NAWL Joins NWLC Equal Pay Amicus Brief

September 30, 2022

September 30, 2022 -- NAWL joined the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), alongside law firm partner the Federal Practice Group and 45 additional organizations, in filing an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Boyer v. U.S. in support of Dr. Leslie Boyer and her pay discrimination claim under the Equal Pay Act.

The Case
As a clinical pharmacist, Dr. Boyer had seven more years of experience than her male colleague. And yet their workplace—a medical center at the Department of Veterans Affairs (the “Agency”)—was somehow still paying her less. Even though the two pharmacists were hired only six months apart, the Agency appointed Dr. Boyer and her male colleague at significantly different “step” levels, which meant Dr. Boyer was paid $10,000 less than her less-experienced male colleague. The Agency admits that it did not provide Dr. Boyer equal pay for equal work, but claims this is okay because it based the workers’ pay on their previous salaries.

Dr. Boyer lives and works in Alabama and first filed her lawsuit against the Agency in federal district court there. The court initially ruled in favor of Dr. Boyer, determining that reliance on prior salary history was not a legitimate defense to discrimination under the Equal Pay Act. However, it then decided to transfer the case to the Court of Federal Claims, a separate court that hears some cases brought by federal workers, and vacated its previous decision. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Dr. Boyer’s lawsuit, finding that the Agency could rely on salary history to defend against sex-based pay inequality under the Equal Pay Act. Dr. Boyer then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, asking the appeals court to revive her lawsuit and allow her equal pay claim to proceed.

Our Brief

NWLC’s amicus brief explains that reliance on salary history is not a legitimate justification for pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act. That’s because women—and particularly women of color—are systematically paid less than men across occupations and industries. Therefore, employers who rely on salary history to select job applicants and to set new hires’ pay will often perpetuate existing disparities, directly undermining the purpose of the Equal Pay Act.

As we explain in our brief, the gender wage gap continues to exist, at least in part, because of employers’ reliance on factors unrelated to job qualifications, like salary history, to set employee pay. In 2021, women working full time, year-round were paid just 84 cents for every dollar paid to men, and the disparities are even larger for women of color. For Black women working full time, the wage gap causes a staggering loss of $907,680 over a 40-year career. LGBTQ workers, disabled workers, older workers, and those at the intersection of these identities are also particularly harmed by the wage gap. These substantial losses threaten women’s economic security, impacting their ability to make ends meet, provide for their families, access education, or save for retirement.

The federal government employs millions of people… and should be a model employer. Right now, it claims to be one. However, it has yet to live up to that expectation, or set a higher standard—of greater equality—for our nation’s workforce. It is imperative that government agencies implement and follow existing policies that lead to greater pay equity, instead of setting pay based on factors that tend to perpetuate historical sex, race, and other forms of pay discrimination. Notably, several other federal appeals courts, numerous states and cities, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have all recognized the ways that reliance on salary history reflects and perpetuates women’s lower pay in the broader economy and cannot justify pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act.

For all these reasons, we ask the appeals court to rule in favor of Dr. Boyer and the millions of federal workers who are affected by the wage gap—so that more women finally get paid what they are owed.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

NAWL Responds to the Supreme Court Decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

June 30, 2025

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic , ruling 6–3 that individual Medicaid beneficiaries cannot sue state officials to enforce the “free-choice-of-provider” provision of the Medicaid Act. The Court’s decision could pave the way for states to exclude providers like Planned Parenthood from Medicaid programs, even when doing so limits access to essential reproductive and preventive health care -- and even when the sole basis for doing so is for ideological reasons. This ruling marks a significant setback for reproductive justice and health equity. By narrowing the ability of individuals to challenge state actions that restrict access to care, the Court has further eroded the legal tools available to protect the rights of patients who rely on Medicaid to access fundamental healthcare, including preventative and general care and access to contraception. Marginalized communities will likely be disparately affected. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a powerful dissent, emphasized the real-world consequences of the majority’s decision: “[T]oday’s decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people. At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians—and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country—of a deeply personal freedom: the ‘ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.’” NAWL is proud to have joined with the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia in filing an amicus brief which underscored the importance of preserving legal avenues for patients to challenge discriminatory and harmful state policies. NAWL stands in solidarity with Planned Parenthood, reproductive rights advocates, and the millions of individuals whose access to care is now at greater risk. We urge our members and allies to continue advocating for a legal system that upholds the rights, health, and dignity of all people—regardless of income, identity, or geography. --- NAWL will continue the conversation at the 2025 Annual Meeting . Hear about this Supreme Court term’s major decisions affecting NAWL’s mission from Arabella Babb Mansfield Award Recipients and co-hosts of the Strict Scrutiny podcast: Leah Litman, Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School; Melissa Murray, Professor of Law at New York University School of Law; and Kate Shaw, Professor of Law at University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. Additionally, after a workshop screening of the film Zurawski v Texas , Cici Coquillette from the Center for Reproductive Rights and Cassie Ehrenberg from The Lawyering Project and Abortion Defense Network will specifically discuss the Medina decision.

NAWL Responds to the Supreme Court Decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti

June 24, 2025

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Skrmetti , which upholds a Tennessee law (SB1) banning gender-affirming medical care —such as puberty blockers and hormones— for transgender minors. In the 6–3 decision, the Court held that SB1 does not warrant heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, despite its discriminatory targeting of transgender youth by explicitly permitting hormone treatments and gender-affirming care for youth who identify as cisgender, while denying the same care for youth who identify as trans. This ruling has the potential to reshape access to health care and marks a profound erosion of the Equal Protection clause as a tool for challenging laws that disproportionately affect women and other marginalized groups. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a searing dissent, laid bare the consequences of the Court’s refusal to confront the reality of this legislation: “[T]he majority refuses to call a spade a spade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it. The Court's willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent.” As an organization committed to advancing gender equity under the law, NAWL stands with transgender individuals, families, advocates, and scholars who continue this long fight. The Court’s application of rational basis review to state laws targeting a specific “medical use” may also have far-reaching negative consequences on gender health equity more broadly, including access to reproductive care. NAWL calls on its members and allies to speak out, support impacted communities, and work toward a legal system rooted in dignity, equity, and justice for all. --- NAWL will continue the conversation at the 2025 Annual Meeting during the session, “ U.S. v. Skrmetti : The Future of Gender Equity in Healthcare,” featuring National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter and Executive Director of the Williams Institute Christy Mallory .

NAWL Joins NWLC Equal Pay Amicus Brief

NAWL Responds to the Supreme Court Decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

NAWL Responds to the Supreme Court Decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti

NAWL Joins Bar Associations' Amicus Brief in Support of Susman Godfrey LLP

NAWL Joins New York State Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Support of Survivor Justice

NAWL Joins U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Support of Reproductive Justice

NAWL Joins 1st Circuit Amicus Brief Against Educational Censorship