[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2351-2352]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 LAWSUIT ALLEGES VIOLATION OF EQUAL PAY ACT BY ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to report to my 
colleagues something that I am certain is as much of a piece of 
embarrassment to them as it is to me, and that is that on February 29 a 
Federal Court declared a class in a lawsuit against the Architect of 
the Capitol, our agent, that is to say the Congress of the United 
States, alleging that there has been a violation of the equal pay act; 
that we have been paying women less for doing the same work as men.
  The women I am talking about are the women who clean the offices of 
Members, who keep this Capitol clean, and who, in fact, are responsible 
for the maintenance and cleanliness of the place where we work.
  This was the first class action under the Congressional 
Accountability Act, the new act we passed, in order to hold Members and 
Congress itself accountable in the same way that we hold others. May I 
say that it should not have been necessary for this case to go this 
far. I am a former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, and I have to tell my colleagues that when a case that 
looks like this is filed before the commission today, and for years 
now, they simply get settled out before they get this far.
  This case not only did not get settled out when it was in our own 
administrative process, in the Office of Contract

[[Page 2352]]

Compliance, but it has now had to be filed in Federal Court against our 
own Architect of the Capitol. Now they are about to embark on costly 
interrogatories, which of course comes out of our budget, or the funds 
that we allocate to the Architect of the Capitol.
  This body needs greater oversight of the Architect of the Capitol and 
of the new Office of Compliance when a suit can get this far. 
Apparently these people were willing to settle. And when a party is 
willing to settle, it is usually on the basis that they may not get 
everything that they want, but what they certainly are entitled to is 
to have their work reclassified so that they are paid for doing the 
work they are performing. And, of course, in any such case there would 
be back pay.
  What we are talking about here, to make myself clear, is that 
laborers who are men make more money for doing the same work as 
custodians, formerly called charwomen, who are women in the House.
  When the President of the United States in his State of the Union 
message for the last several years has gotten to the part where he 
talked about equal pay for equal work, all Members rise as if to salute 
in majesty the women of America. And yet right here, in the House where 
we work, the first class action certified has been a simple equal-pay 
case of the kind rarely found in civilian society today. If this case 
goes much further, it will become an open embarrassment to this body.
  As my colleagues are aware, there is no disagreement among us when it 
comes to the Equal Pay Act, passed in 1963. We all agree that if women 
are doing the same work as men, they should not be paid less, and in 
this case perhaps as much as a dollar or more less, by classifying them 
by some other name. Whether we call her a laborer or a custodian, we 
must pay her under the act for the work she is doing.
  I regret that the case has gone this far. I feel it is my obligation, 
as a former chair of the EEOC, to bring this matter to the attention of 
Members. Because I am certain that Members on neither side of the aisle 
understand or know or have reason to know this case has gone this far, 
and that when we go home into our districts women are likely to ask us 
how in the world have we allowed ourselves to be sued by our own 
employees for not paying them the same wage as men for doing the same 
work.
  It is time that we rectified this situation. If not, I can assure my 
colleagues, I have spoken with the plaintiffs, I have spoken with their 
lawyers. There is no turning back now. They are not afraid that it is 
the Congress of the United States that is involved. After all, we said 
in passing the Congressional Accountability Act that we wanted to be 
treated the way civilian employers are treated. Please treat the women 
who clean our offices the way we would want always to have people 
treated under our jurisdiction.

                          ____________________