Women and men across different races, ethnicities, ages, and socioeconomic levels overwhelmingly support equal pay for equal work. Yet the lack of equal pay and persistent pay disparities remain a concern, particularly for working women, who continue to experience a significant wage gap compared with their male counterparts.
Currently, women who work full-time year-round in the United States make, on average, just 80 cents for every $1 earned by men.1 For women of color, these disparities are even starker.2 (see Figure 1)
To combat pay discrimination and help close the gender wage gap, we need comprehensive solutions to strengthen existing protections and target pay practices that can lead to discrimination. This means promoting greater pay transparency to help root out discriminatory practices; protecting workers from retaliation if they discuss their pay with others; requiring employers to disclose pay data to enforcement officials regularly to ensure compliance with the law; adopting strong penalties for legal violations to deter discrimination; and eliminating legal loopholes that make it easier for employers to avoid liability for pay disparities.
Yet, partisan divisions among policymakers have stymied efforts to adopt comprehensive, national solutions to ensure that workers are paid fairly and can support their families. Conservatives have used rhetoric and obstruction to question whether equal pay is still a problem, rationalize the gender wage gap, and derail proposed reforms in favor of limited policy approaches or complete inaction.
For years, opponents have blocked the two leading proposals that offer comprehensive strategies to strengthen equal pay protections: the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Fair Pay Act of 2015.3 Both bills focus on closing gaps in existing law to make it easier to challenge pay disparities, injecting more transparency and accountability around pay decision-making, and encouraging employers to be more vigilant about their pay practices. In September 2016, Reps. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced a complementary bill—the Pay Equity for All Act—to limit employers’ ability to ask questions about salary history during the hiring process.4 These proposals collectively would help improve workplace pay practices, root out discrimination, strengthen enforcement, and better position workers to make sound decisions about their pay.
Opponents have largely rejected the need to take action in support of equal pay.5 But, in an apparent effort to appear responsive to worker concerns, some conservative lawmakers have offered narrower, but ultimately inadequate, alternative plans. Sen. Deb Fischer’s (R-NE) Workplace Advancement Act proposes a limited anti-retaliation protection for those who discuss their pay, but its reach is unclear.6 Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s (R-NH) Gender Advancement in Pay Act is broader but has gaps in enforcement protections that would diminish its impact.7 Even if these limited proposals had more merit, lawmakers have neither debated nor considered either, raising broader questions about conservatives’ commitment to addressing equal pay concerns and whether these proposals are simply efforts to check a box to feign support.
Separating myth from reality
Policymakers can take steps to promote equal pay, ensure that workers are paid fairly, and close the gender wage gap. To move forward, it is critical to separate myths and rhetoric from real-world solutions that would make a difference for working families.
Myth: Necessary equal pay laws are already on the books
Reality: While there are laws that prohibit pay discrimination and require equal pay for equal work, they simply have not been updated to reflect 21st-century workplace realities. The Equal Pay Act has been on the books for more than 50 years, but unfortunately, courts have narrowed the law’s reach over time.8 Some courts, for example, have interpreted the defenses available to employers under the Equal Pay Act broadly, making it easier for employers to assert any non-gender-based reason as justification for a pay difference and avoid liability.9
Additionally, the Equal Pay Act does not specifically mention other issues such as pay transparency and pay secrecy rules, even though such rules can shield discrimination and depress wages. The Paycheck Fairness Act and the Fair Pay Act would strengthen the Equal Pay Act and ensure that all workers have access to more comprehensive protections.
Myth: The fact that the gender wage gap has persisted after the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act shows that legislation is not the answer
Reality: The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, signed by President Barack Obama in 2009, was an important step forward in the fight to end pay discrimination, but its purpose was to regain lost ground and return to the status quo. It did not go beyond current law to bolster existing Equal Pay Act protections or to identify new strategies to close the wage gap.10 Rather, it responded to the controversial 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.11
In Ledbetter, a divided Supreme Court ignored decades of case law to severely narrow the timing requirements for filing pay discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If the Court’s decision had been left standing, it would have barred many Title VII pay discrimination claims from moving forward. The Court ruled that workers must file such claims within 180 days of the initial discrimination—a nearly impossible task, given that pay discrimination is difficult to uncover. The Ledbetter Act rejected the Court’s interpretation and restored the prior rule, which gives workers 180 days from the last discriminatory paycheck to file their claims. The purpose of the Ledbetter Act was to correct a specific interpretation of law raised in the Ledbetter Supreme Court ruling; it did not address the broader need for stronger Equal Pay Act protections to ensure that workers have the most robust anti-discrimination protections possible. It also did not focus on providing comprehensive strategies to address the different factors fueling the wage gap—including discrimination.
Myth: Pay discrimination is no longer a problem and does not explain the gender wage gap
Reality: There are several different factors that cause the gender wage gap. Some of the wage gap can be explained by factors such as differences in education or seniority, but there is an unexplained portion of the gap that researchers often attribute to pay discrimination.12 The fact that pay discrimination is only one factor contributing to the gender wage gap does not relieve employers of their obligation to combat discriminatory pay practices. Most employers have an ongoing legal obligation to avoid pay discrimination and to ensure equal pay for equal work. This means that employers are required to take steps to comply with the law at all times, regardless of whether there is a wage gap among their employees or not. Women consistently identify unequal pay as a workplace problem.13 But violations are often cloaked in secrecy, difficult to uncover, and hard to prove. Ensuring that both women and men have strong protections against pay discrimination is critical.
Myth: Women’s occupational choices can explain the gender wage gap
Reality: Research consistently shows that multiple factors are driving the gender wage gap. The American Association of University Women has found that the wage gap among college-educated women begins one year after graduation—before life decisions may influence women’s earnings—and that it grows over time.14 Cornell University economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn have broken down the different elements of the gender wage gap to quantify the impact of each element. Their most recent analysis found that 38 percent of the wage gap could not be explained but could be partially due to discrimination15
This research makes clear that dismissing the gender wage gap as simply a reflection of women’s choices ignores the gap’s underlying causes. These causes deserve greater attention.16 For example, the dearth of affordable caregiving options and workplace policies that accommodate work-family needs often drives women to spend more time out of the workforce than men17 Some parents may choose to leave the workforce and stay home with their children full time, but in most households with children, all adults work—usually out of economic necessity.18 Many mothers are pushed out of the labor force because child care would cost more per year than they earn or because they are not able to find a job that provides the flexibility necessary to care for a child.19 Working parents without access to paid sick days or who are not eligible for job protection through the Family and Medical Leave Act may lose their jobs if they experience a family caregiving emergency.20
Many policymakers who deny the wage gap argue against paid family leave, paid sick days, affordable child care, and workplace flexibility. Yet research shows that when such policies are provided, mothers are able to return to work more quickly after childbirth, work longer hours if desired, and be more productive, all of which can help narrow the wage gap.21 The gender wage gap is multifaceted, which means that addressing it requires a holistic approach. Policymakers need to advance a comprehensive strategy that includes enacting equal pay protections and expanding access to modern workplace protections such as paid family and medical leave, earned sick days, affordable child care, and fair scheduling.22
Myth: To close the wage gap, women just need to get better jobs
Reality: Telling women that they simply need to get better jobs ignores the breadth and depth of the problem. In the vast majority of occupations, women earn less. Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show that in 2015, out of at least 115 occupations with comparable data, men earned more than women in all but five occupations.23 In jobs that are predominantly female—such as elementary school teachers, maids and housekeepers, and registered nurses—women still earned less than men.24 In fact, in the 25 most common occupations for women, women still saw an overall wage gap of 81.9 percent.25 And jobs with a higher percentage of women workers offer lower starting wages and have slower wage growth—or steeper wage decline—for both women and men in the ensuing years.26
Furthermore, traditionally female-dominated occupations tend to be lower-paying than male-dominated occupations. Cultural norms can push women and girls into lower-paying so-called women’s work fields—in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Recent studies of women in science, technology, engineering, and math occupations found that women generally have higher attrition rates than their male peers and women in other fields. A 2008 study found that by midcareer, 52 percent of female scientists, engineers, and technologists had quit their jobs. Women in the study cited feelings of isolation, unsupportive work environments, unclear rules about advancement and success, and extreme work schedules as key reasons for leaving these occupations. Additionally, many women in these fields may experience explicit or implicit gender bias that negatively influences their participation in the field.27 Moreover, research has shown that when women enter a traditionally male-dominated field in large numbers, pay in that field declines even after controlling for education, work experience, skills, race, and geography.28
Myth: Ending retaliation against workers who discuss their pay is enough to ensure equal pay and close the wage gap
Reality: While prohibiting retaliation against workers who discuss their pay can help combat pay secrecy and close the gender wage gap, it alone is insufficient. Protecting workers who discuss their wages primarily helps people after the fact to find out if they have been discriminated against. Protections may also discourage some employers from engaging in discrimination in the first place.
But other proactive steps are sorely needed to strengthen equal pay protections and prevent pay discrimination. A proposal such as the Workplace Advancement Act is woefully inadequate because it fails to provide the comprehensive protections needed to address pay discrimination.29 Moreover, the anti-retaliation protection it purports to provide is too narrow to protect workers from employer retaliation for discussing wages. To be covered, employees must prove that they were discussing wages in an effort to determine whether they were being paid unfairly. It is unclear whether workers who cannot prove this would be protected from employer retaliation.
Myth: Women earn less because they ask for less
Reality: While stronger negotiation skills could help some women get higher pay—indeed, the Paycheck Fairness Act would provide grants for negotiation skills training—they are not a cure-all. Research has shown that women are penalized far more harshly for negotiating than men. In one study, participants viewed video clips of men and women negotiating for higher wages. Viewers perceived the men’s negotiating style as smooth, while they perceived women using the identical script as too demanding.30 When women are faced with a negotiating opportunity, therefore, they must weigh the benefits of negotiating against the social consequences—and potential job risks.31
Myth: Increasing damages will just encourage frivolous lawsuits and make lawyers rich
Reality: The argument that the potential for higher damages will encourage frivolous lawsuits is a common excuse that ignores the difficulty in pursuing pay discrimination claims. Studies show that people who bring employment discrimination cases tend to be less successful than other civil claimants.32 Cases often take years to conclude, making quick windfalls highly unlikely. Moreover, the pressures that come with long, drawn-out litigation can increase stress at work and at home, regardless of the size of any potential damages award. At the end of the day, damages should be significant enough to be a deterrent and discourage bad pay practices. Workers who have been paid unfairly should have access to remedies that reflect the losses they have suffered.
Myth: Data collection efforts are unnecessary and onerous for businesses and will lead to sensitive personal information being made public
Reality: This concern is a red herring. Enforcement agencies’ collection of pay data is a critical tool to ensure compliance with the law. There are myriad protections already in use to prevent confidential information from being made public, and none of the pending bills would weaken these protections.33 It is vital that enforcement officials have full access to the pay data they need to evaluate employer pay practices, investigate pay discrimination claims, and assess occupation and industry trends. Such information can be provided without imposing extensive burdens on employers.
Workers have a vested interest in ensuring that women and men are paid fairly, combating discriminatory pay practices, and closing the gender wage gap. Lawmakers should be equally committed to achieving these goals. In order to meet the needs of working families, policymakers must reject the myths and rhetoric used to deny the persistence of pay discrimination and the gender wage gap, and instead support robust policies to strengthen the law. Comprehensive solutions would promote pay transparency, protect workers from employer retaliation for discussing their pay, require pay data disclosure to enforcement officials, and enhance enforcement efforts where needed.
Watered-down proposals that address these principles in name only are unresponsive and unhelpful and lack the substance necessary to ensure equal pay or diminish the gender wage gap. They may check the box for conservatives, but they will do little for working families.
Indeed, while it is crucial to have robust equal pay laws, lawmakers must also take concrete steps to address the other major contributing factors to the gender wage gap. Such action must address the lack of access to family-friendly workplace protections—such as paid family and medical leave, earned sick days, affordable child care, and flexible scheduling—that women and men need to fulfill their work and family obligations. These policies are essential to ensuring that all workers have the best chance to succeed at work and at home and provide crucial resources to their families.
Kaitlin Holmes is a Special Assistant for the Women’s Initiative at the Center for American Progress. Jocelyn Frye is a Senior Fellow at the Center. Sarah Jane Glynn is a Senior Policy Adviser at the Center. Jessica Quinter is a former intern with the Women’s Initiative at the Center.
- Authors’ calculations are based on a review of median earnings of full-time female and male workers. Bureau of the Census, PINC-01. Selected Characteristics of People 15 Years and Over, by Total Money Income, Work Experience, Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2016), available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-pinc/pinc-01.2015.html. ↩
- To learn how the gender wage gap impacts women of color, see Jocelyn Frye, “The Missing Conversation About Work and Family” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2016), available at https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/30124619/WorkAndFamily-WomenOfColor-Oct.pdf. ↩
- The Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced by Rep. DeLauro (D-CT) and Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), includes protections to improve enforcement through pay data collection from employers, prohibit retaliation against employees who discuss their pay with others, strengthen penalties for equal pay violations, and limit the justifications employers can use to justify pay disparities. The Fair Pay Act of 2015, introduced by Rep. Norton (D-DC), includes provisions to protect workers who discuss their wages, bolster damages for victims of pay discrimination, and broaden the understanding of “equal work” to “equivalent work” to prevent workers from being misclassified and paid unfairly for their work. See See Paycheck Fairness Act, S. 862, 114 Cong. 1 sess. (2015), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/862/text; Fair Pay Act of 2015, H. Rept. 1787, 114 Cong. 1 sess. (2015), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1787/text. ↩
- Pay Equity for All Act of 2016, H. Rept. 6030, 114 Cong. 2 sess. (2016), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/6030/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22eleanor+norton+holmes%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=20. ↩
- Many conservative lawmakers deny the existence of the wage gap and argue that the data presented here do not reflect a real problem. For example, Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) has dismissed the gender wage gap, saying, “When it comes to employment, the fact is many women seek jobs that provide more flexibility for their family over more money.” Another conservative official called the Paycheck Fairness Act a “desperate political ploy,” summarizing some conservatives’ responses to progressive efforts to close the wage gap. See Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins, “Jenkins: Setting The Record Straight – Conservatives Support Equal Pay,” Press release, April 8, 2014, available at https://lynnjenkins.house.gov/common/popup/popup.cfm?action=item.print&itemID=1833; Republican National Committee, “Misleading Paycheck Fairness Act,” Press release, April 5, 2014, available at https://gop.com/misleading-paycheck-fairness-act/. ↩
- The Workplace Advancement Act purports to protect workers from retaliation for discussing pay but only if workers can prove that they were discussing pay in order to decipher whether they were earning equal pay for equal work. See Workplace Advancement Act, S. 2200, 114 Cong. 1 sess. (2015), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2200/text. ↩
- The Gender Advancement in Pay Act is slightly more comprehensive than the Workplace Advancement Act but falls short in part because it includes inadequate penalties and does little to require greater pay transparency by employers. See Gender Advancement in Pay Act, S. 2070, 114 Cong. 1 sess. (2015), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2070/text. ↩
- Jocelyn Frye, “Next Steps for Progress on Equal Pay” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2016), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2016/04/12/135267/next-steps-for-progress-on-equal-pay/; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 13-2705-cv (2nd Cir. 2014), available at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1679235.html. ↩
- National Women’s Law Center, “Closing the ‘Factor Other Than Sex’ Loophole in the Equal Pay Act” (2011), available at http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/4.11.11_factor_other_than_sex_fact_sheet_update.pdf. ↩
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009,” available at https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/brochure-equal_pay_and_ledbetter_act.cfm (last accessed November 2016). ↩
- Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. (2007), available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1074.pdf. ↩
- See, for example, Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn, “Gender Differences in Pay.” Working Paper 7732 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2000), available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w7732.pdf; Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn, “The Gender Pay Gap: Have Women Gone as Far as They Can?”, Academy of Management Perspectives 21 (1) (2007): 7–23, available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/4166284?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents; Giannina Vaccaro, “How to Reduce the Unexplained Gender Wage Gap? Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Design” (Geneva: Geneva School of Economics and Management, 2015), available at http://www.sole-jole.org/16275.pdf. ↩
- Jeffrey M. Jones, “Americans Say Equal Pay Top Issue for Working Women,” Gallup, October 13, 2014, available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/178373/americans-say-equal-pay-top-issue-working-women.aspx. ↩
- American Association of University Women, “The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap” (2016), available at http://www.aauw.org/files/2016/02/SimpleTruth_Spring2016.pdf. ↩
- Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn, “The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations” (Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor, 2016), available at http://ftp.iza.org/dp9656.pdf. ↩
- Sarah Jane Glynn, “Explaining the Gender Wage Gap” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2014), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2014/05/19/90039/explaining-the-gender-wage-gap/. ↩
- Sarah Jane Glynn, “Administering Paid Family and Medical Leave: Learning from International and Domestic Examples” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2015), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2015/11/19/125769/administering-paid-family-and-medical-leave/; AARP Public Policy Institute and National Alliance for Caregiving, “Caregiving in the U.S.” (2015), available at http://www.caregiving.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2015_CaregivingintheUS_Final-Report-June-4_WEB.pdf; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-2A. Time spent in detailed primary activities and percent of the civilian population engaging in each activity, averages per day on weekdays and weekends, 2014 annual averages, total (U.S. Department of Labor, 2014), available at http://www.bls.gov/tus/tables/a2_2014.pdf. ↩
- Annie E. Casey Foundation, “Kids Count Data Center: Children under age 6 with all available parents in the labor force,” available at http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/5057-children-under-age-6-withallavailable-parents-in-the-labor-force#detailed/1/ any/false/868,867,133,38,35/any/11472,11473 (last accessed August 2015). ↩
- Child Care Aware of America, “Parents and the High Cost of Child Care: 2014 Report” (2014), available at http://www.usa.childcareaware.org/advocacy-public-policy/resources/reports-and-research/costofcare/; Katie Hamm and Carmel Martin, “A New Vision for Child Care in the United States: A Proposed New Tax Credit to Expand High-Quality Child Care” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2015), available at https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/31111043/Hamm-Childcare-report.pdf. ↩
- Glynn, “Administering Paid Family and Medical Leave.” ↩
- Heather D. Hill, “Paid Sick Leave and Job Stability,” Work and Occupations 40 (2) (2013): 143–173, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0730888413480893; Tanya S. Byker, “Paid Parental Leave Laws in the United Sates: Does Short-Duration Leave Affect Women’s Labor-Force Attachment?”, American Economic Review 106 (5) (2016): 242–46, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20161118. ↩
- For further reading on comprehensive solutions to the gender wage gap, see Jocelyn Frye, “To close the gender wage gap, we need comprehensive solutions from Congress,” The Hill, January 29, 2016, available at http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/labor/267368-to-close-gender-wage-gap-we-need-comprehensive-solutions-from; Glynn, “Explaining the Gender Wage Gap.” ↩
- Kaitlin Holmes and Danielle Corley, “The Top 10 Facts About the Gender Wage Gap” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2016), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/report/2016/04/12/135260/the-top-10-facts-about-the-gender-wage-gap/; Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Table 39, Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex,” available at http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf (last accessed March 2016). ↩
- Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Table 39. Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex,” available at http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm (last accessed November 2016). ↩
- Analysis by Danielle Corley using data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Table 39, Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex,” available at http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf (last accessed June 2016). ↩
- Paula England, Lori L. Reid, and Barbara Stanek Kilbourne, “The Effect of the Sex Composition of Jobs on Starting wages in an Organization: Findings from the NLSY,” Demography 33 (4) (1996): 511–521, available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/2061784?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents; American Association of University Women, “The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap.” ↩
- Catherine Hill, Christianne Corbett, Andresse St. Rose, “Why So Few? Women in Science Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics” (Washington: American Association of University Women, 2010), available at http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/Why-So-Few-Women-in-Science-Technology-Engineering-and-Mathematics.pdf; Sylvia Ann Hewlett and others, The Athena Factor: Reversing the Brain Drain in Science, Engineering and Technology (Boston: Harvard Business Publishing, 2008); Caroline Simard and others, “Climbing the Technical Ladder: Obstacles and Solutions for Mid-level Women in Technology” (Stanford: Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research and Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology, 2008), available at http://gender.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Climbing_the_Technical_Ladder.pdf; American Association of University Women, “The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap”; Carolyn Aman Karlin, Paula England, and Mary Richardson, “Why do ‘Women’s Jobs’ Have low pay for their educational level?”, Gender Issues 20 (4) (2002): 3–22, available at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12147-002-0020-6. ↩
- Claire Cain Miller, “As Women Take Over a Male-Dominated Field, the Pay Drops,” The New York Times, March 18, 2016, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html. ↩
- Workplace Advancement Act. ↩
- Danielle Paquette, “Men say they work more than women. Here’s the truth,” The Washington Post, June 29, 2016, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/men-say-they-work-more-than-women-heres-the-truth/; Hannah Riley Bowles, Linda Babcock, and Lei Lai, “Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103 (2007): 84-103, available at https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf. ↩
- Hannah Riley Bowles and Linda Babcock, “How Can Women Escape the Compensation Negotiation Dilemma? Relational Accounts Are One Answer” (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School Women and Public Policy Program, 2013), available at http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/how-can-women-escape-compensation-negotiation-dilemma-relational-accounts-are-one-answer. ↩
- Michael Selmi, “Why are Employment Discrimination Cases So Hard to Win?”, Louisiana Law Review 61 (3) (2001), available at http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5889&context=lalrev. ↩
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Questions and Answers: Notice of Proposed Changes to the EEO-1 to Collect Pay Data from Certain Employers,” available at https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/2016_eeo-1_proposed_changes_qa.cfm (last accessed November 2016). ↩