Did you miss the bit about "equal work"?
And the definition of equal work is what?
As one person told me when discussing this subject "My bread costs the same as yours. He was in big favor of a Union-like rule that if you are a sheet metal worker, that the newest and most experienced should get exactly the same pay.
I'll note that as he put in more years, it didn't seem quite so fair.
Regardless, there are people out there that demand that.
Let us take the Patriarchy out of the equation and deal with an only female situation
So tell me. A Woman who takes a year off from her position every time she has a child, should she be paid the same as a person in the same job who continued to work those 10 years?
This is not a hypothetical question. We had a staff assistant who over a 10 year period, had three children, and took the max leave each time.
And in an odd twist of equality, she got her her job back each time. While that sounds like the height of equality, that meant that her activity cost three other women their jobs, as the temporary workers lost theirs when she came back.
And if you asked her, almost certainly she will say yes. Her co-workers? Maybe not so much. The three women who lost their jobs? I dunno, they weren't around to ask.
If you were to ask the people who worked with me yet were making a third of what I was - I wonder what their response would be. I know many didn't like it one bit. That didn't cause them to start working harder.
The Ledbetter act, that modifies the Equal Pay act (1963!!) also known as the Fair Pay Act of 2009 shows a prima facie cas as:
Prohibits paying employees in a job dominated by a particular sex, race, or national origin less than employees in another job dominated by the opposite sex or a different race or national origin, if the jobs are “equivalent” and in the same establishment. “Equivalent jobs” means “jobs that may be dissimilar, but whose requirements are equivalent, when viewed as a composite of skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions.”
An affirmative defense to the charges has to be
“Factor other than sex” – employer must prove: (1) such factor is either job- related with respect to the position in question or furthers legitimate business purpose; and (2) that such factor was actually applied and used reasonably in light of asserted justification. Employees could rebut legitimate business purpose defense by demonstrating that an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential and employer has refused to adopt such alternative practice.
It's rather difficult to find the actual contents, with most people simply siding into their camps and battling it out. http://www.americanbar.org/con...
So I think the woman who had all the children in short order, might actually have a case. Why should she be paid less than teh other women who did not make the choice to do that?
And as for the law, as I see it, my seniority or work skills are not applicable under the new law, a woman or whatever gender one feels like using, who refuses to work any more than 40 hours a week will have a successful lawsuit. Based on our genders - no one owuld ever expect her to say it wasn't gender based. Thoughts?