ANNAPOLIS | A Maryland effort to close the pay gap between men and women hit a roadblock Wednesday, as state senators couldn’t agree on a provision to allow those who believe they have been paid unfairly to sue their employers.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Susan Lee, Montgomery Democrat, would prevent employer discrimination in pay and employment based on gender identity and would not allow businesses to punish employees who discuss their salaries.
Some senators took issue with a provision that would allow workers or former employees to sue their employer within three years of discovering their pay inequity. This means that workers in a company for 15 years who realize they had been paid less than a similarly employed co-worker would have three years to file a lawsuit.
Sen. H. Wayne Norman, Cecil Republican, argued the provision would end up harming small businesses. He said that current law requires companies to hold employment records for seven years, after which they can be discarded. Employers would feel the need to preserve all records in case of a future suit, an expensive task for smaller businesses, Mr. Norman said.
Opposition to that provision crossed the aisle.
“I don’t pay everybody the same based on what their job is. I pay based on what they bring experience-wise, certainly not based on gender or anything else,” said Sen. Robert A. Zirkin, Baltimore County Democrat. “I know that’s OK under the bill, but 15 years later, if I don’t have the records, how do I possibly defend that?”
Bill sponsors defended the provision as a way to allow employees who have discovered they did not get a fair shake to do something about it when they discover it, regardless of how much time has passed.
Sen. Jamie Raskin, Montgomery Democrat, pointed to the 2007 Lilly Ledbetter case: Ms. Ledbetter retired from the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. in 1998 after having worked there 19 years. Years later she discovered she had been paid unfairly and filed a lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually dismissed her suit her claim because she did not file it within 180 days from her first paycheck.
Mr. Raskin said that is why employees deserve additional time to file a lawsuit.
Others questioned why the measure is necessary, noting that the state already has a nondiscrimination law that protects employees from being discriminated against based on sex.
Sen. Stephen Waugh, St. Mary’s Republican, said allowing employers to get involved in determining an employee’s gender identity for payment purposes is a slippery slope.
“If I’m an employer, and I hire someone who walks in, I’m going to have to make some kind of determination, probably as they’re filling out their application, on what their gender is, so I can [record] this person for future analysis and tracking,” he said. “If that’s going to change over time, I may or may not be aware of it. And certainly in today’s environment, I’m going to be really, really hesitant to make any kind of judgment about someone’s identity as it changes over time.”
Democrats called that “ludicrous.”
“They’re saying, ’I want to know if you transition from male to female, so I can pay you less.’ Or conversely, the other way, ’Oh my, you’re now a man, dang, I got to pay you more,’” said Sen. Richard S. Madaleno, Montgomery Democrat. “The irony is, you’re making the case for the bill because you’re saying, ’I need to know gender in order to establish pay.’”
“This is talking about equal pay for equal work. For me, it’s real simple,” said Sen. Nathaniel McFadden, Baltimore Democrat. “Whatever the job is, whatever the classification is, whatever the salary is, a man, a woman, whatever, should get the same thing. Why are we making this so difficult?”
• Anjali Shastry can be reached at ashastry@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.