First, a broad definition within the Equal Pay Act opens the door for employers to define pay disparity as a result of "any factor other than sex." It’s being exploited by some to get away with gender discrimination. Certain circuit courts have held it as a broad catch-all exception whereas others have taken a more nuanced interpretation. We should revisit this definition to better clarify for the courts that decisions must be business-related factors other than sex.
Second, we should update current laws that don’t go far enough to protect people from retaliation if they discuss their pay. The only way a person can know whether disparity exists is with open conversations about what they earn.
Third, laws currently favor trial lawyers over victims of discrimination, and we have to shift that imbalance back to the victims. Instead of lining lawyers’ pockets and creating more opportunities for them to seek damages, let’s enforce laws currently on the books and compel those who willfully treat women unfairly to help fund a Government Accountability Office study that would investigate what attributes to differences in pay for people holding identical jobs.
I support equal pay for women--except for when I don't.
Which is all the time.
She may say that but here is what she has done. She voted against laws meant to address the pay disparity between men and women four times. She voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act twice, which lengthened the time for victims of pay discrimination to file a complaint. She voted twice against the Paycheck Fairness Act, a measure aimed at closing the gender wage gap by ending the practice of salary secrecy (see Step 2 above), thus giving women and others a better chance of rooting out discrimination, narrowing the guidelines for what pay disparities are justified (see Step 1 above), and strengthening penalties for discrimination as a way to deter it (see Step 3 above), among other things.