House Committee on Education and Labor
U.S. House of Representatives

Good afternoon. We’re here today to consider the “Paycheck Fairness Act,” yet another bill with a catchy name that masks its more troubling intentions.  Of course, members on the other side of the aisle can call this legislation whatever they like, but I think a more descriptive title would be the “Trial Lawyer Paycheck Expansion Act.”

This bill isn’t about paycheck fairness.  It’s already against federal law to discriminate, in pay or other employment practices, on the basis of sex.  And rightfully so.  In 1963, Congress established the Equal Pay Act, or EPA, within the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The EPA makes it illegal to pay different wages to employees of the opposite sex for equal work.

In addition to the EPA, Congress has enacted a comprehensive code of anti-discrimination rules based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Together, these laws protect against sex discrimination, and they provide appropriate remedies for victims.  What we’re debating today is not whether sex discrimination in the workplace should be permitted.  That question has been answered – we agree that such discrimination should not be tolerated, and that is why it is a direct violation of not one but two federal laws.

What we’re actually debating today is whether it should be easier for trial lawyers to cash in under the Equal Pay Act, and whether it should be more difficult for employers to make legitimate employment decisions based on factors other than sex.

If we look a little closer at the legislation, its true intentions become crystal clear.  For instance, the bill expands the types of damages that can be awarded under the EPA, allowing compensatory and punitive damages even if the alleged discrimination was not intentional.  Opening EPA claims to virtually unlimited damages does nothing to create a more fair pay system, but it would certainly make such claims more appealing to trial lawyers, who are often compensated by taking a percentage of jury awards.

Legitimate wage disparity is a serious issue.  Wage discrimination is prohibited under federal law, and should be rooted out aggressively.  But if Democrats were serious about addressing workers’ wage concerns, there are far better ways to do it than through another trial lawyer payday.

Members on our side of the aisle plan to offer a series of amendments that are designed to address real wage and workplace concerns.  Should the majority reject our pro-worker reforms, I would expect to strongly oppose passage of this bill that does nothing to promote true paycheck fairness.  I yield back.

# # #