Gender Pay Gap Analysis

Madison Sosa

As partial fulfillment of the requirements for The Bachelor of Arts Degree With Honors In Law and Social Thought College of Arts and Letters

Faculty Thesis Director: ______Dr. Jerry Van Hoy Honors Program Director: ______Dr. Melissa Valiska Gregory Honors Dean: ______Dr. Heidi Appel

The University of Toledo May 2018

Abstract

The gender wage gap in the United States has been an ongoing issue since women entered the workforce during the nineteenth century. There is no argument that the gap has become much smaller over time and is at its lowest today. Nonetheless, although great progress has been made towards achieving equal pay, there still exists a gap between men and women’s annual salary. Accordingly, the public continues to debate why this gap exists. Is the gender wage gap present because of gender discrimination or are other factors at play? Throughout this honors thesis, I will explore this question and the arguments that attempt to provide a valid answer.

First, I explain why the gender wage gap is an essential topic in today’s society, while clarifying vocabulary used when discussing this subject. Next, I describe in- depth two common arguments that arise when considering what has caused the gender wage gap. The first argues that the gap results from gender discrimination in the workforce. Promoters of this argument believe that the only way to achieve equal pay is to eliminate gender discrimination. The second argument holds that gender discrimination is not the most prominent factor affecting the wage gap.

Instead, advocates of this argument suggest that women’s career choices are the main cause of the gender wage gap. I then discuss how the law interacts with these positions. I illustrate legal cases that prohibit gender discrimination and also cases that fall short in disallowing gender discrimination in the workforce. Finally, I argue that both positions have valid claims supported by substantial academic work. I conclude that both gender discrimination and the career choices of women play a role in maintaining the gender wage gap.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my thesis director, Dr. Jerry Van Hoy, for his support and guidance throughout the process of completing my thesis project. I am grateful for the knowledge and resources he has bestowed upon me that have inspired and enriched my writing skills. I would also like to thank my Honors Program director,

Dr. Melissa Gregory, for her assistance in completing my thesis project. She is dutifully dedicated to her honors students, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to work with her on my thesis project. Thank you to Dr. Kristin Keith and Dr. Barbara Coventry, who graciously offered their time towards growing my knowledge on the subject for this thesis project. I also thank my family and friends for their support throughout the completion of this project.

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….ii

Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………………………………….iii

Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………………………...... iv

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………...5

Chapter One: Position on Discrimination……………………………….……………………………...7

Chapter Two: Position on Lifecycle Human Capital Framework...... 19

Chapter Three: Interaction with Law...... 25

Conclusion...... 28

Works Cited...... 30

Gender Pay Gap Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The gender pay gap in the United States has been an issue of debate since women entered the workforce during the nineteenth century. There is no doubt that the gap has become much smaller over time and is at its lowest today. However, while great progress has been made towards achieving equal pay, there still exists a gap between men and women’s annual salary. A debate endures among the public regarding the reason this gap exists. Is the gender wage gap present because of gender discrimination or are other factors at play? Throughout this honors thesis, I will explore this question and the arguments that attempt to provide a valid answer.

Gender discrimination is an important problem within the workforce, however, different life choices made by men and women are also factors affecting the gender pay gap.

Before elaborating on the arguments explaining where the wage gap stems from, I would like to clarify vocabulary that can cause confusion when this topic is discussed. Oftentimes, articles and essays on this subject will pose the question,

“Does the gender wage gap exist?” This can cause misunderstanding, as there is no real argument over whether or not the gap truly exists. Scholars on both sides of this argument agree that there is a percentage that differentiates men’s average pay from women’s in the United States. It can be agreed upon that an argument holding that there is not a gender pay gap in the United States would be inaccurate. Instead, 6 there is controversy and debate over the question of why this existing gap still remains today. Are women making career choices that generally result in statistically lower pay, or does gender discrimination in the workforce remain so extreme that women’s pay is suffering? Although the gender wage gap is a global issue, this essay will specifically explore statistics and studies that focus on the

United States.

CHAPTER ONE: POSITION ON DISCRIMINATION

One of the most prevalent arguments about the gender pay gap is that it is due to gender discrimination in the workforce. Gender discrimination can occur in several different forms, the most common transpiring during the hiring process and through misrepresentative job titles. For example, in biased businesses that prefer male employees, male applicants automatically have a better chance than female applicants during the hiring process. Other businesses may use job titles to cover up gender discrimination. While men and women conduct the same type and amount of work, the male employee is paid more simply due to a more glorified title.

There are many studies that provide examples of men and women either working in the same field or having the same job positions, and yet men are being paid more. Pearson uses an example involving the United States women’s national soccer team to exemplify gender discrimination. Although the women’s team generated more in revenue than did the men’s team in 2015, members of the women’s team only earned around a quarter of their male counterparts. A member of the women’s team stated that her bonus after winning a World Cup for the United

States would be $315,000 less than if she were a male soccer player. Five members of the women’s team filed suit against the United States Soccer Federation to fight for the same pay as their male counterparts (Pearson 2-8).

Other studies have shown that working mothers often pay a “mommy penalty,” which happens to be the opposite effect than fathers’ experience. The data

8 suggests that after having children, women earn three percent less than women without children. This is believed to be gender discrimination because fathers earn about fifteen percent more than men without children. Part of this disproportion may be due to women taking more time off to take care of a child and fathers doing just the opposite, increasing their hours. However, according to the Joint Economic

Committee Democratic Staff, “…studies suggest that fathers may also be rewarded beyond what differences in occupation or experience would justify” (Joint Economic

Committee 14). Because employers may presume that it is more likely for women to interrupt their careers to care for children, they may consequently view a female employee with children to have less commitment than a male employee. However, employers may view men with children as having an increase of commitment to provide for their families (Joint Economic Committee 12-20). Each of these examples of gender pay discrimination, the United States Women’s National Soccer

Team and the “mommy penalty,” offer at least a small amount of insight into the issue of gender discrimination in the workforce.

A study by the Columbia Business School, focusing on STEM careers, shows gender bias is particularly prevalent. The experiments conducted showed that hiring managers chose male applicants twice as often for careers in science, technology, engineering and math. Dr. Reuben, a professor at Columbia Business

School, notes that more studies that explain the influx of men in STEM fields with women’s interests and choices are essential. However, the Columbia Business

School study reveals a high level of gender bias that is also contributing to a lack of women working in STEM fields. During this study, male and female applicants for a

9 position completed a short math assignment, showing how quickly each could add up four two-digit numbers over a period of four minutes. After completing this assignment and receiving their scores, the applicants then each had an interview with the hiring manager of the position. When both male and female hiring managers had no other information than the applicant’s gender, they were more likely to hire a male over a female. The results changed slightly when the applicants were able to communicate how well they did on the math test to the hiring manager.

However, under these circumstances, the results still showed that women were only half as likely to be hired as men. Although many female applicants showed they were capable of scoring higher than their competitors, their achievements were unfortunately disregarded (Columbia Business School 1-4).

This study from the Columbia Business School is crucial because it demonstrates gender hiring discrimination. The business school’s experiment shows that gender discrimination occurs before an employee is brought into a business because of a pre-conceived bias rather than ongoing gender discrimination occurring throughout the employee’s time at the business. It is important to differentiate these two types of gender discrimination because of the way legal consequences differ for each. It would be difficult to succeed with a lawsuit based on gender discrimination within the hiring process because of a lack of evidence. An employer being sued under these circumstances could easily provide reasoning behind why a particular male was hired over other female applicants, even if the decision was primarily motivated through a gender bias. However, if gender discrimination were taking place within a business among current employees,

10 substantial action could be taken to find evidence, such as comparing job responsibilities with pay. Because it is challenging to tackle hiring discrimination that may be occurring across businesses, the Columbia Business School study is important to consider when discussing the gender pay gap. It provides evidence of hiring discrimination that would otherwise remain hidden.

While the Columbia Business School study gives credibility to the argument that gender discrimination operates throughout the hiring process, it is important to remember that this study is not exhaustive of all fields, nor is it representative of all hiring managers in STEM fields. The experiment only covers hiring practices in

STEM fields, so conclusions cannot be made about gender hiring discrimination across all areas of work from this study alone. However, the study does serve as one helpful example suggesting that gender discrimination is not a myth. This study also does not prove that all STEM related businesses exhibit discriminatory hiring practices. Instead, it shows that there are hiring managers in current STEM fields that have a gender bias towards hiring male employees and thus provides an example of what gender hiring discrimination looks like in practice.

A study conducted by the American Association of University Women in

2012 shows that a pay gap exists between male and female college graduates just one year after graduation, even though these two demographics have a lot in common professionally. In 2009, it was found that the majority of men and women with bachelor’s degrees were young, single, without children, working full time, and were not particularly experienced in the workplace. Because these similar qualities are important to employers, it would be fair to assume that pay should not

11 differentiate between young males and females. Unfortunately, this is not what statistics show. Instead, one year after college graduation, men immediately earn more income than women. Christianne Corbett and Catherine Hill, authors of the

American Association of University Women study, “Graduating to a Pay Gap,” write,

“Women working full time earned $35,296 on average, while men working full time earned $42,918” (Corbett and Hill 9). These figures show that female graduates earn about eighty-two percent of what their male counterparts earn. Little progress has been made since 2001, as this same study was also conducted that year, and women earned eighty percent compared to their male peers, only slightly lower than what the results showed in 2009. Corbett and Hill’s study examines the reasoning behind why this gap appears especially early on in men and women’s careers. The study considers factors such as college major, occupation, working hours, economic division, and presence of children. Corbett and Hill assess the gender differences in earnings, controlling for these collective influences (9-21).

Corbett and Hill sought to find an explanation for the pay gap through the kinds of colleges and universities men and women graduate from. However, this explanation was not supported by their research. It turns out that most women and men graduate from similar types of colleges and universities. Moreover, with some variation, the colleges and universities graduated from are similarly selective. This shows that the types of education men and women are receiving are similar in scope. However, the study found that the pay gap remained in every category of institution, along with levels of selectivity. Comparing male and female graduates of both public and private colleges, women earned less than ninety percent of what

12 their male counterparts earned one year after graduation. Among university graduates from public universities, women earned eighty-six percent of what their male peers earned. Private university graduates had the largest gap, as women earned seventy-five percent of what men did. It seems clear that women receive less pay than men who graduate from schools of similar reputations.

To tackle this subject from a different angle, Corbett and Hill looked to another educational factor that could be contributing to the gender pay gap. They conducted a study to compare how varying grade performance may be affecting the pay gap. However, academic achievement did not provide any further explanation as to why women earn less than men. The study showed that higher grade point averages in general tended to correlate with higher salaries. However, when men and women with comparable grade point averages were examined, men still received higher earnings than women (Corbett, Hill 9-21).

Another factor Corbett and Hill considered was the different path in fields of study that men and women take. It was found that men were more likely to major in fields such as engineering, science, and computer technology, which ultimately are the fields that provide higher paying salaries in general. On the other hand, women were more likely to major in areas of health care and education, which did not show as high paying salaries in the job market as did the male-dominant fields. While this segregation of men and women in college degrees and the job market helps to provide a partial explanation of the gender pay gap, it is also important to consider how pay varies among men and women who pursue the same degrees.

Unfortunately, the pay gap does not disappear among men and women in the same

13 fields. Corbett and Hill’s study shows that even when men and women study the same major, it is still more common for women to earn less than men one year after graduating from college. When looking at business majors, there is about a seven thousand dollar gap between the earnings of men and women (women earning less). There were some fields where women and men had similar earnings, such as health care and education. However, in fields such as engineering, computer sciences, and social sciences, the study found that women earned only between seventy-seven and eighty-eight percent of what men earned. Through examining the similarities and differences women and men achieve through types of educational institutions, grades, and fields of study, Corbett and Hill conclude that these educational factors do play a role in helping to explain a portion of the gender pay gap. Specifically, the gender differences in college major are what shed the most light on the differences in pay. However, because there is still unequal pay found between men and women within the same majors, the pay gap is not fully explained by educational factors alone (Corbett and Hill 9-21).

Stepping away from the educational perspective on the gender pay gap,

Corbett and Hill also provide research on gender differences in employment. This research also helps to explain part of the gender pay gap. Although gender differences in employment do not explain the pay gap in its entirety, they are another piece of the puzzle. Given their research on educational differences, it is not surprising that male and female graduates tend to work in different occupational fields. Women are more likely to work as administrative assistants, teachers, social services professionals, and health care providers, while men are more likely to work

14 in management occupations, math, computer, and physical science professions.

However, although the outcomes of the occupational patterns line up with the data collected on differing majors between genders, Corbett and Hill argue that occupational segregation is still a major issue for society, especially among students who graduate in the same fields. Corbett and Hill write, “Among social science graduates, for example, men were more likely to work in business or management occupations (26 percent of men compared with 11 percent of women), while women were more likely to work as social services professionals (16 percent of women but only 6 percent of men), in health care occupations (7 percent of women compared with 1 percent of men), and as PK-12 educators (7 percent of women compared with 2 percent of men)” (Corbett and Hill 16). A different example follows a similar pattern. Women with degrees in engineering were far more likely to work in a white-collar occupation other than engineering, science, or business than were men. There exists a major difference in pay among men and women who graduate with the same degrees, which is playing a significant role in the overall gender pay gap. This does not necessarily mean that these differences in pay are due to gender discrimination; however discrimination may be a contributing factor to the discrepancy (Corbett and Hill 9-21).

Corbett and Hill use a relevant court case to help exemplify the different arguments over whether the pay gap is due to discrimination or job choices made by women. The example is a court case against Lucky Stores. Both sides of the case agreed that, on average, female store employees earned between seventy-six and eighty two percent of their male counterparts because of occupational segregation.

While the plaintiff’s argument held that the difference in pay was because of discrimination, the employer argued that it was a result of women and men’s occupational choices. The main claim in the plaintiff’s case was that women were continuously placed into lower paying jobs, while men were typically given higher paying positions. The plaintiff argued that this is unfair, most importantly because there was no significant difference found between the men and women’s education or experience. However, Lucky Stores defended with the argument that women and men were assigned to different positions based on employee preferences. A manager testified that while women were more interested in cash register work, men were more interested in floor work. The judge ruled “…’sex discrimination was the standard operating procedure at Lucky with respect to placement, promotion, movement to full-time positions, and the allocation of additional hours’ (Stender v.

Lucky Store, 803 F. Supp. 259, N.D. Cal. 1992)” (Corbett and Hill 18). While it is likely that both individual choices and gender discrimination contribute to occupational segregation and consequently, the pay gap, this court case demonstrates a real example of one form of gender discrimination and the results that follow (Corbett and Hill 18).

The work of Corbett and Hill explains other factors that contribute to the gender pay gap, such as the difference in working hours and variation in economic sectors. Research had shown that among full-time workers, men report working a greater amount of hours than women. The study also explains that men and women work in different economic sectors. For example, men are more likely to end up working in the for-profit sector, while women are more likely to work in the

16 nonprofit sector. These variations between men and women are important to consider when looking at pay, as they help to explain a portion of the pay gap.

However, similar to other factors considered throughout this study, when all independent variables are controlled for men earn more than their equivalent female peers earn. Regrettably, Corbett and Hill concluded that one-third of the gender pay gap could not be explained by any of the factors they considered.

Education and employment factors provide explanations for a substantial part of the pay gap; however, they do not explain the gap in full. When men and women who had the same major, attended institutions of the same caliber, and worked the same amount of hours within the same job and in the same economic sector, the pay gap still remained. Therefore, the only other differentiating factor that exists between these women and men is gender. Corbett and Hill controlled for all factors that they had previously found to affect earnings but still discovered that college-educated, full time female employees earned an unexplained seven percent less than their male counterparts did only one year out of college. While it can be easy and less controversial to claim that the gender pay gap is not a discriminatory gender issue through data found on women and men’s educational and occupational preferences,

Corbett and Hill’s study, “Graduating to a Pay Gap,” provides a thorough investigation that suggests that a legitimate, unexplained portion of the pay gap is likely from discrimination. The findings from this study are imperative to consider when examining the main factors that contribute to the gender pay gap, as this unexplained portion could only realistically be due to gender inequality (Corbett,

Hill 9-21).

Interview with Dr. Barbara Coventry

I had the opportunity to interview Dr. Barbara Coventry, who teaches in the

University of Toledo’s Department of Sociology and Anthropology, on the topic of the gender pay gap to learn from her experience and research. Dr. Coventry is of the opinion that discrimination plays a major role in the gender wage gap. She explained that there are many hiring managers who favor alike people, particularly the white male demographic. When I asked her how such discrimination could be ongoing without legal interference, she responded that differences in job titles could be a primary method of hiding discrimination. For example, male and female employees could be doing nearly identical tasks within a particular business. However, it is possible that the male employee’s title is more prestigious and of greater importance than the female’s, resulting in a higher wage. While unequally paying two employees to do similar jobs is unjust and outright discrimination, it can be difficult to challenge this action legally because of the difference in title and a possible mild variation of tasks. Another way discriminatory practices could avoid legal action occurs especially within private businesses where pay rates are not openly shared as they are in public institutions. Employees of private companies are more prone to being unaware of unfair pay differences that could be occurring.

Dr. Coventry referred to studies she has researched showing that single, older women make more than married women but still less than single, older men.

This finding is intriguing because although it does suggest that being a married woman with potential children can have an effect on pay, there is still something left unexplained regarding the gap between single, older women and single, older men.

Dr. Coventry and I ended our discussion talking about Equal Pay Day in the United

States, which is April 10th. This day marks the date in any new year that women have to continue working through to earn the equivalent of men’s pay in a year.

While this day alone does not provide solid evidence of discrimination, it creates a powerful image of the difference in pay between women and men.

CHAPTER TWO: POSITION ON LIFECYCLE HUMAN CAPITAL FRAMEWORK

The opposing argument that arises when debating over the causes of the gender pay gap is that the gap is a result of occupational choices made by men and women. Although a lot of progress has been made since women originally entered into the workforce, aspects of social norms that existed before women’s entrance into the workforce still reside today. For example, it is still stereotypical among heterosexual married couples for women to do a majority of the domestic duties.

Advocates for this argument believe that these social norms, which place a large domestic burden on women, have a great effect on the differences in earnings between genders.

Solomon Polachek provides evidence from various experiments, supporting the claim that the gender earnings gap is a result of the differences in women and men’s educational and occupational decisions. One of the most prominent pieces of evidence used throughout this work is the way in which the pay gap grows larger as women and men grow older. Polachek writes, “For 16-24-year-olds, the earnings gap is 4.7% yet, for 55-64-year-olds, it rises to a whopping 24.8%” (Polachek 2) His point is that the pay gap is fairly small for the younger demographic; however, it increases as men and women age. While even a small gap between young men and women should not be acceptable based on discriminatory grounds, this widening of the gap is important because it provides clues to the cause of the gender pay gap

(Polachek 1-9).

Polachek claims that discrimination cannot explain the differentiating wage patterns between men and women. He writes, “The Oxford English Dictionary defines discrimination as ‘the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex’” (Polachek 3). Although deliberately paying women less than men would fall under this description,

Polachek explains why it is important to consider the underlying details of the wage gap. Specifically, the varying groups of women who are paid significantly less helps to explain a portion of the gender pay gap. For example, Polachek clarifies that the gap between women and men who were never married constitutes 2.8%, while the gap between married men and women is close to over 20%. Similarly, the gender wage gap between young male and female workers is less than 5%, yet about 25% between men and women who are between the ages of 55 and 64. The idea is that there must be an explanation as to why the gap grows wider as men and women age but remains much smaller among the youth if gender discrimination is the explanation. The question posed by Polachek’s study is ‘What would be the purpose behind discriminating against older women, but not against younger women?’ A similar explanation is necessary for the similar pay between young, single women and men. If gender discrimination is the main issue, the underlying question is ‘Why are only single men and women being paid comparable salaries?’ Polachek argues that there are currently no valid resolutions to either of these questions. Therefore, there is a missing piece to the contention that the gender pay gap is a result of gender discrimination (Polachek 1-3).

This observation of the comparison of pay between the young and old demographics is also a supporting piece of evidence to the position that argues the gender wage gap is a result of women and men’s career choices. Polachek lays out a theory he calls the life-cycle human capital framework. The underlying idea is that the experience individuals accumulate throughout their working lives ultimately establishes their earnings. Polachek uses the human capital theory, which argues that working individuals invest in skills in order to enhance earnings in the future.

This is done through education, job training and work experience. Individuals who expect to work for a longer period of time typically invest a greater amount of their time towards steps that result in higher salaries. Accordingly, the rewards from these investments tend to be greater the longer one expects to be working. This theory is a key factor when examining the gender pay gap because of the way it leads to occupational segregation. Polachek writes, “Those who expect to drop out of work (perhaps to spend time raising a family, which is less prevalent currently than in previous decades) tend to choose jobs that require less training” (Polachek

5). Essentially, he is arguing that differences in amounts of investment ultimately result in differences in wages (Polachek, 4-5).

Because there is variation in the amount of career investment put in by women and men, this disparity is a contributing factor of the wage gap. Single women, who have future job expectations similar to those of single men, invest a similar amount, resulting in comparable wages between these two groups. There is a distinct difference found between working single women and working women with children because of the time often taken off of work for either childbearing or

22 child rearing. While this is a challenging consequence working women face, it is the reality of the current programs in society that fail to provide a way for women to continue working at the same pace as men, regardless of the decision to have children or not. Polachek explains that a productive response to this issue is to push policies that will allow women to work continuously without the consequences that follow from an improperly functioning system. For example, doing away with marriage taxes and advocating for low-cost day care for children would be two steps in the right direction towards a platform of equal earnings between men and women (Polachek 4-5).

Aside from such policies that support women in the workforce, Polachek ultimately concludes that because discrimination does not play a major role in the pay gap, the differences in pay between men and women should not be viewed as an issue that requires corrective action. Because he is concluding that differences in wages could be fully the result of working men and women’s choices, Polachek argues that there may be nothing to correct. From Polachek’s findings on the miniscule gap that exists between both young men and women and also single men and women, he writes that his conclusions are strongly supported. Moving forward, as the gender wage gap continues to decrease in most countries, government action needs to be taken to close the gap even further. Such action would include eradicating taxes that decrease wives’ incentives to work, repealing marriage taxes and promoting high quality, affordable day care for children (Polachek 1-9).

Interview with Dr. Kristin Keith

An interview I conducted with Dr. Kristin Keith, professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Toledo, aligns with Dr. Polachek’s argument using the human capital framework. Dr. Keith’s view on the gender wage gap is that it is actually a family wage gap. The family wage gap is the result of what happens when the division of labor within a family unit is unbalanced. For example, when women take on heavier roles in the household, this leaves them with less time to dedicate towards work. Although gender roles are changing and equalizing in today’s society, it is still common for a majority of household work and child care to fall on the woman. Relating this idea to differences in pay in the workforce, Dr. Keith introduced me to a term used in economics called the feedback loop, taken from a textbook written by Francine D. Blau, Marianne A. Ferber, and Anne E. Winkler titled

“The Economics of Women, Men, and Work.” The book describes the feedback loop as the relationship between the role gender plays in the division of labor within a family household and the gender differences that exist in labor market outcomes.

The uneven division of labor in the household results in a decent amount of a woman’s time being taken away from potential work. This lack of time can consequently result in women choosing careers with less responsibility and greater flexibility to make time for household responsibilities. Dr. Keith explained that the feedback loop is consistent with Polachek’s description of the human capital framework. An interesting perspective this text brings to the forefront is that the feedback loop results in a “vicious circle.” The authors write, “Discrimination against women in the labor market reinforces traditional gender roles in the family, while

24 adherence to traditional roles by women in the family provides a rationale for labor market discrimination” (Blau, Ferber, Winkler 269). Essentially, both social norms and discrimination have a negative effect on each other, holding a steady gender wage gap (Blau, Ferber, Winkler 253-269).

CHAPTER THREE: INTERACTION WITH LAW

The legal system plays a crucial role in the discussion of the gender pay gap, as part of its job is to stop discrimination from occurring or take corrective action when discrimination does occur. There was a time when women had very minimal rights, so taking a gender discrimination case to court was nearly inconceivable.

Fortunately, today equal rights and equal pay between men and women are expected. Therefore, discrepancies over such matters are commonly taken to court to be evaluated. While there are many success stories of women’s empowerment and equality being asserted under due process, some cases fall short of asserting equality between men and women.

A historical case of 1908, Muller v. Oregon, portrays an example of the courts failing to assert gender equality in the workforce. While it is not surprising for the time period, the state of Oregon enacted a law, which limited women to ten hours of work per week in factories and laundries. The Supreme Court decided this law did not violate the constitution, arguing, “…individual rights may be abridged because the state has a legitimate interest in the possible social effects of women’s work”

(Blau, Ferber and Winkler 272). Although an argument like this would never hold up in a court of law today, it is important to understand the extreme inequality that once existed between men and women in the workforce.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear is a crucial, more contemporary court case of 2007 on the topic of gender equality. After nineteen years of work, Lilly Ledbetter sued

Goodyear Tire for gender discrimination, specifically claiming that Goodyear violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Her argument was that the company was paying her less because of her gender, as she was paid less than her male counterparts doing the same job. Imperative to this case is that a Title VII provision requires that valid discrimination complaints must be made within one hundred eighty days of the employer’s discriminatory conduct. Because the annual salary review that the jury could examine occurred more than one hundred eighty days before Ledbetter’s complaint, the case was dismissed. It is a challenging idea to observe that the law enforces a strict timeframe for filing gender discrimination lawsuits. Nothing was done to tackle Ledbetter’s issue of discrimination because she missed a relatively short filing window. Although there is some merit to enforcing a filing deadline, there have been valid complaints that one hundred eighty days is not nearly enough time (Blau, Ferber, Winkler 278).

While the cases mentioned above failed to assert the basic rights of women’s equality, fortunately there are examples of the law protecting gender equality. In

Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corporation of 1970, Ida Phillips sued the Martin Marietta

Corporation for gender discrimination in the hiring process. Upon applying for a job with the corporation, Phillips was informed that the company would not accept job applications from women with preschool-age children. This case became an issue of gender because the business hired men with preschool-age children. The Supreme

Court found that the hiring practices of Martin Marietta Corporation were in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that there was no evidence found that having preschool-age children affects female job performance more than

27 it would for male job performance. Phillips found protection under the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as it requires the same minimum qualifications for male and female job applicants (Reuters 1-3).

Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co. (1970) is known as landmark case promoting equal pay for women in the workforce. The Wheaton Glass Company of Millville,

New Jersey tried to hide gender discrimination by the use of different job titles for the same tasks performed. Male employees were given the title “selector-packer- stackers,” while the female employees were titled “selector-packers.” With the difference in titles, the company found a way to pay male workers more than women. However, in 1970, Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co. was heard before the United

States Court of Appeals. The Court upheld that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 protects jobs that are significantly equal in performance, but not in job title. Accordingly, it was ruled illegal to pay women lower salaries than men when their tasks are of similar caliber. This case was crucial for upholding the Equal Pay Act and clearly defined how employers were expected to treat women in the workforce. Because of this case, successful dishonest use of job titles to get away with discrimination is a much greater challenge (Alice Paul Institute, 1).

CONCLUSION

The two main studies discussed in this thesis, Polachek and Corbett and Hill, each provide compelling arguments that support their conclusions. The trouble is that each of these convincing studies seems to contradict the other. Corbett and Hill find that after controlling for various components that definitively contribute to the pay difference between men and women, there is still part of the gap left unexplained, which must be attributed to discrimination. Polachek’s evidence supporting the lifecycle human capital framework also provides an explanation for the portion of the pay gap that is unresolved. While the two studies appear to be in opposition of one another, I find that they can work together. It has been proven that gender discrimination is a real issue in the workforce. Simultaneously, research has also shown that the lifecycle human capital framework describes some of the different life and work choices men and women tend to make. It is plausible that each of these theories addresses important aspects of the gender wage gap.

I believe both sides of the arguments behind what causes the gender pay gap have merit. Evidence shows that both life choices and gender discrimination must contribute to the gap that still exists today. If the gap is ever to disappear entirely, it is going to take both time and policy efforts. Specifically, protection against gender discrimination must be heightened and policy must be implemented to aid working mothers who wish to work considerable hours. It is vital that the public is educated

29 on the truth behind what specifically contributes to the gender pay gap, so that positive change can continue to close the gap and aid in reaching further equality.

Works Cited

Alice Paul Institute. “Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Company.” New Jersey Women's

History, 2014, www.njwomenshistory.org/discover/topics/schultz-v-

wheaton-glass-company/.

Blau, Francine D., Marianne A. Ferber, and Anne E. Winkler. The Economics of

Women, Men and Work. 7th ed., Pearson, 2014.

Columbia Business School. “New Research Proves Gender Bias Extraordinarily

Prevalent in Stem Careers.” Newsroom, Press Releases, 22 Nov. 2017,

www8.gsb.columbia.edu/newsroom/newsn/2700/new-research-proves-

gender-bias-extraordinarily-prevalent-in-stem-careers.

Corbett, Christianne, and Catherine Hill. “Graduating to a Pay Gap.” American

Association of University Women, Oct. 2012, pp. 9–21.

Joint Economic Committee. “Gender Pay Inequality.” A Report by the Joint Economic

Committee Democratic Staff, Apr. 2016, pp. 12–20.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear. 5 The Economics of Women, Men, and Work 278. United

States Court of Appeals. 29 May 2007. Print.

Muller v. Oregon. 5 The Economics of Women, Men, and Work 272. Oregon Supreme

Court. 24 Feb. 1908. Print.

Pearson, Catherine. “No, The Gender Pay Gap Isn't A Myth - And Here's Why.” The

Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 13 Dec. 2016,

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-the-gender-pay-gap-isnt-a-myth-and-

heres- why_us_5703cb8de4b0a06d5806e03f.

Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. United States Supreme Court. 25 Jan.

1971. FindLaw For Legal Professionals. Thomson Reuters, 2018. Web.

Polachek, Solamon. “Equal Pay Legislation and the Gender Wage Gap.” IZA World of

Labor, 2014, doi:10.15185/izawol.16.

Reuters, Thomson. “Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.” FindLaw For Legal

Professionals, 2018, caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/400/542.html.

Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Company. United States Court of Appeals. 1970. New

Jersey Women's History. Alice Paul Institute, 2014. Web.