Equal Pay, Equal Employment Opportunity and Equal Enforcement of the Law for Women Symposium 5 Valparaiso University Law Review 1970-1971

5 Val. U. L. Rev. 326 (1970-1971)
Equal Pay, Equal Employment Opportunity and Equal Enforcement of the Law for Women

handle is hein.journals/valur5 and id is 336 raw text is: EQUAL PAY, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND
EQUAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW FOR WOMEN
CARUTHERS GHOLSON BERGER*
INTRODUCTION
The right to work, I had assumed was the most precious liberty
that man possesses. Man has indeed as much right to work as he
has to live, to be free, to own property. It does many men little
good to stay alive and free and propertied, if they cannot work.
To work means to eat. It also means to live.'
It is hoped that Justice Douglas, the author of the above quote, used
the word man generically to include all human beings. In a democratic,
capitalistic system there is no more important right than the right of
an individual, whether man or woman, to work for a livelihood.
Women as well as men should have equal opportunities to work,
to eat and to live. But this is not the case. Women are discriminated
against in employment by state governments whose legislatures have
passed laws barring them from certain employment. They are also dis-
criminated against by private employers, labor unions and employment
agencies in hiring, job placement and promotional opportunities. They
are even paid lower wages than men with whom they work side by side
on the same job. It was to remedy such rank injustices to American
women that two important laws were passed: the Equal Pay Act of
1963' and the sex discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.'
The Equal Pay Act, added as an amendment to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of
sex as follows:
No employer having employees subject to any provision of this
* Office of the Solicitor, Department of Labor. The views expressed in this ar-
ticle are those of the author and are not presented as the views of the Department of
Labor or any other government agency.
1. Barsky v. Board of Regents, 347 U.S. 442, 472 (1954) (dissenting opinion).
2. The courts have held that the right to work for a living is a fundamental right
which cannot be taken away by governmental action under the fifth and fourteenth
amendments. Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410 (1948); Truax v. Raich,
239 U.S. 33 (1915) ; Smith v. Texas, 233 U.S. 630 (1914) ; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118
U.S. 356 (1886).
3. 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (1964).
4. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (1964).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

What Is HeinOnline?

Purchase Access

Contact Us

Log In

NEED HELP?

CONTACT US

Get started

Subscribe to our Newsletter