Green Room

The Lilly Ledbetter Act does not ensure women equal pay for equal work

posted at 11:35 am on May 8, 2012 by

If the presidential election were held today and voting was limited to women under 50, President Obama would be re-elected by a resounding margin. The president has led Mitt Romney in this demographic in virtually every significant poll since early April.

It was around this time that the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) released its much-cited report on the gender-wage gap by occupation and ethnicity. The report states clearly in its initial paragraph that the female-to-male earnings ratio is 82.2%, but the administration and its media acolytes prefer the stat in a footnote indicating the 2010 value for this ratio: 77%.

Either way, it is clear is that women earn less for the same work. (Well, it is sort of clear. On Monday, FOX News’s Jim Angle took a closer look at these stats and wrote that it’s an “apples-to-oranges comparison” that fails to account for factors such as total weekly hours worked. In addition, there are tables within the report that reveal that for some professions—for example, bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks—women earn slightly more than men—but Democrats can’t be bothered with contradictory data.)

The main Democratic talking points to be taken away from the report and communicated to female voters are that (1) women earn less than men for the same work and (2) only one of the two candidates for president finds this problematic. The blog tells you which candidate that is:

[T]his November, something no woman should have to ask for, much less fight for—equal pay—is at stake as voters face a choice between, as DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz puts it, ‘a guy who gets it and a guy who doesn’t.’ The Republicans’ presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney, won’t say whether he would have voted for basic legislation that would ensure women earn equal pay for equal work. [Emphasis added]

The legislation in question is, of course, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the signing of which was one of President Obama’s first acts in the Oval Office. The blog post quotes Ledbetter herself as saying “It’s unfortunate that Romney and the Republicans want to dismiss the facts and write their own version of reality.”

But to find out whose version of reality is really consistent with the facts, voters should have a look at the law itself, which is here. In brief, it amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new discriminatory paycheck. Under the Ledbetter Act, the statute of limitations extends the statutory period. The act provides little relief for the litigant beyond the knowledge that she won’t need to refile with the court every 180 days until her suit is resolved. Her responsibility for legal fees and for making her case remains unchanged.

It is a point that the administration generally tiptoes around, though in “The Life of Julia,” they are a little careless, writing that at age 23, Julia “knows she’ll always be able to stand up for her rights to equal pay” thanks to Obama’s passage of the Ledbetter Act.

Related Articles

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at [email protected] or by posting a comment below.

Recently in the Green Room:



Trackback URL


Worked side-by-side with a guy, doing the exact same job.
He would sort through the stack of blueprints and put the tedious, nerve-wrecking jobs on top (for me) and take the easier jobs.
He was ‘formerly’ in a union, I was not.
He made 20% per hr, more than I.

askwhatif on May 8, 2012 at 11:52 AM

That’s Team O for you: making Epic Victories for the Ages out of minor administrative revisions.

askwhatif on May 8, 2012 at 11:52 AM

If your side-by-side worker was employed longer with the firm than you were, that alone would explain his higher pay, regardless of your sex. Women get paid more than other women too, just as men get paid more than other men. I don’t know that having been “formerly” (?) in a union makes a diffence in very many workplaces. But if it does, it’s one of many non-sexist reasons why two people would be paid differently for “doing the same job.”

J.E. Dyer on May 8, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Time in the position?
Better negotiating skills at hiring/during reviews?
There are a thousand reasons why one person gets paid more for the same work than their coworker.

If you’re not willing to take a stand for yourself and demand better pay or to leave for greener pastures I can’t imagine why you would expect someone else to force it upon your employer?

askwhatif on May 8, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Apparently you and your employer agreed that the going rate for the work YOU were to provide was what they paid you. They just happened to agree to different terms with your ‘formerly union’ coworker. How does his gender play a role in that?

StompUDead on May 8, 2012 at 12:10 PM

so there’s this female, like, sitting some eight feet away from me. She’s in the same position as I am. And she, like, gets paid more than me. Oh the horror, the horror. Granted, she’s been in this role for five years to my seven months, but, y’know… the injustice of it all! And dont get me started on how much my manager (also female) makes.

Maybe what us mandudes need is some sorta Lyle Ledbetter Act. FAIRNESS 4 ALL!

Jeddite on May 8, 2012 at 12:14 PM

The Lilly Ledbetter Act does not ensure women equal pay for equal work

Of course not, the Obama administration pay levels have proved that the most liberal politicians can declare war on women’s pay without fear.

RJL on May 8, 2012 at 6:24 PM