Generally it says that when an employee brings forth a complaint the employer must show that there is a reason for the pay inequity that is not sex-based. It is somewhat set apart from prior law in that it limits the criteria to 'bona fide factors such as education, training, and experience'. In reading the bill, I found it difficult to interpret myself, but it goes on to explain what the employer must show to demonstrate a legitimate reason for pay inequity and what the employee must do to overcome that explanation.
One aspect about the Bill that is totally different is that it outlaws the practice of employers disallowing employees the right to discuss their salaries with other employees. This is done for the obvious reason that there is no way you can be aware of any pay inequity if you don't know what others are making.
One arguement that republicans make is that we already have laws on the books that prevent pay discrimination. However, there is no current law gives by law, the right of employees to discuss their salaries with each other.
I am skeptical of the statisitics that have been put out, and I am not sure that they are indicitive of gender discrimination. However one question I have is: How exactly would this bill hurt any non-gender discriminating employer? Republicans say there would be an increase in law-suits. But would there be any for non sex-based legitimate pay inequities?
There also maybe situaitions where aside from general job duties,experience and education, a male employee may be providing some added benefit that makes him more valuable to the emoplyer and may simply need to pay the person more to keep from losing him. Is there any recourse for those situations?
Anyone who can help with the interpretation of the bill, please do.