GOP Senators Stand In The Way Of Equal Pay For Equal Work

unnamed

Women in the U.S. still earn less than men on average for the same work. Today — Equal Pay Day — recognizes the extra 103 days it takes for women to earn the same as men earned in 2015.

Equal pay for equal work is common sense for most Americans, but the GOP has voted again and again to obstruct common sense measures that would help make equal pay for equal work a reality. Senators Kelly Ayotte, Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, Ron Johnson, Mark Kirk, John McCain, Rand Paul, Rob Portman, Pat Toomey, and Congressman Joe Heck all continue to stand in the way of closing the wage gap between women and men.

These Republicans have actively blocked legislation that prevents wage discrimination, putting corporate special interests ahead of working women. By preventing women from realizing their full earning potential, they are holding back economic growth for families across America.

Background:

Kelly Ayotte

Ayotte Voted To Block The Paycheck Fairness Act Four Times

2015: Ayotte Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In March 2015, Ayotte voted against an amendment to the Senate’s FY 2016 budget resolution that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] create[d] a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to equal pay policies.” Specifically, according to a press release from Senator Barbara Mikulski, “U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Dean of the Senate women and a senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today was joined by Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in speaking out on the Senate floor calling for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation which will help close the wage gap between women and men working equivalent jobs, costing women and their families $434,000 over their careers. Senator Mikulski introduced the legislation as an amendment to the Senate budget bill currently being debated.” The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 45 to 54. [Senate Vote 82, 3/24/15; Press Release – Office Of Senator Barbara Mikulski, 3/24/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/24/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]

2014: Ayotte Effectively Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In September 2014, Ayotte effectively voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, “increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for ‘equal work,’ and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid [Equal Pay Act] EPA liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on the legislation, which required 60 votes to pass. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 52 to 40. [Senate Vote 262, 9/15/14; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]

2014: Ayotte Effectively Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In April 2014, Ayotte effectively voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act. According to the Congressional Research Service, the legislation would “increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for ‘equal work,’ and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid EPA [Equal Pay Act] liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on a motion to proceed to consider the legislation, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 53 to 44. [Senate Vote 103, 4/9/14; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]

2012: Ayotte Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In June 2012, Ayotte voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, “would authorize [Equal Pay Act] class actions and ‘such compensatory and punitive damages as may be appropriate.’” The vote was on invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill; it failed, 52-47. [Senate Vote 115, 6/5/12; Congressional Research Service, 6/1/12]

Roy Blunt

Blunt Repeatedly Voted Against The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act And Paycheck Fairness Legislation

2015: Blunt Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In March 2015, Blunt voted against an amendment to the Senate’s FY 2016 budget resolution that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] create[d] a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to equal pay policies.” Specifically, according to a press release from Senator Barbara Mikulski, “U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Dean of the Senate women and a senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today was joined by Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in speaking out on the Senate floor calling for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation which will help close the wage gap between women and men working equivalent jobs, costing women and their families $434,000 over their careers. Senator Mikulski introduced the legislation as an amendment to the Senate budget bill currently being debated.” The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 45 to 54. [Senate Vote 82, 3/24/15; Press Release – Office Of Senator Barbara Mikulski, 3/24/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/24/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]

Legislation Would Have Permitted Those Who Successfully Prove Pay Discrimination To Receive Compensatory And Punitive Damages In Addition To Backpay And Liquidated Damages. According to the Congressional Research Service, “Under the EPA [Equal Pay Act], […] prevailing plaintiffs may recover backpay in an amount equal to the total difference between wages actually received and those to which they are lawfully entitled and an additional amount equal to the backpay award as liquidated damages. Compensatory damages are not authorized, and consequently, awards do not include sums for physical or mental distress, medical expenses, or other costs. The Paycheck Fairness Act would authorize EPA class actions and ‘such compensatory and punitive damages as may be appropriate.’” [CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]
Legislation Would Limit Valid Reasons Employers Could Give For Why A Particular Female Employee Was Paid Less Than A Comparable Male Employee, Such As Requiring That The Reason Be Job-Related.According to the Congressional Research Service, “In addition, the legislation would establish more restrictive standards for proof by employers of an affirmative defense to EPA liability based on any ‘bona fide factor other than sex.’ Thus, for a pay factor to be ‘bona fide,’ the employer would have to establish that it was ‘job related,’ consistent with ‘business necessity,’ and not derived from a sex-based differential in compensation, and that the employer’s purpose could not be accomplished by less discriminatory alternative means.” [CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]

2014: Blunt Effectively Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In 2014, Blunt effectively voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Reid, D-Nev., motion to proceed to the bill that would require employers to demonstrate that wage gaps between men and women with similar qualifications and in similar jobs have a business justification. It would prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information and authorize the Labor secretary to seek additional compensatory or punitive damages in a sex discrimination action.” The vote was on a motion to proceed to consider the legislation, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate agreed the motion by a vote of 73 to 25. [Senate Vote 260, 9/10/14; CQ, 9/10/14; Congressional Actions S. 2199, 3/15/14]

2014: Blunt Effectively Voted Against] The Paycheck Fairness Act. In April 2014, Blunt effectively voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act. According to the Congressional Research Service, the legislation would “increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for ‘equal work,’ and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid EPA [Equal Pay Act] liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on a motion to proceed to consider the legislation, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 53 to 44. [Senate Vote 103, 4/9/14; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]

Legislation Would Have Permitted Those Who Successfully Prove Pay Discrimination To Receive Compensatory And Punitive Damages In Addition To Backpay And Liquidated Damages. According to the Congressional Research Service, “Under the EPA, as noted, prevailing plaintiffs may recover backpay in an amount equal to the total difference between wages actually received and those to which they are lawfully entitled and an additional amount equal to the backpay award as liquidated damages. Compensatory damages are not authorized, and consequently, awards do not include sums for physical or mental distress, medical expenses, or other costs. The Paycheck Fairness Act would authorize EPA class actions and ‘such compensatory and punitive damages as may be appropriate.’” [CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]
Legislation Would Limit Reasons Employers Could Give To Justify Pay Discrimination, Including By Requiring That The Reason Be Job-Related. According to the Congressional Research Service, “In addition, the legislation would establish more restrictive standards for proof by employers of an affirmative defense to EPA liability based on any ‘bona fide factor other than sex.’ Thus, for a pay factor to be ‘bona fide,’ the employer would have to establish that it was ‘job related,’ consistent with ‘business necessity,’ and not derived from a sex-based differential in compensation, and that the employer’s purpose could not be accomplished by less discriminatory alternative means.” [CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]

Supporters Said Bill Needed To Address Continuing Pay Gap Between Men And Women; Average Pay For Women Is 77 Percent That Of Men. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Supporters say the measure is necessary because women continue to be discriminated against. They say women on average earn 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes, which translates into an average of $400,000 over a lifetime.” [Congressional Quarterly, 4/9/14]

2012: Blunt Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In June 2012, Blunt voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, “would authorize [Equal Pay Act] class actions and ‘such compensatory and punitive damages as may be appropriate.’” The vote was on invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill; it failed, 52-47. [Senate Vote 115, 6/5/12; Congressional Research Service, 6/1/12]

2009: Blunt Voted Against The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Which Expanded The Deadline To File Wage Discrimination Lawsuits. In 2009, Blunt voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which allowed lawsuits for pay discrimination to be filed within 180 days of any discrimination-affected paycheck, even if it was the result of discrimination that occurred more than 180 days ago. The bill effectively overturned the Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. According to the New York Times, in that case, “A jury found [Ledbetter’s] employer, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company plant in Gadsden, Ala., guilty of pay discrimination. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court threw out the case, ruling that she should have filed her suit within 180 days of the date that Goodyear first paid her less than her peers.” According to the New York Times, the Ledbetter Act “restarts the six-month clock every time the worker receives a paycheck.” The bill passed the House, 250 to 177, and President Obama signed it into law on January 29, 2009. [House Vote 37, 1/27/09; Public Law 111-2, 1/29/09; New York Times,1/29/09]

Richard Burr

Burr Called Lilly Ledbetter Act “Political Theater”

Burr: Lilly Ledbetter Act Is “More About Political Theater” Than A Serious Effort To Oppose Shortcomings In Current Law.’ According to The Asheville Citizen-Times, “In a statement, Burr said he’s ‘strongly opposed to pay discrimination based on gender,” but current laws already forbid it. ‘Unfortunately, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is more about political theater than a serious effort to address any shortcomings in current law,’ Burr said. ‘By eliminating the statute of limitations, this bill would undermine the ability of our judicial system to fairly decide cases of alleged discrimination.’” [Asheville Citizen-Times, 1/24/09]

Burr Voted At Least Three Times Against The Paycheck Fairness Act

2015: Burr Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In March 2015, Burr voted against an amendment to the Senate’s FY 2016 budget resolution that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] create[d] a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to equal pay policies.” Specifically, according to a press release from Senator Barbara Mikulski, “U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Dean of the Senate women and a senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today was joined by Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in speaking out on the Senate floor calling for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation which will help close the wage gap between women and men working equivalent jobs, costing women and their families $434,000 over their careers. Senator Mikulski introduced the legislation as an amendment to the Senate budget bill currently being debated.” The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 45 to 54. [Senate Vote 82, 3/24/15; Press Release – Office Of Senator Barbara Mikulski, 3/24/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/24/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]

2014: Burr Effectively Voted For The Paycheck Fairness Act. In September 2014, Burr effectively voted for the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] require[d] employers to demonstrate that wage gaps between men and women with similar qualifications and in similar jobs have a business justification. It would prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information and authorize the Labor secretary to seek additional compensatory or punitive damages in a sex discrimination action.” The vote was on a motion invoke cloture. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 73 to 25. The bill later died in the Senate. [Senate Vote 260, 9/10/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/10/14; Senate Vote 262, 9/15/14; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]

2012: Burr Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In June 2012, Burr voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, “would authorize [Equal Pay Act] class actions and ‘such compensatory and punitive damages as may be appropriate.’” The vote was on invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill; it failed, 52-47. [Senate Vote 115, 6/5/12; Congressional Research Service, 6/1/12]

Mark Kirk

Kirk Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act

2014: Kirk Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, “With that as a backdrop, let’s go to pay equity, an issue congressional Democrats and the White House are using to rally female voters and jab at Republicans. GOP senators derailed the Paycheck Fairness Act last Wednesday on a 53-44 vote, with 60 votes needed for the measure to advance. Durbin voted yes, Kirk no.” [4/14/14]

2014: Kirk Effectively Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In September 2014, Kirk effectively voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, “increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for ‘equal work,’ and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid [Equal Pay Act] EPA liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on the legislation, which required 60 votes to pass. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 52 to 40. [Senate Vote 262, 9/15/14; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]

2008: Kirk Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act, Which Made It Easier For Women To Successfully Sue Their Employers Over Unequal Compensation. In July 2008, Kirk voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would make it easier for women who are paid less than their male counterparts to bring suits against their employers and receive compensation. Employers seeking to justify unequal pay would have to prove that disparities are job-related and required by a business necessity. Workers who won wage discrimination cases could collect compensatory and punitive damages. As amended, it would specify that punitive damages could only be awarded to plaintiffs who prove intentional discrimination.” The House passed the bill, named the Paycheck Fairness Act, by a vote of 247 to 178. The Senate took no substantive action on the measure. [House Vote 556, 7/31/08; Congressional Quarterly, 7/31/08; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1338]

Kirk Called The Paycheck Fairness Act “Sexist”

Kirk Called The Paycheck Fairness Act The “The Most Sexist Legislation You Can Have” Because It Made Suing Over Sex Discrimination Easier. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, “With that as a backdrop, let’s go to pay equity, an issue congressional Democrats and the White House are using to rally female voters and jab at Republicans. GOP senators derailed the Paycheck Fairness Act last Wednesday on a 53-44 vote, with 60 votes needed for the measure to advance. Durbin voted yes, Kirk no. The legislation does several things, including installing an employer ban on retaliating if employees choose to share wage information and makes it easier for workers to sue employers in wage sex discrimination cases. […] ‘I would have to say that this legislation is probably the most sexist legislation you can have against women,’ Kirk said, because it allows trial lawyers ‘to take control of your sex discrimination case’ and as a result ‘this very well-connected, I would say likely Democratic Party-connected lawyer, comes in and takes control of your case . . . and a right to one-third of your recovery, that would be the ultimate sexism.’” [Chicago Sun-Times, 4/14/14]

Kirk Opposed The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Kirk Voted Against The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, “Giannoulias also criticized Kirk for not voting in 2009 for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, designed to ad-dress gender, age and race discrimination in pay. The Illinois delegation split on party lines over Ledbetter: Kirk and the six other Illinois Republicans voted against the measure; the 11 Illinois Democrats cast yes votes.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 5/7/10]

2009: Kirk Voted Against The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Which Expanded The Deadline To File Wage Discrimination Lawsuits. In 2009, Kirk voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which allowed lawsuits for pay discrimination to be filed within 180 days of any discrimination-affected paycheck, even if it was the result of discrimination that occurred more than 180 days ago. The bill effectively overturned the Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. According to the New York Times, in that case, “A jury found [Ledbetter’s] employer, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company plant in Gadsden, Ala., guilty of pay discrimination. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court threw out the case, ruling that she should have filed her suit within 180 days of the date that Goodyear first paid her less than her peers.” According to the New York Times, the Ledbetter Act “restarts the six-month clock every time the worker receives a paycheck.” The bill passed the House, 250 to 177, and President Obama signed it into law on January 29, 2009. [House Vote 37, 1/27/09; Public Law 111-2, 1/29/09; New York Times,1/29/09]

2007: Kirk Voted Against Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Which Extended The Time To File A Lawsuit Over Pay Discrimination To 180 Days From The Last Discriminatory Paycheck. In July 2007, Kirk voted against a bill that, according to a Congressional Quarterly, would have “amend[ed] the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to allow employees to file charges of alleged discrimination within 180 days of the last paycheck received that is affected by alleged employment discrimination. ([Then-c]urrent law require[d] such suits be filed within days of the alleged discriminatory act, not the paychecks affected by the alleged act.) It also clarifie[d] that an employee is entitled — under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act — to up to two years of back pay if it is determined that discrimination occurred.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 225 to 199. The bill was then sent to the Senate, but the legislation died when the Senate rejected a motion to end debate. [House Vote 768, 7/31/07; Congressional Quarterly, 7/30/08; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2831]

Kirk Voted Against Requiring Employers To Prove Unequal Pay Was Job, Not Gender, Related

2009: Kirk Voted Against Requiring That Employers Prove That Instances Of Unequal Pay For Men And Women Were Job Related. In January 2009, Kirk voted against a bill that according to Congressional Quarterly “would [have] require[d] employers seeking to justify unequal pay for male and female workers to prove that such disparities are job-related and required by a business necessity. It would [have] bar[red] retaliation by employers against employees who share salary information with their co-workers. Workers who won wage discrimination cases could collect compensatory and punitive damages.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 256 to 163. The text of the bill was appended to the end of H.R. 11 as new matter. H.R. 11 was passed by the House, but the Senate took no substantive action. [House Vote 8, 1/9/09; Congressional Quarterly, 1/9/09; Congressional Actions, H.R. 12; Congressional Actions, H.R. 11]

Rand Paul

Paul Voted Four Times Against Equal Pay For Women

Paycheck Fairness Act

2015: Paul Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In March 2015, Paul voted against an amendment to the Senate’s FY 2016 budget resolution that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] create[d] a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to equal pay policies.” Specifically, according to a press release from Senator Barbara Mikulski, “U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Dean of the Senate women and a senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today was joined by Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in speaking out on the Senate floor calling for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation which will help close the wage gap between women and men working equivalent jobs, costing women and their families $434,000 over their careers. Senator Mikulski introduced the legislation as an amendment to the Senate budget bill currently being debated.” The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 45 to 54. [Senate Vote 82, 3/24/15; Press Release – Office Of Senator Barbara Mikulski, 3/24/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/24/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]

Legislation Would Have Permitted Those Who Successfully Prove Pay Discrimination To Receive Compensatory And Punitive Damages In Addition To Backpay And Liquidated Damages. According to the Congressional Research Service, “Under the EPA [Equal Pay Act], […] prevailing plaintiffs may recover backpay in an amount equal to the total difference between wages actually received and those to which they are lawfully entitled and an additional amount equal to the backpay award as liquidated damages. Compensatory damages are not authorized, and consequently, awards do not include sums for physical or mental distress, medical expenses, or other costs. The Paycheck Fairness Act would authorize EPA class actions and ‘such compensatory and punitive damages as may be appropriate.’” [CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]
Legislation Would Limit Valid Reasons Employers Could Give For Why A Particular Female Employee Was Paid Less Than A Comparable Male Employee, Such As Requiring That The Reason Be Job-Related. According to the Congressional Research Service, “In addition, the legislation would establish more restrictive standards for proof by employers of an affirmative defense to EPA liability based on any ‘bona fide factor other than sex.’ Thus, for a pay factor to be ‘bona fide,’ the employer would have to establish that it was ‘job related,’ consistent with ‘business necessity,’ and not derived from a sex-based differential in compensation, and that the employer’s purpose could not be accomplished by less discriminatory alternative means.” [CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]

2014: Paul Effectively Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In 2014, Paul effectively voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Reid, D-Nev., motion to proceed to the bill that would require employers to demonstrate that wage gaps between men and women with similar qualifications and in similar jobs have a business justification. It would prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information and authorize the Labor secretary to seek additional compensatory or punitive damages in a sex discrimination action.” The vote was on a motion to proceed to consider the legislation, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate agreed the motion by a vote of 73 to 25. [Senate Vote 260, 9/10/14; CQ, 9/10/14; Congressional Actions S. 2199, 3/15/14]

2014: Paul Effectively Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In April 2014, Paul effectively voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act. According to the Congressional Research Service, the legislation would “increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for ‘equal work,’ and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid EPA [Equal Pay Act] liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on a motion to proceed to consider the legislation, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 53 to 44. [Senate Vote 103, 4/9/14; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]

Legislation Would Have Permitted Those Who Successfully Prove Pay Discrimination To Receive Compensatory And Punitive Damages In Addition To Backpay And Liquidated Damages. According to the Congressional Research Service, “Under the EPA, as noted, prevailing plaintiffs may recover backpay in an amount equal to the total difference between wages actually received and those to which they are lawfully entitled and an additional amount equal to the backpay award as liquidated damages. Compensatory damages are not authorized, and consequently, awards do not include sums for physical or mental distress, medical expenses, or other costs. The Paycheck Fairness Act would authorize EPA class actions and ‘such compensatory and punitive damages as may be appropriate.’” [CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]
Legislation Would Limit Reasons Employers Could Give To Justify Pay Discrimination, Including By Requiring That The Reason Be Job-Related. According to the Congressional Research Service, “In addition, the legislation would establish more restrictive standards for proof by employers of an affirmative defense to EPA liability based on any ‘bona fide factor other than sex.’ Thus, for a pay factor to be ‘bona fide,’ the employer would have to establish that it was ‘job related,’ consistent with ‘business necessity,’ and not derived from a sex-based differential in compensation, and that the employer’s purpose could not be accomplished by less discriminatory alternative means.” [CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]

2012: Paul Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In June 2012, Paul voted againstthe Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, “would authorize [Equal Pay Act] class actions and ‘such compensatory and punitive damages as may be appropriate.’” The vote was on invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill; it failed, 52-47. [Senate Vote 115, 6/5/12; Congressional Research Service, 6/1/12]

Rob Portman

Portman Voted Multiple Times Against The Paycheck Fairness Act

2015: Portman Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In March 2015, Portman voted against an amendment to the Senate’s FY 2016 budget resolution that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] create[d] a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to equal pay policies.” Specifically, according to a press release from Senator Barbara Mikulski, “U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Dean of the Senate women and a senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today was joined by Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in speaking out on the Senate floor calling for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation which will help close the wage gap between women and men working equivalent jobs, costing women and their families $434,000 over their careers. Senator Mikulski introduced the legislation as an amendment to the Senate budget bill currently being debated.” The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 45 to 54. [Senate Vote 82, 3/24/15; Press Release – Office Of Senator Barbara Mikulski, 3/24/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/24/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]

2014: Portman Effectively Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In September 2014, Portman effectively voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, “increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for ‘equal work,’ and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid [Equal Pay Act] EPA liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on the legislation, which required 60 votes to pass. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 52 to 40. [Senate Vote 262, 9/15/14; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]

2012: Portman Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In June 2012, Portman voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, “would authorize [Equal Pay Act] class actions and ‘such compensatory and punitive damages as may be appropriate.’” The vote was on invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill; it failed, 52-47. [Senate Vote 115, 6/5/12; Congressional Research Service, 6/1/12]

Called It “An Election Year Approach By Democrats”

Portman Opposed The Paycheck Fairness Act, Calling It “An Election Year Approach By Democrats.” According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, “A long-sought equal pay bill that failed to advance in the the U.S. Senate this week would have led to litigation and fewer companies offering merit pay for their workers, Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman told reporters on Thursday. Democratic backers of the bill, including President Barack Obama, said it would have helped eliminate pay disparities between men and women. Portman — who voted against the proposal on Wednesday — said workplace discrimination is already illegal, and questioned whether new laws are needed. ‘We have to ensure we are aggressively enforcing existing laws,’ said Portman, who called the measure ‘an election year approach by Democrats,’ noting it was opposed by all the U.S. Senate’s Republicans, as well as Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who typically votes with Democrats.” [Cleveland Plain Dealer, 4/10/14]

Said It Would Increase “Frivolous Lawsuits”

Portman Said The Paycheck Fairness Act Would Increase “Frivolous Lawsuits.” According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, “Portman, too, linked his position on the bill to the notion that it would increase ‘frivolous lawsuits’ and hurt businesses. Portman’s spokeswoman, Christine Mangi, accused Democrats of playing politics with the issue ‘by waging phony gender warfare rather than use the Senate’s time to take up real pro-growth measures that will benefit female business owners and workers.’ ‘Congress should build on the strides female entrepreneurs and workers have made by enacting reforms that will truly benefit them and encourage further growth,’ she said.” [Cincinnati Enquirer,6/5/12]

Pat Toomey

Toomey Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act Three Times

2015: Toomey Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In March 2015, Toomey voted against an amendment to the Senate’s FY 2016 budget resolution that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] create[d] a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to equal pay policies.” Specifically, according to a press release from Senator Barbara Mikulski, “U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Dean of the Senate women and a senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today was joined by Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in speaking out on the Senate floor calling for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation which will help close the wage gap between women and men working equivalent jobs, costing women and their families $434,000 over their careers. Senator Mikulski introduced the legislation as an amendment to the Senate budget bill currently being debated.” The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 45 to 54. [Senate Vote 82, 3/24/15; Press Release – Office Of Senator Barbara Mikulski, 3/24/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/24/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]

Legislation Would Have Permitted Those Who Successfully Prove Pay Discrimination To Receive Compensatory And Punitive Damages In Addition To Back Pay And Liquidated Damages.According to the Congressional Research Service, “Under the EPA [Equal Pay Act], […] prevailing plaintiffs may recover backpay in an amount equal to the total difference between wages actually received and those to which they are lawfully entitled and an additional amount equal to the backpay award as liquidated damages. Compensatory damages are not authorized, and consequently, awards do not include sums for physical or mental distress, medical expenses, or other costs. The Paycheck Fairness Act would authorize EPA class actions and ‘such compensatory and punitive damages as may be appropriate.’” [CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]
Legislation Would Limit Valid Reasons Employers Could Give For Why A Particular Female Employee Was Paid Less Than A Comparable Male Employee, Such As Requiring That The Reason Be Job-Related.According to the Congressional Research Service, “In addition, the legislation would establish more restrictive standards for proof by employers of an affirmative defense to EPA liability based on any ‘bona fide factor other than sex.’ Thus, for a pay factor to be ‘bona fide,’ the employer would have to establish that it was ‘job related,’ consistent with ‘business necessity,’ and not derived from a sex-based differential in compensation, and that the employer’s purpose could not be accomplished by less discriminatory alternative means.” [CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]

2014: Toomey Effectively Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In September 2014, Toomey effectively voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, “increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for ‘equal work,’ and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid [Equal Pay Act] EPA liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on the legislation, which required 60 votes to pass. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 52 to 40. [Senate Vote 262, 9/15/14; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]

2012: Toomey Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In June 2012, Toomey voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, “would authorize [Equal Pay Act] class actions and ‘such compensatory and punitive damages as may be appropriate.’” The vote was on invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill; it failed, 52-47. [Senate Vote 115, 6/5/12; Congressional Research Service, 6/1/12]

Toomey Voted To Make It More Difficult For Women To Sue Their Employers Over Equal Pay

2014: Toomey Effectively Voted Against Making It Easier For Women To Successfully Sue Over Pay Discrimination, And Against Increasing Employer Penalties In Such Cases. In April 2014, Toomey effectively voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act. According to the Congressional Research Service, the legislation would “increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for ‘equal work,’ and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid EPA [Equal Pay Act] liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on a motion to proceed to consider the legislation, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 53 to 44. [Senate Vote 103, 4/9/14; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]

Joe Heck

Heck Repeatedly Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act

2013: Heck Effectively Voted Against Considering The Paycheck Fairness Act, Which Would Make It Easier For Women To Successfully Sue Over Pay Discrimination, And Increase Employer Penalties In Such Cases.In April 2013, Heck effectively voted to block House consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, would “increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for ‘equal work,’ and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid [Equal Pay Act] EPA liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law.” The vote was on ordering the previous question – and preventing further amendment of – the proposed rule governing House consideration of a bill concerning the National Labor Relations Board. Because the un-amended rule did not permit consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act, the effect of the House’s 226 to 192 vote to order the previous question on the rule was to block House consideration of Paycheck Fairness Act for the time being. [House Vote 97, 4/11/13; Congressional Quarterly, 4/11/13; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13; “The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means,” House Rules Committee Minority Staff Memo, 3/18/10]

Heck “Made A Procedural Vote To Prevent A Bill” For Equal Pay For Women From Reaching The Floor Of The House. According to the Las Vegas Sun, “He has voted to defund planned parenthood and made a procedural vote to prevent a bill promoting equal pay for women from reaching the floor of the House. Heck said the move to bring up the vote on wages was a strategy by Democrats to gain fodder. ‘I firmly believe that everybody doing the same job at the same level should get the same pay,’ he said.” [Las Vegas Sun, 8/12/14]
Heck’s 2014 Opponent: This “Effectively” Killed The Paycheck Fairness Act “In The Republican-Controlled House Of Representatives.”According to the Las Vegas Sun, “Ciavola says Democrats requested the vote as a ‘ploy to use the procedural ‘no’ vote as evidence of opposition to the actual bill.’ Bilbray says Republicans never brought the bill up for an actual vote, effectively killing it in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.” [Las Vegas Sun, 9/1/13]
Heck Claimed The Move Was A “Strategy By Democrats To Gain Fodder.” According to the Las Vegas Sun, “He has voted to defund planned parenthood and made a procedural vote to prevent a bill promoting equal pay for women from reaching the floor of the House. Heck said the move to bring up the vote on wages was a strategy by Democrats to gain fodder. ‘I firmly believe that everybody doing the same job at the same level should get the same pay,’ he said.” [Las Vegas Sun, 8/12/14]

2014: Heck Effectively Voted Against A Valid-For-Three-Months-Only Version Of The Paycheck Fairness Act, Which Have Made It Easier For Women To Successfully Sue Their Employers For Pay Discrimination, And Increase Employer Penalties In Such Cases. In September 2014, Heck effectively voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have added “the text of a measure (HR 377) to tighten prohibitions on pay discrimination based on sex.” Specifically, it would have added the Paycheck Fairness Act, which according to the Congressional Research Service, would “increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for ‘equal work,’ and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid [Equal Pay Act] EPA liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law.” The underlying bill funded the government through December 11, 2014; and the proposed amendment stated that the equal pay provisions would be in effect only through that date. The vote was on a motion to recommit the bill and report it back with the specified amendment; the House rejected the motion by a vote of 199 to 228. [House Vote 508, 9/17/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/17/14; H.R. 377, 1/23/13; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13; H.J.Res. 124, 9/17/14; Congressional Record, 9/17/14]

#EqualPay

Published: Apr 12, 2016