Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T03:56:07.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Law, Markets, and the Institutional Construction of Gender Inequality in Pay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2009

Robert L. Nelson
Affiliation:
American Bar Foundation Chicago and Northwestern University, Illinois
William P. Bridges
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Chicago
Get access

Summary

The pay equity movement won its largest legal victory in 1983, when Judge Jack Tanner of the federal District Court of Western Washington found that the State of Washington had discriminated against workers in predominantly female jobs and awarded the plaintiffs a $400 million judgment. The AFSCME decision (so named because the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees brought the lawsuit) catapulted the pay equity issue into instant prominence. In its immediate aftermath, the number of states conducting pay equity studies doubled to thirty-four, and the number of articles on pay equity in leading newspapers quadrupled (McCann 1994, 54–59). The victory was shortlived, however. In 1985, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the AFSCME decision. Then judge, now justice, Anthony Kennedy pronounced, “Neither law nor logic deems the free market a suspect enterprise…. Title VII does not obligate [the State of Washington] to eliminate an economic inequality it did not create” (AFSCME, 1407). According to Justice Kennedy, the plaintiffs not only lacked a legal basis for redress, but the very nature of their thinking – their logic – was wrong. The Ninth Circuit authoritatively denounced plaintiffs' theory of gender-based wage inequality as inconsistent with a core institution of American society – the free market.

The reversal of the AFSCME decision had a devastating effect on the pay equity movement. Other courts followed the AFSCME precedent in rejecting similar claims. Reform activity in states and municipalities slowed to a trickle.

Type
Chapter
Information
Legalizing Gender Inequality
Courts, Markets and Unequal Pay for Women in America
, pp. 1 - 22
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×