FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3121781114> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3121781114 endingPage "912" @default.
• W3121781114 startingPage "889" @default.
• W3121781114 abstract "Ever since the Supreme Court’s short-lived decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire Company, the equal pay movement has coalesced around the Paycheck Fairness Act as the legal reform strategy for addressing the gender wage gap. The centerpiece of the Act would tighten the Factor Other Than Sex defense (FOTS) to require the employer’s sex-neutral factor to be bona fide, job-related for the position in question, and consistent with business necessity. Even without the Paycheck Fairness Act, some recent lower court decisions have interpreted the existing Equal Pay Act to set limits on the nondiscriminatory factors that can satisfy the FOTS defense, effectively incorporating a business necessity standard to assess the strength of the employer’s justification for the pay disparity. This move to heighten judicial scrutiny of the FOTS defense is not without controversy. Some critics of the Paycheck Fairness Act have charged that requiring an employer to use a bona fide, business-justified factor to defend a pay disparity would turn the equal pay claim into a disparate impact claim, leaving it unmoored from its doctrinal and normative foundations. Others question whether the strategy goes far enough to make a difference in plaintiffs’ poor success rates, since it does nothing to relieve the problem of courts requiring strict similarity between comparators, a problem that would remain as a roadblock to proving a prima facie equal pay case. This article surveys recent developments in the Equal Pay Act case law interpreting the FOTS defense and considers how these developments compare to the changes proposed in the Paycheck Fairness Act. It then argues that the Supreme Court’s recent pregnancy discrimination decision in Young v. UPS, which uses unjustified impact to infer discriminatory intent, can help respond to the criticism of the proposed changes to the FOTS. The Court in Young took a similar step in incorporating a business necessity test to smoke out employer intent in a disparate treatment framework. Finally, the article defends judicial scrutiny of the employer’s business justifications for unequal pay as a way to ensure that the equal pay laws move beyond a narrow understanding of pay discrimination as conscious animus to encompass implicit bias. In addition to making the equal pay claim more likely to succeed in litigation, the tightening of the FOTS defense brings to the forefront the core issue in the politics of pay equality: the legitimacy of market explanations for paying women less to do substantially equal work." @default.
• W3121781114 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3121781114 creator A5000189825 @default.
• W3121781114 date "2016-01-01" @default.
• W3121781114 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3121781114 title "Reviving Paycheck Fairness: Why and How the Factor-Other-Than-Sex Defense Matters" @default.
• W3121781114 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W3121781114 type Work @default.
• W3121781114 sameAs 3121781114 @default.
• W3121781114 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3121781114 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3121781114 hasAuthorship W3121781114A5000189825 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConcept C159717818 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConcept C2776050585 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConcept C2776889015 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConcept C2777388388 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConceptScore W3121781114C144133560 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConceptScore W3121781114C159717818 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConceptScore W3121781114C162324750 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConceptScore W3121781114C17744445 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConceptScore W3121781114C190253527 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConceptScore W3121781114C199539241 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConceptScore W3121781114C2776050585 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConceptScore W3121781114C2776889015 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConceptScore W3121781114C2777388388 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConceptScore W3121781114C2778272461 @default.
• W3121781114 hasConceptScore W3121781114C97460637 @default.
• W3121781114 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W3121781114 hasLocation W31217811141 @default.
• W3121781114 hasOpenAccess W3121781114 @default.
• W3121781114 hasPrimaryLocation W31217811141 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W1497497291 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W1511288002 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W1538165809 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W1555818142 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W1939472758 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W2016517378 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W2020292811 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W202207479 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W2032089548 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W2073107048 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W2076626981 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W2530260367 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W2610689009 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W2926164648 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W3009466769 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W3091561605 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W3124618845 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W3124906051 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W3125463918 @default.
• W3121781114 hasRelatedWork W3156779006 @default.
• W3121781114 hasVolume "52" @default.
• W3121781114 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3121781114 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3121781114 magId "3121781114" @default.
• W3121781114 workType "article" @default.