внесли изменения в EPA, включив их в сферу его действия. В 2005 году сенатор Хиллари Клинтон представила "Закон о справедливости в оплате труда", который предлагал внести поправки в четвертую положительную защиту EPA, разрешив учитывать только подлинные факторы, не связанные с полом, которые обоснованы требованиями работы или служат законным интересам бизнеса. В тот же день представитель Роза ДеЛауро представила идентичный законопроект в Палату представителей. В 2007 году Верховный суд ограничил срок исковой давности по искам о равной оплате труда в деле Ledbetter v. Goodyear. 29 января 2009 года президент Барак Обама подписал закон "О справедливой оплате труда имени Лилли Ледбеттер", который отменил решение суда по этому делу. Этот закон, устанавливающий, что каждый случай неравной оплаты труда по признаку пола является новым нарушением закона, стал первым законом, подписанным президентом Обамой.
Исполнение
Первоначально, исследование 2007 года, заказанное Министерством труда, предостерегало от излишне рьяного применения EPA без более детального изучения возможных причин различий в оплате труда. В этом исследовании, например, отмечалось, что мужчины в целом получают более высокую заработную плату отчасти потому, что преобладают на рабочих местах, где чаще встречаются выплаты наличными за сверхурочную работу; в то же время, женщины составляют более половины штата управленцев с белыми воротничками, часто освобожденных от трудового законодательства о сверхурочных. В заключение исследования говорилось: "Хотя в этой области явно необходимы дополнительные исследования, данное исследование приводит к однозначному выводу о том, что различия в оплате труда мужчин и женщин обусловлены множеством факторов, и необработанный разрыв в заработной плате не должен служить основанием для оправдания корректирующих мер. Фактически, возможно, нечего исправлять. Различия в необработанной заработной плате могут быть почти полностью результатом индивидуального выбора, сделанного как мужчинами, так и женщинами". Однако позднее, в 2021 году, в блоге Министерства труда было отмечено: "Женщины зарабатывают меньше, чем их коллеги того же расового и этнического происхождения на каждом уровне образования. По сравнению с белыми мужчинами с тем же уровнем образования, чернокожие и латиноамериканские женщины со степенью бакалавра имеют наибольший разрыв в 65%, а чернокожие женщины со степенью магистра зарабатывают 70% от того, что зарабатывают белые мужчины со степенью магистра. Уровень образования недостаточен для устранения гендерного разрыва в доходах. Фактически, большинство женщин со степенью магистра зарабатывают меньше, чем белые мужчины, имеющие только степень бакалавра".
"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers." However, later, in 2021, a Department of Labor blogpost observed, "Women earn less than their same race and ethnicity counterpart at every level of educational attainment Compared with white men with the same education, Black and Latina women with only a bachelor's degree have the largest gap at 65%, and Black women with advanced degrees earn 70% of what white men with advanced degrees earn. Educational attainment is not enough to close gender earnings gaps. In fact, most women with advanced degrees earn less than white men, on average, with only a bachelor's degree."
За пределами США
Закон о равной оплате труда 1970 года был законом, принятым парламентом Соединенного Королевства, запрещавшим любое неблагоприятное отношение между мужчинами и женщинами в отношении оплаты труда и условий занятости. В настоящее время Закон о равной оплате труда 1970 года в основном утратил силу и был заменен частью 5, главой 3 Закона о равенстве 2010 года.