ERIC Number: ED254595
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1985-Mar-2
Reference Count: 0
Statement of the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division before The Federalist Society Symposium on Equality and the Law.
Reynolds, Wm. Bradford
Comparable worth is a concept not merely alien but also inferior to the traditions of the American people. The thesis that jobs of "comparable worth" demand pay equivalency--at least as between male-dominated and female-dominated occupations--is unworthy of serious attention in both legal and economic terms. The consequences of accepting in the United States a system of compensation based on comparable worth would all be bad. The main criticisms of comparable worth are: (1) it is concerned neither with employment discrimination nor compensation discrimination but with the redistribution of wealth along gender lines; (2) it is difficult to determine how one would ascertain whether a certain job was comparable in value to another; (3) in an open economy individual compensation is determined not by the intrinsic societal value of the job but by the marketplace factors of supply and demand; (4) the wage gap between genders can be explained by factors other than gender-based discrimination; (5) as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires only a showing of intentional discrimination, the demands of comparable worth go far beyond Federal civil rights legislation; and (6) comparable worth would increase taxes, require expensive administration, and increase unemployment. (RDN)
Publication Type: Opinion Papers
Education Level: N/A
Authoring Institution: Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Civil Rights Div.
Identifiers: Civil Rights Act 1964 Title VII; Comparable Worth
Note: Statement made at Georgetown University Law Center (Washington, DC, March 2, 1985).