John Roberts' Dismissive View of Pay Equity

By Linda Berg, Political Director

August 19, 2005

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts' views on pay equity for women reinforce NOW's already firm conviction that his confirmation would be disastrous for women's equality.

Documents from Roberts' tenure as assistant White House counsel in the Reagan administration made headlines recently. His dismissive comments concerned an important pay discrimination case making its way through the courts at the time.

In 1983, a group of women public employees in Washington state claimed that they were discriminated against under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because they had not received equal pay for work that was of equal value (based on a state evaluation of the jobs) to work performed by male employees.

The women won their lawsuit (AFCSME v. State of Washington) and the state of Washington appealed the ruling.

Having been a leader in the fight to expand the definition of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to include the concept of comparable worth, NOW joined an amicus brief supporting the Washington women in the Ninth Circuit.

Three moderate Republican members of Congress — Olympia Snowe of Maine, Nancy Johnson of Connecticut and Claudine Schneider of Rhode Island — applauded the district court victory and appealed to the Reagan administration to stay out of the case and refrain from supporting the state's appeal.

Roberts' 1984 reaction to their letter (as revealed in his memo to Reagan White House Counsel Fred Fielding) is staggering in its misogyny.

Roberts stated that the women's letter "contends that more is required because women still earn only $0.60 for every $1 earned by men, ignoring the factors that explain apparent disparity, such as seniority, the fact that many women frequently leave the work force for extended periods of time...I honestly find it troubling that three Republican representatives are so quick to embrace such a radical redistributive concept. Their slogan may as well be, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.'"

This Orwellian memo, ironically penned in 1984, mocks the Congress members' serious concern for the rights of women. Even the Reagan administration did not take such a dim view of pay equity, and decided to ignore Roberts' advice urging the administration to intervene.

As more of his record is released, it becomes clearer that women will suffer if John G. Roberts is confirmed to the Supreme Court. NOW urges the Senate to reject this nomination.