Scott Walker Pressed For Answers On Wisconsin Equal Pay Law Repeal

WASHINGTON -- Three female Democratic leaders in Wisconsin are demanding an explanation from Gov. Scott Walker (R) of why he repealed a law that made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court.

"We are writing today to request a written answer to a simple question on the minds of women and men across Wisconsin: Why did you sign Senate Bill 202 to repeal the 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act, and it [sic] doing so remove state legal recourse for women who are victims of pay discrimination?" wrote former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk, along with state Reps. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) and Chris Taylor (D-Madison), in a letter to Walker on Monday.

Falk is running in the Democratic primary for governor, hoping to face off against Walker in the recall general election in June. Sinicki and Taylor have both endorsed Falk. Sinicki is also one of the sponsors of the 2009 law.

Walker quietly signed the repeal of the Equal Pay Enforcement Act into law on April 5. The 2009 law was meant to deter employers from discriminating against certain groups by giving workers more avenues through which to press charges. Among other provisions, it allows individuals to plead their cases in the less costly, more accessible state circuit court system, rather than solely in federal court.

"Our request is necessary because the answer you have provided to the people of Wisconsin does not appear to be honest when compared with the facts," the letter continued. "Most importantly, our request is necessary because women are being paid less than men in Wisconsin for doing the same job, and it's wrong."

Walker's office did not return a request for comment.

Last week, Walker publicly defended the law's repeal, saying the Equal Pay Enforcement Act had been nothing but a boon for trial lawyers.

"In the past, lawyers could clog up the legal system," Walker said. "Instead, the state Department of Workforce Development gets to be the one that ultimately can put people back and give them up to two years back pay if there is reason to believe there was pay discrimination in the workforce."

"There has been absolutely no proof of that," replied Sinicki in a call with reporters on Monday morning. "There have been no cases decided in courts. If I recall correctly -- I don't believe there have even been any complaints filed at this point."

"Once employers understand that there are severe penalties for discrimination, they take it more seriously. It acts as a deterrent," said Taylor.

On average, women earn 77 cents for every dollar that men make nationwide. In Wisconsin, it's 75 cents, according to the Wisconsin Alliance for Women’s Health (WAWH), which also estimates that families in the state "lose more than $4,000 per year due to unequal pay."

Business associations lobbied in support of SB 202, which repealed the law, according to the state's Government Accountability Board. Groups like Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and the Wisconsin Restaurant Association all backed a repeal as well.

Falk, Sinicki and Taylor pointed to data by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau as proof that the Equal Pay Enforcement Act was having a positive effect on pay equity. Wisconsin rose 12 spots in the gender earnings parity rankings between 2009 and 2010, going from 36th place to 24th. Median female earnings as a percentage of median male earnings also rose by 3 percent.

Falk is facing Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D) and two other candidates in the May 8 Democratic gubernatorial primary election. The winner will go head-to-head with Walker in the June 5 general election.

UPDATE: 9:45 p.m. -- The Walker campaign's response to the letter:

Kathleen Falk should be ashamed of the outright, blatant lies she is telling which only serve to distort Governor Walker’s record. It is still illegal in the state of Wisconsin to discriminate against women when it comes to pay, and Kathleen Falk knows this. The law Governor Walker repealed was a bill passed in 2009 that incentivized trial lawyers to sue job creators, including female business owners, in this state.

Read the letter:

Related on HuffPost:

Comments

[Mo369]

07:45 PM on 06/19/2012

Women want equal pay yes I get that and that's fair but whats not fair is then women gripe and moan about then they want babies, then they want and need "maternity leave" yes we men obviously get that but then oh wait now they need all this "time" off so she can take care of her kids/children but yet she's bitch*ng about not being paid equally. Well sh*t who's covering your a** while your on maternity leave, who's taking your shifts while you need time off to take care of your children? Oh wait again little Johnny or Sophie is sick. Well fu*k now we have to cover your shift so you can go be with your sick children. It's simple logic men simply don't have those added pressures, sure dads are being more helpful with the children but men don't need all that time off obviously. So why should you get equal pay but yet need all this time off for the kids while we men or older ladies that have grown children out of the house cover for you. Now what I would agree with is equal pay for older ladies that have already grown up children, the children are out of the house and practically on their own then they obviously don't have all those commitments. But for the younger women that are just starting to get married and getting ready to start the families quit whining.

[Paddy-O-Farmer]

01:57 PM on 05/27/2012

I find it interesting, how the GOTPer pawns immediately come running to these articles and try so hard to "disprove" that a gender pay disparity exists, with a bunch of the typical, ditto-head, talking-point, word-salad. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

They offer up the usual trite, smug, and sarcastic pablum, all the while (apparently) completely oblivious to the glaring ironies and lapses of logical thought within their vapid "statements of fact". Which are really nothing more than adolescent-level rationalizations for their self-indulgent, insular world view.

It's like these people are only capable of criticizing others and wholly incapable of any sort of honest self-reflection. How does the old saying go? "Sometimes we see in others what we most dislike about ourselves?" Yep, that's the one-- and very apropos, IMO. Nothing more than American fundies pushing their own brand of "Sharia" law. The obvious irony (which should be apparent to anyone who isn't also a fundie narcissist) is that these people are really just the US version of radical Islam, who are apparently tone-deaf to the obvious irony of their own tribal behavior. This is what happens when people imagine that they are superior to others simply because they believe something that another human being told them is "The Truth".

[fitgirls12345]

01:28 PM on 05/04/2012

Where are all the businesses that were sued? Come out and speak up for yourselves! And if you were sued maybe it was because you should have been. There is not a women alive IF she's not telling herself lies that has been treated different in the workplace than a man BUT is afraid to speak UP!!!!!!! This law made that just a little easier. Govenor Walker stands up for those who line his pockets. Why don't you come up with some solutions to solve this ongoing critical problem and create some policies that secure a women's financial future!

[manawa]

03:56 PM on 04/26/2012

You're still doing it, Amanda. Even though you've already been called on it, you're still saying (just reiterating others' writing, instead of doing your own investigation and attempting to discern the truth) that the "EQUAL PAY ACT" repealed. It wasn't! It was WISCONSIN ACT 20 of 2009, which had NOTHING to do with equal pay.

Walker quietly signed the repeal of the Equal Pay Enforcement Act (WRONG AGAIN!) into law on April 5. The 2009 law (WISCONSIN ACT 20 OF 2009 - AND IT'S NAME ISN'T 'EQUAL PAY ENFORCEMENT ACT') was meant to deter employers from discriminating against certain groups by giving workers more avenues through which to press charges. Among other provisions, it allows individuals to plead their cases in the less costly, more accessible state circuit court system, rather than solely in federal court.

When an employee files a claim, an administrative law judge will, indeed, award the employee back pay, legal fees and reinstatement if they were terminated. This law repealed allowed them to sue in STATE court for MORE.

"Our request is necessary because the answer you have provided to the people of Wisconsin does not appear to be honest when compared with the facts," the letter continued. "Most importantly, our request is necessary because women are being paid less than men in Wisconsin for doing the same job, and it's wrong."

Kathleen (and you, Amanda) need(s) to improve her reading skills! Again...nothing to do with equal pay!

Please, LOOK IT UP, ALREADY!

[Jeanne DeMund]

07:31 PM on 04/25/2012

Amanda, Thank you for your continued attention to this issue. Please continue to keep us informed. I intend to make a campaign contribution to any WI gubernatorial candidate who makes a pledge to work to repeal this law, and I encourage others to do the same!

[tmm77625]

12:14 AM on 04/25/2012

There are already "severe penalties for discrimination" under multiple federal laws. Considering the Dems have kittens over states passing their own immigration laws, one wonders how they can in good conscience support states passing discrimination laws.

[mike1215]

02:07 AM on 04/25/2012

This is ignorant nonsense. Under the US Constitution, jurisdiction over immigration is reserved to the Federal government. That is not the case for laws against unfair discrimination -- for example in employment.

[tmm77625]

10:02 PM on 04/25/2012

Go ahead and quote me where in the Constitution immigration is reserved to the Feds. Sorry for your ignorance, but it's not.

[AnnMarie Nepper Meyers]

08:59 PM on 04/24/2012

"Incentivized?" What the heck? Is that even a word? Talk about making stuff up.
Hey, Scott, how about taking away a woman's right to own private property, since you seem determined to drag our beloved state back to the nineteenth century?

[tmm77625]

12:16 AM on 04/25/2012

Yes, it is a word. Try a dictionary.

[Mseer]

06:47 PM on 04/24/2012

Walker's campaign people calling others liars? Sorry Koch bro's people are waking up and paying attention!

[mdipary2004]

03:59 PM on 04/24/2012

If women where payed less than a man, employers would hire only women and max profits. Women would make up 99% of the workforce. There is no pay discrimination

[Michel DeLisle]

10:03 PM on 04/24/2012

Wow, maybe you need to take a look at the facts instead of just making up a theory. There is pay discrimination even when both parties have equal experience, education & the woman has NOT left the workforce to raise a family. I can tell you from experience that there are large companies who have stated quietly & behind closed doors that maybe "hiring a woman would be a good idea because we can pay her less & women are better at multi-tasking". Thank God there are enlightened and fair men that are willing to speak up in these instances.

[mdipary2004]

03:52 PM on 04/24/2012

The wage scale myth again. Feminist are getting alot of play out of this MYTH

[AnnMarie Nepper Meyers]

09:10 PM on 04/24/2012

Amazing. I guess I only imagined I was paid less than the men I was supervising when I was promoted to a management position at a bank I worked at. And, do you know what happened when I went to HR and complained? They threatened to fire me for "being in possession confidential information regarding other employees."
Move forward a few years. My husband brings home the annual report from the major Wisconsin law firm he is with. It lists what each partner and associate earns, both base and distribution, which is calculated by the senior partners. My husband thinks it looks completely fair as far as gender goes. I tell him to add up the numbers and take another look. Even allowing for the old "Oh, she will probably leave to have a baby," line, the disparity appalled him. Women who gave their lives to that firm earned much, much less in distribution. The senior partners divvied up the money, and handed it all to the good old boys, tossing a few crumbs to the "girls."
People like you make my head hurt. Why do you want us to be less than a man. No, why do you NEED us to be less than a man?

[tmm77625]

12:19 AM on 04/25/2012

And, did you walk over to the DWD and file a complaint? Did you go to the EEOC? Did you get an attorney and sue? If your answer to these questions is "yes" - then what is the need for this law? If your answer is "no" - then what good would another law have been, anyway?

[kwoodgr]

12:59 PM on 04/24/2012

Welcome to the true governors of Wisconsin...the Koch Bros.

[SantaMonican]

12:53 PM on 04/24/2012

Another republican governor thumbing his nose at the women of his State.....

....happens everyday.

[OldSchool4942]

12:47 PM on 04/24/2012

Wait, he has to call the Koch brothers for an answer.

[Left Hook]

12:05 PM on 04/24/2012

Why "demand" an answer...All he will do is lie and then blame Pres. Obama and "out of state anti-Scott money" for making him do it.

[ctaylor1968]

11:02 AM on 04/24/2012

At least there is a light at the end of the tunnel, Walker only has a few weeks left in office.

[eLucida]

01:25 PM on 04/24/2012

And only a couple of months outside of the slammer.