Q/A - 2

Flo20thebest

PayGap--The-Simple-Truth.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Q/A - 2

The

SIMPLE TRUTH A B O UT T H E G E N D E R PAY G A P

S P R I N G 2 0 1 8 E D I T I O N

Published by AAUW

1310 L St. NW, Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20005

www.aauw.org

[email protected]

202.785.7700

Printed in the United States of America

First printing: 2011

160-18

Table of Contents Foreword 2

Acknowledgments 3

Introduction 4

What Is the Pay Gap? 6

How Does the Pay Gap Affect

Women of Different Demographics? 10

What Causes the Pay Gap? 17

Recommendations 21

What Should I Do If I Experience

Sex Discrimination at Work? 28

Take Action with AAUW 29

Bibliography 30

Foreword Research has been a key element of AAUW’s work for women’s pay equity since

the release of the 1896 report Compensation in Certain Occupations of Women Who Have Received College or Other Special Training. Research empowers our members and other advocates with the facts they need to express the problems associated

with the gender pay gap: It’s real, it’s persistent, and it’s causing economic hard-

ships for women and their families. And, as demonstrated by the fact that we’ve

been working on this issue since 1896, the gap is closing too slowly.

That’s why AAUW is fighting on multiple fronts to shrink the gender pay gap.

Over the course of the last century, our organization has awarded millions of

dollars in fellowships to women pursuing graduate education. We have provided

research and pragmatic programs to advance women in fields like computing

and engineering. Our Start Smart and Work Smart salary negotiation workshops

are helping tens of thousands of women across the United States secure the pay

they deserve—and we are quickly expanding for even greater impact. AAUW

members and staff have stood in the room when federal equal pay legislation

was signed, from the Equal Pay Act in 1963 to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay

Act in 2009, and we continue to advocate much-needed federal legislation that

would advance fair pay. We’ve also been proud to support and witness real prog-

ress at the state level as lawmakers devise creative, and in many cases bipartisan,

approaches to closing the gender pay gap.

Pay equity will continue to be an AAUW priority until the gap is fully elimi-

nated regardless of industry or position. We hope this research motivates and

empowers you as you join us in this cause.

Julia T. Brown, Esq. Kimberly Churches

Board Chair Chief Executive Officer

Acknowledgments The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap was written by former AAUW Vice Pres- ident of Research Catherine Hill, Ph.D., in 2011. It was substantially revised by

Senior Researcher Kevin Miller, Ph.D., and former Research Associate Kathleen

Benson in 2016. Former Vice President of Government Relations Lisa Maatz

and State Policy Manager Kate Nielson, J.D., wrote the section on federal and

state policies. Senior Editor Kathryn Bibler and graphic designers Callie Strobel

and Morgan Wootten also contributed to the report.

AAUW thanks our members and supporters for their generous support in

making this publication and organization possible, especially the members of the

Mooneen Lecce Giving Circle.

Introduction In 2016, women working full time in the United States typically were paid just

80 percent of what men were paid, a gap of 20 percent (Semega et al., 2017).

The gap has narrowed since 1960, due largely to women’s progress in education

and workforce participation and to men’s wages rising at a slower rate.

At the rate of change between 1960 and 2016 women are expected to reach pay

equity with men in 2059. But even that slow progress has stalled in recent years.

If change continues at the slower rate seen since 2001, women will not reach pay

equity with men until 2119 (figure 1).

The gender pay gap has lifelong financial effects. For one, it contributes directly

to women’s poverty. In 2016, 13 percent of American women ages 18–64 were

living below the federal poverty level, compared with 10 percent of men. For

ages 65 and older 11 percent of women and 8 percent of men were living in pov-

erty (Semega et al., 2017). Eliminating the gender pay gap by increasing wom-

en’s levels of pay to those of men could cut the poverty rate for working women

in half (Hartmann et al., 2014).

F I G U R E 1 . Women’s Median Annual Earnings as a Percentage of Men’s for Full-time, Year-round Workers, 1960–2016 and Projections

Source: AAUW analysis of Semega et al., 2017 and previous publications

19 60 19

65 19

70 19 75

19 80 19

85 19

90 19 95

20 00

20 05

20 10

20 15

20 20

20 25

20 30

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1960–2016 trend

2001–16 trend

projecte d

pay equ ity: 2119

proj ecte

pay equ

ity: 2 059

projection of 1960–2016 trend

projection of 2001–16 trend

Even after women leave the workforce the pay gap follows them. Because

women typically are paid less than men during working years, when women

retire they receive less income from Social Security, pensions, and other sources

than do retired men (Fischer & Hayes, 2013). Other benefits such as disability

and life insurance are also smaller for women, because these benefits usually are

based on earnings.

The impact of the pay gap has also deepened in recent years as a result of

changes in family structure. Between 1967 and 2012 the proportion of mothers

bringing home at least a quarter of the family’s earnings rose from less than a

third (28 percent) to nearly two-thirds (63 percent). Today, 42 percent of mothers

with children under the age of 18 are their families’ primary or sole breadwin-

ners (Glynn, 2016). As families increasingly rely on women’s wages to make

ends meet, the gender pay gap directly affects men and children as well.

This guide provides key facts about the gender pay gap in the United States,

along with explanations and resources. Information is organized around five

common questions:

1. What is the pay gap?

2. How does the pay gap affect women of different demographics?

3. What causes the pay gap?

4. How can I make a difference?

5. What should I do if I experience sex discrimination at work?

What Is the Pay Gap? The pay gap is the difference in men’s and women’s median earnings, usually

reported as either the earnings ratio between men and women or as an actual

pay gap, as defined below. The median value is the middle value, with equal

numbers of full-time workers earning more and earning less.

In 2016, median annual earnings in the United States for women and men work-

ing full time, year-round were $41,554 and $51,640, respectively (Semega et al.,

2017).

Earnings can also be reported on a weekly basis. The gender pay gap in weekly

earnings tends to be slightly smaller than the pay gap in terms of annual earn-

ings. In 2016, the pay gap in median weekly earnings was 18 percent (U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017d).

W H E R E D O T H E D ATA C O M E F R O M ? Federal agencies such as the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Department of Edu-

cation, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics conduct surveys of individuals,

households, and businesses to gather information about people’s salaries and

other earnings.

Most reports on national workforce participation, pay, and pay differences depend

on data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) (www.census.gov/cps), the

country’s primary source of labor force statistics. The CPS is a monthly survey with

a sample of 100,000 households sponsored jointly by the Census Bureau and the

Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016).

PAY GAP [Men’s median earnings – women’s median earnings]

Men’s median earnings

EARNINGS RATIO Women’s median earnings

Men’s median earnings

2016 PAY GAP [$51,640 – $41,554]

$51,640 19.53

2016 EARNINGS RATIO 80.47 80% $41,554 $51,640

20%

The estimate of the pay gap using weekly earnings is based on the annual average

of median weekly earnings for the previous year, usually released in January

of each year by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov/cps). The estimate

of the pay gap using annual earnings is based on the CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement, which is published each September by the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The CPS provides more detailed informa-

tion on income compared with other government surveys. In recent years, this

information has been published in the report Income and Poverty in the United States (Semega et al., 2017).

S TAT E - L E V E L D ATA A pay gap can also be calculated for each state (figure 2). The American

Community Survey (ACS) (www.census.gov/acs) is a detailed annual survey

distributed to a broad sample of U.S. households and supplements the U.S.

census of all Americans, which only occurs once per decade. The ACS is often

used (including in this report) to estimate more detailed analyses of subpop-

ulations and geographical areas, such as the pay gap at the state level and for

smaller racial/ethnic groups (e.g., Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander and

American Indian or Alaska Native workers) because it includes more house-

holds—approximately 3 million per year, compared with the 100,000 surveyed

in the CPS (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). The ACS results are released annually in

September, and briefs based on the survey can be found on the Census Bureau’s

website. According to ACS data, in 2016 the pay gap was smallest in New York,

where women were paid 89 percent of what men were paid, and largest in Loui-

siana, where women were paid 70 percent of what men were paid (figure 2).

F I G U R E 2 . State Median Annual Earnings and Earning Ratio for Full-time, Year-round Workers, by State and Gender, 2016

Men Women Earnings Ratio

1 New York $53,124 $47,358 89%

2 California $51,417 $45,489 88%

3 Florida $41,586 $36,112 87%

4 District of Columbia $75,343 $64,908 86%

5 Vermont $47,840 $41,122 86%

6 Colorado $51,264 $43,206 84%

7 Alaska $56,422 $47,518 84%

8 Maine $47,890 $40,240 84%

9 Maryland $61,321 $51,247 84%

10 Hawaii $49,373 $41,224 83%

11 New Hampshire $53,581 $44,550 83%

12 Minnesota $53,200 $44,132 83%

13 Tennessee $43,661 $35,916 82%

14 Massachusetts $62,868 $51,666 82%

15 Delaware $50,924 $41,771 82%

16 New Mexico $42,297 $34,668 82%

17 Georgia $46,712 $38,278 82%

18 North Carolina $45,180 $36,987 82%

19 Arizona $46,386 $37,966 82%

20 Rhode Island $53,400 $43,541 82%

21 New Jersey $62,311 $50,574 81%

22 Nevada $45,326 $36,681 81%

United States $51,640 $41,554 80%

23 Virginia $55,817 $44,798 80%

24 Kentucky $45,521 $36,259 80%

25 Connecticut $64,220 $50,991 79%

26 Texas $47,351 $37,576 79%

National average

27 Oregon $50,676 $40,193 79%

28 Illinois $53,111 $42,108 79%

29 Pennsylvania $51,780 $41,047 79%

30 Missouri $46,543 $36,514 78%

31 Arkansas $41,156 $32,242 78%

32 Michigan $50,869 $39,825 78%

33 Wisconsin $50,399 $39,440 78%

34 South Dakota $45,384 $35,436 78%

35 South Carolina $45,038 $35,043 78%

36 Nebraska $47,352 $36,699 78%

37 Kansas $47,891 $37,091 77%

38 Ohio $50,227 $38,750 77%

39 Wyoming $51,234 $39,338 77%

40 Washington $58,864 $45,056 77%

41 Iowa $49,385 $37,791 77%

42 Idaho $45,305 $34,403 76%

43 Mississippi $42,146 $31,757 75%

44 Alabama $47,034 $35,012 74%

45 North Dakota $51,789 $38,407 74%

46 Indiana $49,157 $36,440 74%

47 Oklahoma $46,027 $33,972 74%

48 Montana $46,545 $34,028 73%

49 West Virginia $46,029 $33,228 72%

50 Utah $51,099 $36,022 70%

51 Louisiana $50,031 $34,793 70%

Note: National data include workers ages 15 and older and are based on the Current Population Survey. State-level statistics include workers ages 16 and older and are based on the American Community Survey. See page 6 for more details on these data sources. Source: Semega et al. (2017), U.S. Census Bureau (2017a)

F I G U R E 2 . ( C O N T I N U E D ) State Median Annual Earnings and Earning Ratio for Full-time, Year-round Workers, by State and Gender, 2016

Men Women Earnings Ratio

How Does the Pay Gap Affect Women of Different Demographics?

The pay gap affects women from all backgrounds, at all ages, and of all levels of

educational achievement, although earnings and the gap vary depending on a

woman’s individual situation.

R A C E / E T H N I C I T Y Among full-time workers in 2016, Hispanic or Latina, American Indian or

Alaska Native (AIAN), black or African American, and Native Hawaiian or

other Pacific Islander (NHPI) women had lower median annual earnings com-

pared with non-Hispanic white and Asian women. But black, Hispanic, AIAN,

and NHPI women experienced a smaller gender pay gap compared with men in

the same racial/ethnic group than did white and Asian women (figure 3).

Using a single benchmark provides a more informative picture. Because white

men are the largest demographic group in the labor force, they are often used for

F I G U R E 3 . Median Annual Earnings, by Race/Ethnicity and Gender, 2016

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2017a)

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacific Islander

American Indian or

Alaska Native

AsianWhite (non-Hispanic)

Black or Af rican American

Hispanic or Latina/o

$30,482

$35,069

$50,831

$63,239

$32,379

$37,128

$43,346

$56,386

$35,382 $39,431

$33,453

$41,837

MenWomen XX% Women’s earnings as a percentage of men’s earnings

87%

80%

90%

77%

87% 80%

that purpose. Compared with salary information for white male workers, Asian

women’s salaries show the smallest gender pay gap, at 85 percent of white men’s

earnings. The gap was largest for Hispanic women, who were paid only 54 per-

cent of what white men were paid in 2015 (figure 4). The smaller within-group

gender pay gap among black, Hispanic, AIAN, and NHPI women is due solely

to the fact that men in those groups were paid substantially less than non-His-

panic white men in 2016 (figure 3).

F I G U R E 4 . Women’s Earnings as a Percentage of White Men’s Earnings, by Race/Ethnicity, 2016

Current Population

Survey (CPS)

American Community Survey (ACS)

Hispanic or Latina 54% 54%

Black or Af rican American 63% 63%

White (non-Hispanic) 79% 77%

Asian 87% 90%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

-- 59%

American Indian or Alaska Native -- 57%

Note: Based on median annual earnings of full-time, year-round workers. CPS includes workers 15 and older; ACS includes workers 16 and older. The CPS is the preferred data source for income estimates but lacks suf- ficient sample size for reporting on smaller demographic groups. See page 6 for a more detailed description of the CPS and ACS. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2017a, 2017b)

A G E Earnings for both female and male full-time workers tend to increase with age,

though earnings increase more slowly after age 45 and even decrease after age

55. The gender pay gap also grows with age, and differences among older work-

ers are considerably larger than differences among younger workers.

In 2016, for full-time workers ages 20–24, women were paid 96 percent of what

men were paid on a weekly basis. As workers grow older and progress in their

careers, median earnings for women grow more slowly than median earnings

for men. From age 25 to age 54 women are typically paid 78–89 percent of what

men are paid, depending on age. By the time workers reach 55–64 years old,

women are paid only 74 percent of what men are paid (figure 5).

D I S A B I L I T Y Disability status is a challenging population demographic to capture because it

covers many definitions. In the current ACS questionnaire disability is measured

by answering questions related to six disability types: hearing, vision, cogni-

tive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014).

In 2016 people with disabilities made just 68 percent of what people without

disabilities made. And among people with disabilities, the gender pay gap is

substantial: Median pay for women with disabilities is 72 percent that of men

with disabilities (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017a). (These data include all workers

regardless of full-time or year-round status.)

S E X U A L O R I E N TAT I O N A N D G E N D E R I D E N T I T Y According to the Williams Institute, closing the gender pay gap would signifi-

cantly mitigate the poverty rates of both same-sex and differing-sex couples.

F I G U R E 5 . Median Weekly Earnings, by Age and Gender, 2016

Note: Based on median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, 2016 annual averages Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017c)

MenWomen XX% Women’s earnings as a percentage of men’s earnings

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

65 years and older

55–64 years

45–54 years

35–44 years

25–34 years

20–24 years

16–19 years

$419

$523

$794

$1,007 $1,075

$1,102

$992

$388

$500

$705

$839 $836 $812 $749

93%

96%

89%

83% 78% 74%

76%

Using 2012 ACS results an institute study found that eliminating the gender

pay gap would lower poverty rates for couples that include at least one woman

(Williams Institute, 2015). The Williams Institute also conducted a meta-anal-

ysis of studies of the incomes of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, finding

that gay and bisexual men are paid 10–32 percent less than similarly qualified

heterosexual men. The same study found that lesbians may be paid more than

heterosexual women but still are paid less than heterosexual or gay men (Wil-

liams Institute, 2007).

When we analyze the gender pay gap, it’s also important to include people who

do not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. The Williams Insti-

tute estimates that 1.4 million adults in the United States identify as transgender

(2016). Transgender people frequently experience harassment and discrimination

in the workplace because of their gender identity (Grant et al., 2011).

Preliminary evidence from the National Transgender Discrimination Survey also

suggests that people who transition from male to female gender expression expe-

rience a drop in pay after the transition, while those who transition from female

to male gender expression see no difference in pay or even a small increase

(Grant et al., 2011). The experiences of transgender people offer a powerful tool

for understanding gender stereotypes and bias and how these factors play a role

in the gender pay gap.

E D U C AT I O N As a rule, earnings increase as years of education increase for both men and

women. While more education is an effective tool for increasing earnings—

Asian women and men have the highest college attainment levels of any racial

or ethnic group (U.S. Department of Education, 2016a)—it is not an effective

tool against the gender pay gap. At every level of academic achievement, wom-

en’s median earnings are less than men’s median earnings (figure 6). In some

cases the gender pay gap is larger at higher levels of education.

Across all racial and ethnic groups, American women now earn more college

and postgraduate degrees than men (U.S. Department of Education, 2016b). But

education does not eliminate the gender pay gap. In Graduating to a Pay Gap: The Earnings of Women and Men One Year after College Graduation, AAUW found that just one year after college graduation women were paid 82 percent of what men

were paid (AAUW, 2012).

Furthermore, earnings are affected by race and ethnicity as well as gender. White

women are paid more than black and Hispanic women at all education levels

(figure 7).

Research suggests that differences in education and other measurable factors

explain part of the difference in earnings between racial and ethnic groups.

However, as is the case with gender, part of the racial/ethnic pay gap cannot be

explained by factors known to affect earnings and is likely due, at least in part, to

discrimination.

S T U D E N T D E B T As noted, the gender pay gap persists across educational levels and is worse for

black and Hispanic women, even among college graduates. As a result, women

who complete college degrees are less able than men to pay off their student

Note: Based on median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, ages 25 and older, 2017 annual averages Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018)

F I G U R E 6 . Median Weekly Earnings, by Level of Education and Gender, 2017

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

Advanced degree

Bachelor's degree

Some college or associate degree

High school graduate

Less than a high school diploma

MenWomen XX% Women’s earnings as a percentage of men’s earnings

$584

$797

$917

$1,378

$1,737

$447

$610

$700

$1,013

$1,291

77%

76%

74%

loans promptly, leaving them paying more in interest and for a longer time. In

2012, among students who graduated in 2007–08, women working full time

had paid off 33 percent of their student loan debt on average, while men work-

ing full time had paid off 44 percent of their debt. Black and Hispanic women

working full time are paid considerably less than men from these groups, and

they struggle to pay off student loans promptly; four years after graduation,

black and Hispanic women had paid off less than 10 percent of their debt—

much less than other women and men (figure 8). AAUW’s research estimates

that women hold nearly two-thirds of outstanding student debt in the United

States (AAUW, 2017).

F I G U R E 7. Median Weekly Earnings of Women, by Race/Ethnicity and Level of Education, 2017

Note: Based on median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, ages 25 and older, 2017 annual averages Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018)

$431

$575

$663

$915

$1,155

$450

$539

$633

$897

$1,133

$446

$627

$717

$1,031

$1,306

$438

$591

$710

$1,090

$1,462

Advanced degreeBachelor's degree Some college or associate degree

High school diploma, no collegeLess than a high school diploma

AsianWhite (non-Hispanic)Black or Af rican AmericanHispanic or Latina $0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

F I G U R E 8 . Cumulative Student Debt for 2007–08 College Graduates, by Gender and Race/ Ethnicity

Total average debt owed,

2009 Total average

debt owed, 2012

Percentage of debt paid off,

2009–12

Men $22,656 $12,793 44%

Women $24,126 $16,105 33%

Asian $19,687 $7,679 61%

White (non-Hispanic) $24,479 $15,417 37%

Black or Af rican American

$26,535 $24,116 9%

Hispanic or Latina $21,626 $21,026 3%

Note: Includes 2007–08 college graduates ages 35 and younger at graduation who were working full time in 2009 or 2012 and had not pursued an additional degree. There were insufficient data to allow for reliable analysis of other racial groups. Source: AAUW analysis of U.S. Department of Education (2015)

What Causes the Pay Gap? The gap of 20 cents on the dollar between men and women working full time,

year-round is a statistical fact. The pay gap itself is more complicated than a

single number since it summarizes a huge diversity of women and life circum-

stances. The origins of the pay gap are also more complicated than a single cause.

Women and men have always participated in the workforce in different ways—

and have been treated differently by employers—and though those differences

have shrunk over time, they still contribute to women being paid less than men.

O C C U PAT I O N A N D “ C H O I C E ” In part, the pay gap reflects women’s and men’s choices. Women and

men often choose different college majors and types of jobs after graduation.

But women experience pay gaps at every education level and in nearly

every line of work. Among the many occupations for which the Bureau

of Labor Statistics collects data that allow for valid comparison, men’s

earnings are higher than women’s in the vast majority (U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics, 2017b).

In 2016, the U.S. civilian workforce included 151 million full- and part-time

employed workers; 53 percent were men, and 47 percent were women (U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017a). But women and men tend to work in differ-

ent kinds of jobs. Women are disproportionately represented in education, office

and administrative support, and health care occupations, and men are dispropor-

tionately represented in construction, maintenance and repair, and production

and transportation occupations (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017b). Segre-

gation by occupation is a major factor behind the pay gap. Even though a pay

gap exists in nearly every occupational field, jobs traditionally associated with

men tend to pay better than traditionally female-dominated jobs that require the

same level of skill (Hegewisch & Hartmann, 2014).

Occupational gender segregation has decreased over the last 40 years, largely

due to women moving into formerly male-dominated jobs, especially during the

1970s and 1980s, and to faster growth of more evenly mixed-gender occupations

in the 1990s. But integration has stalled since the early 2000s. Occupational seg-

regation also continues to affect some women more than others: Of all racial/

ethnic groups, Hispanic women and men are the least likely to work in the same

jobs (Hegewisch & Hartmann, 2014).

Increasing the number of women in traditionally male fields will likely improve

wages for women, but it is unlikely to fully eliminate the pay gap. Women in

such male-dominated jobs as computer programming still face a pay gap com-

pared with men in the field (figure 9), even though women in such jobs may be

paid higher salaries than women in traditionally female fields are paid. It will

take more than individual women pursuing careers in historically male fields

to ensure fair pay for all. (See AAUW’s reports Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics and Solving the Equation: The Variables for Women’s Success in Engineering and Computing for more discussion of career choice and occupational gender gaps.)

PA R E N T I N G A N D T I M E AWAY F R O M WO R K Becoming a parent is widely acknowledged as a personal choice that affects

careers, but it produces different professional outcomes for women and men.

F I G U R E 9 . The Earnings Ratio in Median Weekly Pay among Full-time Workers, Selected Occupations, 2016

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017b)

O cc

u p

at io

n s

w it

h 2

0 %

o r

fe w

fe m

al e

w or

ke rs Truck drivers

Hand laborers and material movers

Software developers

O cc

u p

at io

n s

w it

h 4

5– 55

fe m

al e

w or

ke rs

Food service managers

Designers

Financial managers

O cc

u p

at io

n s

w it

h 8

0 %

o r

m or

e fe

m al

e w

or ke

Social workers

Maids and housekeepers

Registered nurses

$500 $1,000 $1,500

$787

$580

$1,863

$853

$1,267

$1,670

$1,039

$497

$1,261

$630

$509

$1,553

$632

$922

$884

$1,157

$427

$1,143

80%

88%

83%

74%

73%

69%

85%

86%

91%

$2,000$0

Men’s median weekly earningsWomen’s median weekly earnings XX% Women’s earnings as a percentage of men’s earnings

Taking time away from the workforce or cutting back hours, both more common

scenarios for mothers than fathers, hurts earnings (Bertrand et al., 2010). Many

employers and industries still prioritize long, continuous, traditional work hours

rather than flexible schedules, a preference that tends to put women with chil-

dren at a disadvantage (Goldin, 2014). AAUW’s Behind the Pay Gap report found that 10 years after college graduation, 23 percent of mothers were out of the

workforce, and 17 percent worked part time. Among fathers, only 1 percent were

out of the workforce, and only 2 percent worked part time (AAUW Educational

Foundation, 2007).

Many stay-at-home and part-time working mothers will eventually decide to

return to the full-time workforce, and when they do they may encounter a

“motherhood penalty” that extends beyond the actual time out of the workforce.

Experimental studies have documented that employers are less likely to hire

mothers (including mothers who never left the workforce) compared with child-

free women, and when employers do make an offer to a mother, they offer her a

lower salary than they do other women (Correll & Benard, 2007; Kricheli-Katz,

2012). Fathers, in contrast, do not suffer a penalty compared with other working

men. Many fathers actually receive higher wages after having a child, known as

the “fatherhood bonus” (Killewald, 2013; Budig, 2014).

G E N D E R D I S C R I M I N AT I O N A N D B I A S Not all of the gender pay gap can be “explained away” by such choices as college

major, occupation, work hours, and time out of the workforce. Discrimination

and bias against women in the workplace are also culprits in the pay gap.

Each year, thousands of sex discrimination cases are brought before the federal

Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC), and many of these com-

plaints are decided or settled in favor of the person who filed the charge (U.S.

EEOC, 2015). Thanks in part to persistent sex discrimination, women are also

less likely than men to reach the highest-paying leadership and executive posi-

tions. In 2015, women held only 26 percent of private-sector executive positions,

and women of color are particularly unlikely to hold such positions. (For more

information on the leadership gap, see AAUW’s 2016 report Barriers and Bias: the Status of Women in Leadership.)

Gender bias also factors into how our society values some jobs over others.

A study of 50 years of U.S. workforce data concluded that when an influx of

women enter a previously male-dominated profession, average wages for the

occupation as a whole actually decrease (Levanon et al., 2009). And bias affects

the choices women make in the first place. Gender norms and pressures influ-

ence women’s decisions regarding education, occupation, time away from work,

and family. These so-called explained factors show that our society has specific

expectations and standards for women.

So how do we know that discrimination and bias affect women’s pay? Because

discrimination cannot be directly detected in most records of income and employ-

ment, researchers look for the “unexplained” pay gap after statistically accounting

for other factors. For instance, after accounting for college major, occupation,

economic sector, hours worked, months unemployed since graduation, GPA,

type of undergraduate institution, institution selectivity, age, geographical

region, and marital status, AAUW found a remaining 7 percent difference

between the earnings of male and female college graduates one year after gradu-

ation. That gap jumped to 12 percent 10 years after college graduation (AAUW,

2012; AAUW Educational Foundation, 2007). Other researchers have reached

similar conclusions about gender discrimination and the pay gap. For instance,

a study of medical researchers found an unexplained gap of 6 percent between

comparable men and women in the field, and a recent study of the American

workforce as a whole found an unexplained gap of 8 percent (Jagsi et al., 2012;

Blau & Kahn, 2016).

These estimates of the unexplained pay gap are often treated as estimates of the

effect of discrimination on women’s earnings. These numbers may be smaller

than the overall pay gap, but all calculations of the gap represent substantial

inequalities, real individual struggles, and smaller paychecks for women and

their families.

Recommendations The gender pay gap is unlikely to go away on its own, but there are many things

that we can do in our workplaces and in our communities to make a difference.

Here are some steps that individuals, employers, and governments can take to

ensure fair pay.

I N D I V I D U A L S Many personal decisions have profound implications for economic security.

Pursuing a college education has long been viewed as an important step toward

ensuring a middle-class lifestyle, and higher degrees are usually associated with

higher pay. But choice of college major can profoundly affect future earnings

(Carnevale et al., 2011). In addition, the kinds of jobs pursued early in a career

set the stage for an entire career of earnings. Since benefits and subsequent raises

are generally based on initial wages, a lower starting salary could mean a lifetime

of lower compensation and smaller retirement benefits.

Because most employers have some latitude when it comes to salaries, negotiat-

ing can pay off. While women can’t negotiate around discrimination, knowing

what your skills are worth and learning techniques to promote them can help.

Traditionally, it has been socially expected (and therefore accepted) for men to

negotiate for raises because negotiating conforms with the stereotype of men as

assertive. But negotiation is especially tricky for women because some behav-

iors that work for men, like self-promotion and assertiveness, may backfire on

women (Carter & Silva, 2011; Bowles & Babcock, 2013). Knowing what your

skills are worth, making clear what you bring to the table, emphasizing common

goals, and maintaining a positive attitude are some negotiation tactics that have

been shown to be effective for women (Babcock & Laschever, 2008). AAUW

offers Start Smart and Work Smart salary negotiation workshops to teach

women how to negotiate with confidence.

Beyond their personal lives individuals can also take steps to influence employ-

ers and governments. There are more ways to make your voice heard than ever

before—letters to your legislators and local papers, blogs, and tweets are just a

few examples. Joining an organization like AAUW can make all of these activ-

ities easier, especially if you use our templates and resources and connect with

our network of activists.

E M P L OY E R S Companies should know by now that paying workers fairly is necessary for legal

and ethical reasons. But fair pay can also be good for the bottom line. Believing

that an employer is fair improves workers’ morale (Cohen-Charash & Spector,

2001; Kim, 2009). Work performance has also been linked to the perception of

organizational justice (Colquitt et al., 2001). In other words, workers who believe

that they are paid fairly are more likely to contribute their best effort to the job.

One employer took this recommendation to heart and decided to voluntarily

audit its pay practices. In 2015, Salesforce performed a comprehensive analysis

of 17,000 employees that led to salary adjustments for 6 percent of employees.

The result? A 33 percent increase in the number of women who were promoted

that year (Zarya, 2016). Salesforce’s actions garnered attention across the

country, inspiring the Obama administration to announce the White House’s

Equal Pay Pledge for private sector companies to commit to equal pay for their

employees. The initiative turned into the Employers for Pay Equity Consortium

hosted by Simmons College. As of August 2017 more than 50 companies had

joined the consortium, including American Airlines, Apple, the Dow Chemical

Company, Facebook, General Motors, Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, PepsiCo,

and Staples.

As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once noted, “Sunshine is the best

disinfectant.” Transparency in compensation can make a difference. A national

survey by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) found that about

half of employees said they worked in a setting where discussions of wages and

salaries are either formally prohibited or discouraged by managers (Institute

for Women’s Policy Research, 2011). According to IWPR, pay secrecy is much

more common in the private sector, where 61 percent of employees are either

discouraged or prohibited from discussing wage and salary information.

In contrast, only 14 percent of public-sector employees reported that pay discus-

sions were either discouraged or prohibited. This higher degree of transparency

in the public sector may be related to the greater gender pay equity found in the

federal government. Federal workers can easily see how their salaries compare

with others at their grade level and geographical location because the U.S. Office

of Personnel Management makes public the salary and wage range for each level

of federal worker and additional locality pay for areas where the cost of living is

higher (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2016). A 2014 report found that

among white collar federal workers women were paid 87 percent of what men

were paid in 2012, compared with 77 percent in the workforce as a whole in

2012 (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2014).

Employers can also use audits to monitor and address gender pay differences, to

great effect. Minnesota requires public-sector employers to conduct a pay equity

study every few years and eliminate pay disparities between female-dominated

and male-dominated jobs that require comparable levels of expertise (Minnesota

Management and Budget). Employers use a job evaluation tool to compare jobs

on such dimensions as the complexity of issues encountered, the depth and

breadth of knowledge needed, the nature of interpersonal contacts required,

and the physical working conditions. This allows employers to identify jobs—for

example, delivery van drivers and clerk typists—that, despite being different,

require similar levels of knowledge and responsibility. An analysis is then done

to compare wages of predominantly female jobs with those of predominantly

male jobs of comparable skill levels. If the results of the study show that women

are consistently paid less than men for jobs requiring similar levels of knowledge

and responsibility, the employer makes the necessary salary increases. The state’s

efforts have been hugely successful: Since the 1970s Minnesota has virtually

eliminated the pay gap in public-sector jobs of comparable value (Legislative

Office on the Economic Status of Women, 2016).

G OV E R N M E N T

F e d e r a l Congress has a history of considering, and in some cases enacting, laws that

address discrimination in employment. Yet these legal protections have not

ensured equal pay for women and men. Additionally, strong regulations put

in place by the Obama administration are now under attack. See the time line

below of major milestones in federal equal pay policy.

S t a t e As progress stalls at the federal level states are moving forward with their own

laws to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work. The good news

is that nearly every state has a law prohibiting employers from paying workers

differently based solely on their gender. The bad news? Many of these laws are

limited in scope or are not enforced. Every state has room to make its pay equity

laws stronger.

The states with no state protections from pay discrimination tend to have the

biggest pay gaps. However, states with stronger laws do not necessarily have

the smallest gaps. Strong pay equity laws help close the pay gap, but the gap

itself is affected by such other issues as occupational segregation and access to

paid leave.

State laws addressing the pay gap vary considerably. For example, each state’s

laws apply to different subsets of employees—some state laws cover all employ-

ees, others affect only public or only private employees, and still others regulate

only employers who have more than a certain number of workers.

Currently, two states—Alabama and Mississippi—have no state pay equity or

sex-based employment discrimination regulations. All other states have at least

some basic equal pay protections. But roughly one-third of states also have

Federal Equal Pay Legislation Time Line

1920 The Department of Labor Women’s Bureau was founded to promote the welfare of wage-earning women.

1938 The Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted to improve labor conditions and practices for workers by regulating minimum wage, overtime pay, record-keeping, and labor standards.

1945 The Women’s Equality Bill, the first federal pay equity legislation, was introduced by AAUW member Rep. Chase Going Woodhouse (D-CT).

1963 The Equal Pay Act became law, requiring employers to give women and men employees equal pay for equal work.

1964 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was passed, barring employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin specifically in hiring, firing, promotion, and wages.

1967 The Age Discrimination in Employment Act became law, protecting workers 40 years and older.

1972 Title IX of the Education Amendments, the first comprehensive federal law to prohibit sex discrimination in education, was enacted.

1990 Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed to protect against discrimination based on disability status, including in employment.

major loopholes in those protections that allow employers to continue to pay

women less than men. For example

• Louisiana’s equal pay protections apply only to public employers in the state.

Public employers generally have a more transparent pay structure than do pri-

vate employers, leaving a major hole in the state’s otherwise relatively compre-

hensive equal pay legal structure.

• Several states, including Arizona, do not prohibit employers from retaliating

against employees who take action to remedy wage discrimination, which

makes it risky for women to come forward. As a result such localities as Phoe-

nix are passing their own protective regulations.

1994 The Fair Pay Act, which addresses unequal pay between female-dominated jobs equivalent to male-dominated jobs, was first introduced. The legislation also takes steps to protect employees who discuss their salaries and requires employers to file wage information with the EEOC. As of the 115th Congress, the bill has yet to pass.

1997 The Paycheck Fairness Act, an update to the Equal Pay Act, was first introduced. It would close loopholes, strengthen incentives to prevent pay discrimination, and prohibit retaliation against workers who discuss wages. Every year since 1997, the legislation has been reintroduced, even passing the House in 2009 before falling short in the Senate. As of the 115th Congress, the bill has yet to pass.

2009 The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was enacted to address the unfortunate Supreme Court ruling that sided with Ledbetter’s employer in her gender discrimination case, thereby overturning 40 years of precedent in discrimination cases. The law clarifies that pay discrimination can occur when a pay decision is made, when an employee is subject to that decision, or at any time that an employee is injured by it.

2014 President Barack Obama signed AAUW-supported executive orders to increase pay protections for women. The provisions collect more wage data and target federal contractors to protect workers f rom retaliation and labor law violations.

2016 The Pay Equity for All Act, which would prohibit employers f rom asking about salary history before making a job offer, was first introduced. As of the 115th Congress, the bill has yet to pass.

2017 President Donald Trump rescinded equal pay protections, including rolling back requirements for federal contractors to comply with labor and civil rights laws and halting implementation of a data collection tool to increase wage transparency.

On the positive side, a handful of states have particularly robust laws

governing equal pay. For example

• California limits the excuses employers can use to pay women less than

they pay men to only a “bona fide factor other than gender,” such as educa-

tion, training, or experience (as opposed to reasons based solely on gender

stereotypes).

• Maryland prohibits employers from assigning or directing employees into

less-favorable career tracks—known as “mommy tracking”—or withholding

information about promotions.

• Massachusetts prohibits employers from asking potential employees about

their salary history.

F I G U R E 1 0 . Map of States with Equal Pay Provisions, 2017

Source: AAUW

Strong equal pay law Moderate equal pay lawWeak equal pay lawNo equal pay law

IA NE

SD MA

CT RI

ME VT

VA DC

OH IN

TN NC

GAALMS

CA MO

NMAZ

• Tennessee subjects employers who violate the law to high fines and

damage payments, emphasizing the seriousness of a violation.

AAUW advocates that all states pass and enforce equal pay laws in addition to

developing other innovative ideas that chip away at the gap. We continue to push

for federal pay equity legislation, regulation, and enforcement to protect employ-

ees and assist employers. AAUW also educates the public about this persistent

problem and its effect on working families. These efforts are critical as we work

to close the gender pay gap.

What Should I Do If I Experience Sex Discrimination at Work? 1. Put it in writing. Always put everything in writing so you have a record and

a time line.

2. Do your homework. For more information on your rights, call the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) hotline at

800.669.4000.

3. Seek help. Talk with your supervisor or human resources representative at work to learn about the grievance procedure.

4. Avoid loose lips. While the desire to talk about your case is understandable, the threat of countersuits for defamation is real.

5. Get legal advice. Talk to a lawyer who has specific experience with sex dis- crimination in the workplace. For a referral in your state, contact your local

bar association.

6. Act quickly. There is a statute of limitations on filing complaints with the EEOC.

7. Watch your nickels and dimes. Talk to a lawyer or an accountant about the financial burdens of a lawsuit.

8. Visit your doctor—yes, your doctor. You may experience a physical and emotional toll that should be addressed and documented.

9. Prepare for the long haul. Filing a discrimination lawsuit is a long process, but others have succeeded in fighting discrimination, and you can too.

10. Find a support network. AAUW branches can help support you. Find a branch near you at www.aauw.org.

Take Action with AAUW

• For current information on the status of pay equity legislation, federal policies,

and actions that you can take to narrow the pay gap, visit fightforfairpay.org.

• Visit salary.aauw.org to find out how to attend an AAUW Start Smart or

AAUW Work Smart salary negotiation workshop or bring one to your

community.

• Join AAUW’s Action Network to keep up with equal pay advocacy and

receive notices to tell your legislators what you think: bit.ly/aauw-action.

• Learn about your rights at work and what you can do if you believe

you’re being paid unfairly or otherwise discriminated against by visiting www.

aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work.

• Learn about the status of pay equity laws in your state and take action at

www.aauw.org/resource/state-equal-pay-laws.

• Get the facts on current issues facing women at www.aauw.org/what-we-do/

research.

• Join AAUW and help secure pay equity for all: www.aauw.org/join.

Bibliography AAUW. (2012). Graduating to a pay gap: The earnings of women and men one year

after college graduation, by C. Corbett and C. Hill. Washington, DC: Author. AAUW. (2016). Barriers and bias: The status of women in leadership, by C. Hill, K.

Miller, K. Benson, & G. Handley. Washington, DC: Author.

AAUW. (2017). Deeper in debt: Women and student loans, by K. Miller. Washing- ton, DC: Author.

AAUW Educational Foundation. (2007). Behind the pay gap, by J. G. Dey & C. Hill. Washington, DC: Author.

Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2008). Ask for it: How women can use the power of negotiation to get what they really want. New York: Bantam Dell.

Bertrand, M., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2010). Dynamics of the gender gap for

young professionals in the financial and corporate sectors. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2, 228–55.

Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2016). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and

explanations. IZA Discussion Paper Series, 9656. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor. http://ftp.iza.org/dp9656.pdf.

Bowles, H. R., & Babcock, L. (2013). How can women escape the compensa-

tion negotiation dilemma? Relational accounts are one answer. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(1), 80–96.

Budig, M. J. (2014). The fatherhood bonus and the motherhood penalty: Parenthood and the gender gap in pay. Washington, DC: Third Way. content.thirdway.org/ publications/853/NEXT_-_Fatherhood_Motherhood.pdf.

Carnevale, A. P., Strohl, J., & Melton, M. (2011). What’s it worth? The economic value of college majors. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Washington, DC. cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports-whats-

it-worth-the-economic-value-of-college-majors.

Carter, N. M., & Silva, C. (2011). The myth of the ideal worker: Does doing all

the right things really get women ahead? Catalyst. www.catalyst.org/system/

files/The_Myth_of_the_Ideal_Worker_Does_Doing_All_the_Right_Things_

Really_Get_Women_Ahead.pdf.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations:

A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86, 278–321.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001).

Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organiza-

tional justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology 86, 425–45.

Correll, S. J., & Benard, S. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty?

American Journal of Sociology 112(5): 1297–1338. Fischer, J., & Hayes, J. (2013). The importance of Social Security in the incomes of

older Americans: Differences by gender, age, race/ethnicity, and marital status. Wash- ington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Glauber, R. (2008). Race and gender in families and at work: The fatherhood

wage. Gender and Society 22(1): 8–30. Glynn, S. J. (2016). Breadwinning mothers are increasingly the U.S. norm. Washington,

DC: Center for American Progress. www.americanprogress.org/issues/

women/reports/2016/12/19/295203/breadwinning-mothers-are-

increasingly-the-u-s-norm.

Goldin, C. (2014). A grand gender convergence: Its last chapter. American Economic Review 104(4): 1091–119. scholar.harvard.edu/files/goldin/files/ goldin_aeapress_2014_1.pdf.

Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., & Tanis, J. (2011). Injustice at every turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. National Transgender Dis- crimination Survey. www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/downloads/reports/

reports/ntds_full.pdf.

Hartmann, H., Hayes, J., & Clark, J. (2014). How equal pay for working women would reduce poverty and grow the American economy. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Hegewisch, A., & Hartmann, H. (2014). Occupational segregation and the gender wage gap: A job half done. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Institute for Women’s Policy Research. (2011). Pay secrecy and wage

discrimination. IWPR Fact Sheet. iwpr.org/publications/pay-secrecy-and- wage-discrimination.

Jagsi, R., Griffith, K. A., Stewart, A., Sambuco, D., DeCastro, R., & Ubel, P. A.

(2012). Gender differences in the salaries of physician researchers. Journal of the American Medical Association 307(22): 2410–17.

Killewald, A. (2013). A reconsideration of the fatherhood premium: Marriage, cores-

idence, biology, and fathers’ wages. American Sociological Review 78(1): 96–116. Kim, H. (2009). Integrating organizational justice into the relationship manage-

ment theory. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from All Academic Research.

Kricheli-Katz, T. (2012). Choice, discrimination, and the motherhood penalty. Law and Society Review 46(3): 557–87.

Legislative Office on the Economic Status of Women (2016). Pay equity: The Min- nesota experience. Table: Average salaries in state government employment by year, 1976–2014. www.oesw.leg.mn/PDFdocs/Pay_Equity_Report2016.pdf.

Levanon, A., England, P., & Allison, P. (2009). Occupational feminization and

pay: Assessing causal dynamics using 1950–2000 U.S. Census data. Social Forces 88(2): 865–91. sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/88/2/865.short.

Minnesota Management and Budget. (n.d.). Local government pay equity.

https://mn.gov/mmb/employee-relations/compensation/laws/local-gov/

local-gov-pay-equity.

Schilt, K. (2011). Just one of the guys? Transgender men and the persistence of gender inequality. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Semega, J. L., Fontenot, K. R., and Kollar, M. A. (2017). U.S. Census Bureau,

Current Population Reports. Income and poverty in the United States: 2016. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017a). Current population survey annual average data tables. Table 2. www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat02.htm.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017b). Current population survey annual average data tables. Table 39. www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017c). Current population survey: Highlights of women’s earnings in 2016. Table 1. www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-earn- ings/2016/pdf/home.pdf.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Usual weekly earnings of wage and salary workers, fourth quarter 2017. Economic News Release USDL-18-0079. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). Disability. www.census.gov/people/disability/

methodology/acs.html.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). Fact sheet: Differences between the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Popu- lation Survey (CPS ASEC). www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/ guidance/data-sources/acs-vs-cps.html.

U.S. Census Bureau (2017a). American community survey 1-year estimates. Data tables available from American FactFinder, factfinder.census.gov.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2017b). Current population survey: Annual social and economic supplements. Table P-38. www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/ income-poverty/historical-income-people.html.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics. (2015). Baccalaureate and beyond longitudinal study 2008/12. Data analysis system available from nces.ed.gov/datalab.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics. (2016a). nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/

dt16_104.10.asp.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics. (2016b). Table 322.20. Bachelor’s degrees conferred

by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex of student: Selected

years, 1976–77 through 2014–15. nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/

dt16_322.20.asp.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2015). Sex-based charges

FY1997–FY2015. www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sex.cfm.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2014). Governmentwide strategy on advanc- ing pay equality in the federal government. www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/ pay-leave/reference-materials/reports/governmentwide-strategy-on-

advancing-pay-equality-in-the-federal-government.pdf.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2016). Pay and leave salaries and wages.

www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages.

Williams Institute. (2007). Bias in the workplace: Consistent evidence of sexual orienta- tion and gender identity discrimination. williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp- content/uploads/Badgett-Sears-Lau-Ho-Bias-in-the-Workplace-Jun-2007.pdf.

Williams Institute. (2015). The impact of wage equality on sexual orientation poverty gaps. williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Impact-of- Wage-Equality-on-Sexual-Orientation-Poverty-Gaps-June-2015.pdf.

Williams Institute. (2016). How many adults identify as transgender in the United States? williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/How-Many- Adults-Identify-as-Transgender-in-the-United-States.pdf.

Zarya, Valentina. (2016). Salesforce spent $3 million on equal pay—here’s how

many employees got raises as a result. Fortune. fortune.com/2016/03/08/ salesforce-equal-pay.

1310 L St. NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005

202.785.7700 [email protected]