INTRODUCTION OF THE FAIR PAY ACT OF 2026

On 2026-05-04, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) delivered a floor speech titled "INTRODUCTION OF THE FAIR PAY ACT OF 2026" in the House. The speech addressed the economy and also covered taxes, the environment.

INTRODUCTION OF THE FAIR PAY ACT OF 2026

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 77 (Monday, May 4, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 77 (Monday, May 4, 2026)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E412] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] INTRODUCTION OF THE FAIR PAY ACT OF 2026 ______ HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON of the district of columbia in the house of representatives Monday, May 4, 2026 Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Fair Pay Act of 2026. This bill would require that if men and women are doing comparable work, they must be paid comparable wages. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), the first of the great civil rights statutes of the 1960s, has grown creaky with age and needs updating to reflect the new workforce, in which women work as much as men. As the first woman to chair the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where I enforced the EPA, I introduce this bill on behalf of the average female worker, who is often first steered to, and then locked into, jobs with wages that are deeply influenced by the gender of individuals who have traditionally held such jobs. The pay disparity most women face today stems mainly from the segregation of women and men in different jobs and women in female-dominated jobs being paid systematically less. For example, if a woman is an emergency services operator, a female-dominated profession, she should not be paid less than a fire dispatcher, a male-dominated profession, simply because each of these jobs has been dominated by one gender. We need more aggressive strategies to break through the societal barriers present throughout history, as well as employer-steering based on gender, which is as old as paid employment itself. What may be the best case for a stronger and updated EPA occurred in Congress in 2003, when female custodians in the House and Senate won an EPA case after showing that female employees were paid a dollar less per hour for doing the same or similar work as male employees. Had those women not been represented by their union, they would have had an almost impossible task in using the rules for bringing and sustaining an EPA class action lawsuit. This bill would not change the legal burden. Under this bill, as under the EPA, the burden would be on the plaintiff to prove discrimination. The plaintiff must show that the reason for the disparate treatment is gender discrimination, not legitimate market factors. Remedies to achieve comparable pay for men and women are not radical or unprecedented. State governments, in red and blue states alike, have shown that it is possible to eliminate the part of the pay gap that is due to job-steering. Many state governments have adjusted wages for female-dominated professions, raising pay for teachers, nurses, clerical workers, librarians and other female-dominated jobs that paid less than comparable male-dominated jobs. Minnesota, for example, implemented a pay equity plan when it found that traditionally female jobs paid 20 percent less than comparable traditionally male jobs. There may well be some portion of the gender wage gap that is traceable to market factors, but states have shown that you can tackle the gender discrimination-based wage gap without interfering in the market system. States generally have closed the wage gap over a period of four to five years at a one-time cost of no more than three to four percent of payroll. Unequal pay has been built into the way women have been treated since Adam and Eve. To dislodge such deep-seated and pervasive treatment, we must go to the source, the traditionally female occupations, where pay is linked with gender and always has been. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. ____________________