Skip to main content

Male lawmaker tells U.S. Rep. Susan Wild she doesn't understand gender pay equity bill she co-sponsored

March 29, 2019

A debate in the U.S. House of Representatives over pay equity took on additional gendered tones when a male lawmaker repeatedly questioned whether U.S. Rep. Susan Wild understood the bill she was co-sponsoring.

Wild, a Lehigh Valley lawmaker and longtime civil litigator, was on the House floor Wednesday opposing an amendment that Rep. Bradley Byrne, R-Ala., had proposed to the Paycheck Fairness Act. That measure seeks to eliminate gender-based pay inequity, and Wild said Byrne's tweaks would have added ambiguity to a section outlining allowable reasons employers could cite to justify a pay difference.

Byrne disagreed, rising several times to say Wild must be confused by the bill and had not read his amendment, which he argued "actually solves the problem proposed by the lady."

"Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the lady," Byrne said. "I don't think she understands what that language actually means and how it's been interpreted by the courts and how it may be totally misinterpreted against plaintiffs in these types of lawsuits."

The Equal Pay Act says an employer is not liable for gender pay disparity if the disparity is due to merit, seniority, quality of production, or a "factor other than sex."

Wild said the last criteria — "factor other than sex" — has been interpreted broadly by the courts, and that the bill sought to narrow it, saying such a factor must be bona fide, job-related, and required by business necessity.

The Republican lawmaker's amendment would have removed the definition of "factor other than sex," and replaced the phrase with "bona fide business-related factor defense."

Wild said the amendment was "a clear attempt" to add ambiguity and undermine the bill's objective of preventing employers from paying women less than men for the same job.

"As a practicing attorney for over 30 years, I can tell you this was not the first time someone has attempted to avoid an argument over the merits of the law using condescension and dismissal," Wild said in a statement to The Morning Call.

Wild said she supports the measure because of the ramifications that the earnings gap has on families.

"When we restrict the potential of women, we restrict our families, our communities, and our economy," she said.

The bill later passed the U.S. House on a vote of 242-187, with seven Republicans joining Democrats in support.

Image
mansplain