Gender pay gap regulation by authorities
Gender Pay Gap Regulation
Gender pay gap regulation involves legal measures to ensure men and women receive equal pay for equal work or work of equal value. These regulations often require employers to:
Provide transparency in pay structures.
Prove that pay differences are due to legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
Take corrective actions if pay disparities arise from discrimination.
International and national laws (e.g., Equal Pay Act, Title VII in the US, Equal Pay Directive in the EU) provide the legal framework. Courts then interpret these laws and apply them in cases where pay discrimination is alleged.
1. Corning Glass Works v. Brennan (1974) — U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
Women at Corning Glass Works were paid less than men doing similar jobs. The company argued the pay difference was due to shifts and seniority.
Issue:
Does the Equal Pay Act require equal pay for jobs that are substantially equal, regardless of shifts or seniority?
Holding:
The Court ruled that under the Equal Pay Act, men and women must receive equal pay for equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility, performed under similar working conditions.
Explanation:
This case clarified that employers cannot justify pay differences based on factors that are unrelated to job content, such as gender. It reinforced that "equal work" means jobs that are substantially equal, not identical.
2. United States v. Virginia (1996) — U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
Virginia Military Institute (VMI) had a male-only admissions policy and pay disparities.
Issue:
Was VMI’s male-only policy constitutional, and did it contribute to gender discrimination including pay?
Holding:
The Court ruled that gender-based discrimination must meet an "exceedingly persuasive justification," striking down the male-only policy.
Explanation:
Though this case centered on admission policies, it underscored that any institutional gender discrimination—including pay—requires very strong justification, which is rarely met.
3. Enderby v. Frenchay Health Authority (1993) — UK Employment Appeal Tribunal
Facts:
Speech therapists (mainly women) argued they were paid less than clinical psychologists (mainly men) even though their work was of equal value.
Issue:
Could pay differences be challenged based on comparison with jobs of “equal value” but different job titles?
Holding:
The tribunal ruled in favor of Enderby, holding that pay comparisons could be made across different jobs of equal value, not just identical roles.
Explanation:
This was a landmark case in the UK for establishing that equal pay claims could be based on the value of different jobs, broadening the scope of gender pay gap claims.
4. Royal Mail Group Ltd v. Jhuti (2019) — UK Supreme Court
Facts:
Jhuti claimed that Royal Mail discriminated against her by paying her less than men for the same or equivalent work.
Issue:
Did she meet the burden of proof to show pay discrimination?
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that employees do not have to prove the employer’s motive; establishing a pay disparity that cannot be justified shifts the burden to the employer.
Explanation:
This ruling reinforced that once a prima facie case of pay discrimination is established, employers must justify pay differences objectively, which strengthens protections against the gender pay gap.
5. European Commission v. Hungary (2020) — EU Court of Justice
Facts:
Hungary was challenged for failing to implement EU gender pay equality directives adequately.
Issue:
Were Hungary’s laws sufficient to protect equal pay rights for men and women?
Holding:
The Court ruled against Hungary, emphasizing the member states’ obligation to enforce equal pay laws effectively.
Explanation:
This case highlights the role of supranational authorities in enforcing gender pay gap regulations and ensuring member states comply with directives on equal pay.
6. Smith v. City of Jackson (2005) — U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
Female employees at a city were paid less than male employees, and a seniority-based pay system was challenged.
Issue:
Did the pay system violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) or Equal Pay Act?
Holding:
The Court held that a pay system based on seniority could justify some pay differences but also recognized potential for indirect discrimination.
Explanation:
Though primarily about age discrimination, this case illustrates how pay systems (like seniority) can interact with pay gap claims. Legitimate factors must be balanced against discriminatory effects.
Key Takeaways from These Cases:
Equal Pay for Equal Work or Work of Equal Value: Pay must be equal not just for identical jobs but for different jobs of comparable value.
Burden of Proof: Once a disparity is shown, employers must justify the pay difference with legitimate reasons.
Non-Discriminatory Justifications: Legitimate reasons include seniority, merit, or performance, but these must be objectively applied.
Broader Comparisons Allowed: Claims can be based on comparisons across different job categories.
Regulatory Enforcement: National and supranational bodies play a key role in enforcing and monitoring compliance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments