Saturday, January 21, 2012
Deborah Eisenberg (Maryland) has just posted on SSRN two articles dealing with equal pay issues. The abstracts are posted after the break; the articles are:
- Money, Sex, and Sunshine: A Market Based Approach to Pay Discrimination, 43 Ariz. St. L.J. 951 (2012).
- Lessons from Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes About the Legal Quest for Equal Pay, 46 New England L. Rev. (forthcoming 2012).
rbMoney, Sex, and Sunshine: A Market Based Approach to Pay Discrimination, 43 Ariz. St. L.J. 951 (2012).
The Equal Pay Act had a distinct market purpose. Congress made a policy choice to modify the existing compensation market so that employees who perform jobs requiring substantially “equal skill, effort, and responsibility” earn equal wages, regardless of sex. The Act aimed not simply to promote individual fairness, but to foster a more efficient, equitable wage market on a systemic level. Congress recognized that paying lower wages to women constituted “an unfair method of competition,” burdened “commerce and the free flow of good in commerce,” and prevented the “maximum utilization of available labor resources.” Over time, however, the “market” in equal pay cases has been transformed from the fundamental reason for the Act to an acceptable business defense for paying women less. At the same time, pay discrimination is conceptualized today in the rhetoric of “fairness,” which overshadows the core market purpose of the Act.
This Article contends that equal pay laws have failed in their market purpose and will continue to fail so long as reform is centered solely on a litigation-enforcement model. The Article reframes pay discrimination as a market failure caused by insufficient and asymmetric information about the value of work, rather than an individual fairness concern. It explores lessons that can be learned from executive compensation scholarship, which offers more sophisticated analyses of the causes of abusive pay practices. Executive pay scholars have exposed: (1) the human dynamics and conditions that cause compensation markets to fail; (2) the ineffectiveness of litigation to fully address abusive pay because of court reluctance to interfere with “business judgments” about compensation; and (3) the crucial role of transparency as a market-based tool to reform abusive pay practices.
Applying these lessons in modified form, the Article examines how pay secrecy distorts compensation markets and permits pay discrimination to flourish, even in the absence of intentional sex discrimination. Given the increasing ineffectiveness of equal pay litigation, it analyzes how pay disclosure and transparency can be used to promote a more efficient compensation market in which employees are appropriately valued and rewarded without the taint of discriminatory factors.
Lessons from Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes About the Legal Quest for Equal Pay, 46 New England L. Rev. (forthcoming 2012).
The Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes provides a unique opportunity to reflect on whether and how the legal system should address unjustified pay disparities between men and women who perform similar jobs. This Article describes the Court’s decision and analyzes the insights it offers about the legal quest for equal pay. First, Wal-Mart demonstrates the tension between Title VII’s focus on the employer’s intent and the economic realities of how pay discrimination happens in the modern workplace. As the women at Wal-Mart experienced and research confirms, pay disparities tend to be the greatest when employers delegate excessive, unchecked discretion to supervisors. Second, Wal-Mart exemplifies how litigation remedies tend to be ineffective for pay discrimination because of the intent requirement of Title VII, the prima facie standard of substantially equality under the Equal Pay Act, the broad “factor other than sex” defense, and procedural difficulties for group actions.
This Article proposes a blueprint for a more effective remedy for pay discrimination that would: (1) provide incentives for self-regulation by employers, such as pay transparency and periodic compensation audits; (2) limit defenses to those that are job-related and consistent with business necessity; (3) incorporate a pragmatic interpretation of equal work; and (4) facilitate group actions for systemic pay discrimination.