How new Act will change your pay policies
August 14, 2008 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Law, Salary negotiations, Special Report

A bill’s working its way through Congress that could cause a lot of headaches for HR and anyone involved in hiring.
It’s called the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA), and it’s a proposal to strengthen the Equal Pay Act (EPA). The House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 247-178 right before Congress’ August recess.
Of course, HR always wants pay to be fair and non-discriminatory. But there’s plenty in the bill that would cause concern for employers and change the way compensation decisions are made.
Here’s what you need to know:
- No more “affirmative defense” — Under the EPA, companies stay off the hook when they can prove a difference in pay was caused by “any factor other than sex.” For example, a man may have been hired at a higher salary than a woman with the same job because he earned more at his previous position or negotiated for more pay when he got the job offer. Those are valid defenses under the EPA. But under the PFA, a wage differential would have to be directly related to performance or responsibility.
- Location doesn’t matter — The “establishment” clause of the EPA accounts for geographically-based wage differences — for example, an employee hired to work in New York City might make more than someone in a rural office. That’s OK, because they work in different “establishments.” In contrast, the PFA would let courts compare employees working anywhere in the country.
- No wage data confidentiality — One way many employers try to avoid co-worker conflict is keeping salary information confidential. The EPA lets companies make a policy to that effect and discipline employees who violate it. Under the PFA, that would be considered unlawful retaliation.
- Tougher record-keeping regs — The PFA would require companies to keep written documentation of how salaries are set and send annual reports to the EEOC about employees’ wages, sex, race and national origin.
- Bigger payouts — The EPA only lets companies sue for set amounts, such as back pay. But under the new bill, they could take claims before a jury to win uncapped punitive damages.
The bill still faces some opposition in the Senate, as well as the threat of a presidential veto. Still, it’s likely to get a big push from Democrats especially as the election nears. We’ll keep you posted as it moves forward.
(You can read the entire text of the bill here.)

August 15th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
This PFA bill is pretty scary!!!!!!!! We are losing so many of our freedoms as it is. This bill sounds like something out of the 1960’s in Communist Russia. Our Country is headed down a dangerous path right now. I hope we all take the right fork in the road soon! Those of us who live in rural areas (at least 500 miles from a big City) don’t want any more Government intervention in our lives. We fight our own battles & earn merits based on work ethic & integrity.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I think it’s great. I’ve been fighting tooth and nail my whole life to recieve equal pay. Enough with the good ole boy’s system. For those HR managers that are with fabulous companys that are equal all across the board- good for you! Unfortunately, I have yet to see fair pay practices in the South East!
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:30 am
“This PFA bill is pretty scary”
Yeah for employers who like to discriminate and pay their family exorbitant amounts of money to sit on their butt while employees who do the same job scrape for 7.00 / hour
“This bill sounds like something out of the 1960’s in Communist Russia.”
What?? So by paying people in rural areas the same as urban we would raise the standard of living across the country. And do away with silly disciplinary procedures for people who discuss their wage.
I hope it passes the only people who have something to fear when it passes is people like Walmart, Fed Ex, Large Multi nationals and people who already have so much wealth the only thing they focus on is how to increase it off the sweat of the proletariat