1848 was the year of the Seneca Falls Convention which campaigned for women’s suffrage. 72 years later the 19th Amendment was passed guaranteeing women the right to vote. President John F. Kennedy signs the Equal Pay Act in 1963 and 2016 saw Hillary Rodham Clinton become the first woman to secure the nomination of a major political party. Time has brought forward movements towards equality, but today that promise for American women is still left empty. The Equal Pay Act was passed over 50 years ago, and the Paycheck Fairness Act has been stuck in Congress for almost a decade. In 2017, where do we stand?

Passed over half a century ago, the Equal Pay Act has acknowledged the discrimination women face in the workplace when it comes to demanding equal pay for equal work and has attempted to close the wage gap, yet with women still paid 77 cents to a man’s dollar in 2017, it is evident that its purpose has still yet to be entirely fulfilled. The Equal Pay Act states that unequal pay is acceptable on “a differential based on any other factor other than sex.” This fragment of the act is written with fair intent, but has been abused and mistreated among developing loopholes over time. The problem lies not with this standpoint, but with its execution. Now, unchecked claims on additional non-gender based factors such as personality are too commonly used to cover up gender biased pay disparity. Though discrimination against unequal pay for men and women is outlawed, it has become too easy to disguise injustice under such vague terms. Women are still underpaid and their demands are not taken seriously, as women who inquire about a raise to their salary often find that these inquiries are not met, instead these women are perceived as too aggressive and uncooperative. As a “non-gender factor”, the label “personality” is too often used in place of gender as a justification to underpay women. To restore the integrity and original intent of this act, any claims of unequal pay not based on gender must be proven through additional evidence and witnesses. Consistent reports of uncooperative behavior, the input of coworkers and performance reports should be required and enforced as the basis for a difference in pay, not a vague, umbrella term of “personality”. In proving the “personality” factor, it must be clear that an individual’s character inhibits their quality of performance. Pay for work should be determined by quality that is done, not who the doer is. Companies that are guilty of issuing unequal pay based on gender are not at all fazed by the basic consequences they face, and are easily susceptible to repeated behavior. For a violation of this clause, employers have to make a retroactive pay to a plaintiff for only two years. With a mere fine, large companies and their bosses are not economically hurt and violations of the act create shallow dents in a company with the power and strength of steel.

The unequal treatment of women in the workplace has long been a pattern in history, a pattern that is waiting to be broken. As a high school sophomore, Women’s Rights has been a common theme throughout my history classes, and is just as evident in our nation and world’s current history. From United States to European History, my classes have repeatedly touched upon the Woman’s Struggle through the course of our curriculum that spans centuries. But even over centuries, I have yet been taught an end to this struggle. I wish to see an end to this struggle, and even more I want the future to see an end. As much as a call for legislation and for change, this article is ultimately a call for equality – it’s been long overdue.

By Julia Santiago