The Equal Pay Act in the Courts: A De Facto White-Collar Exemption
![handle is hein.journals/nylr79 and id is 1887 raw text is: THE EQUAL PAY ACT IN THE COURTS:
A DE FACTO WHITE-COLLAR EXEMPTION
JULIENE JAMES*
The Equal Pay Act of 1963, though initially considered a victory for working
women, has proven unsuccessful for women executives, administrative personnel,
and professionals. This Note argues that plaintiffs bringing Equal Pay Act claims
have faced courts whose interpretation of the law has effectively excluded women in
higher level positions. Through an examination of the Act's history and the history
of similar exemptions in New Deal legislation, this Note argues that ideas about
work, imported from early conceptions of managers, executives, and professionals
in New Deal legislation, continue to influence courts' interpretation of the Act.
This Note offers two alternative solutions to this problem: The first prescription is
to reexamine the history surrounding the Equal Pay Act with the aim of including
workers who effectively have been excluded by judicial interpretation. The second
is to reinstate in the Equal Pay Act the exemption as originally enacted so that the
apparent inclusion of the these groups does not discourage legislative attempts to
correct the problem.
INTRODUCTION
Nature has given woman so much power that the law cannot afford
to give her less.1
Rosie the Riveter: saucy machinist, determined worker, one eye-
brow raised, icon of patriotism. Of all the images of twentieth-century
women, none is more enduring than hers. As part of a government-
sponsored propaganda campaign encouraging women to join the war
effort, Rosie stood for all American women who experienced World
War II as an opportunity to break into industries previously closed to
them. The federal government encouraged women to take part in the
* Copyright © 2004 by Juliene James. Law Clerk to the Honorable Charles R. Wilson,
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. A.B., Harvard University, 2000;
J.D., New York University, 2004. I am grateful to the entire staff of the New York
University Law Review, and particularly to the members of the 2003-2004 Senior Board
who were great colleagues and even better friends. Special thanks are due to Michael
Burstein and Stephen Yuhan, who helped me make my job look easy. I would also like to
thank Nick Bagley, Hallie Goldblatt, and Jane B. O'Brien. I dedicate this piece to my
family, to whzm I owe an untold debt of gratitude, and especially to my mother, who
showed me what it means to overcome. And, to Brian Petruska, who prefers the struggle
to the easy road, any day of the week.
1 Equal Pay Act of 1963: Hearings on H.R. 3861 Before the House Special Subcomm.
on Labor of the Comm. on Educ. and Labor, 88th Cong. 215 (1963) [hereinafter 1963
Hearings] (statement of Sonia Pressman, Att'y, on behalf of ACLU) (misquoting Samuel
Johnson, who reportedly said, Nature has given woman so much power that the law
cannot afford to give her more).
1873
Imaged with Permission of N.Y.U. Law Review](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/nylr79&div=46&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
The Equal Pay Act in the Courts: A De Facto White-Collar Exemption
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most