|
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is a United States federal 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:〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Equal Pay Act of 1963 )〕 * 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: :No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this 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 (. . . . ) 〔 ==Background== In 1942, Congresswoman Winifred C. Stanley from Buffalo, N.Y. introduced H.R. 5056, Prohibiting Discrimination in Pay on Account of Sex, which did not pass at the time.〔(【引用サイトリンク】 title=H.R. 5056 Prohibiting Discrimination in Pay on Account of Sex, HR 78A-B1, 06/19/1944, Records of the U.S. House of Representatives (ARC 4397822) )〕 The issue languished until 1963, when Congress passed the Equal Pay Act ("EPA" or the "Act")〔Pub. L. No. 88-38, 77 Stat. 56 (codified as amended at).〕 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."〔Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 208 (1974)("The Equal Pay Act is broadly remedial, and it should be construed and applied so as to fulfill the underlying purposes which Congress sought to achieve.").〕 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() ... () discriminat() … on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees () at a rate less than the rate () to employees of the opposite sex () for equal work on jobs () 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.〔See Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 203 fn. 24 (stating that jobs need to be substantially equal fall within the EPA); Fallon v. State of Illinois, 882 F.2d 1206, 1208 (7th Cir. 1989)(enumerating the elements of a prima facie case under the EPA).〕 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.〔See Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 196 (1974); Miranda v. B & B Cash Grocery Store, 975 F.2d 1518, 1526 (11th Cir. 1992)〕 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()" 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Equal Pay Act of 1963」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|