Equal Time: The Return Of A Loony Idea.

In his State of the Union address, President Clinton followed his pitch for an increase in the minimum wage with a seductive appeal to the fairer sex: "And let's make sure that women and men get equal pay for equal work by strengthening enforcement of the equal-pay laws." This solicitude for working women prompted the evening's only bipartisan standing ovation. "Uh oh," thought an onlooking GOP leadership aide, who realized that "Republicans had no idea what they were clapping about." In fact, they were applauding a new Democratic assault on employers in an attempt to enrich civil-rights groups and trial lawyers.

The AFL-CIO has launched a drive for "pay equity" legislation in 24 states, and within days of his big speech Clinton devoted his Saturday radio address to the new federal initiative. He fondly recalled that it had "brought members of both parties to their feet in a strong show of support," and he urged the demonstratively enthusiastic Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, co- sponsored by minority leader Tom Daschle and liberal Connecticut representative Rosa DeLauro.

Business groups in the bipartisan bull's-eye don't share Congress's enthusiasm. The Labor Policy Association, which represents about 250 major corporations, is alarmed that Congress was brought to its feet over a measure designed to bring employers to their knees. The Paycheck Fairness Act, writes association president Jeffrey McGuiness, "is really about opening the door to unlimited employment-law damages."

Equal pay for equal work has actually been federally mandated since President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963. Still, the battle cry over discriminatory wages fueled the feminist movement during its fish-and-bicycle days in the 1970s and its push for the ERA. Equal pay remains the only item on the feminist agenda that enjoys broad public support. In fact, the idea is such a no-brainer that it is now reality, judging by the relatively few complaints lodged for sex-based wage discrimination.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces claims brought under either the Equal Pay Act or Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Over the past five years, fewer than 1.5 percent of all charges filed with the EEOC have involved Equal Pay Act complaints alleging unfairly low wages for women. The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that sex discrimination had on average occurred in fewer than 4 percent of these complaints. Over the past three years, the EEOC has litigated only five Equal Pay Act cases, representing 0.5 percent of all its litigated cases for that period.

Hardly a groundswell of wronged women. But this insignificant number of complaints is precisely the problem that Tom Daschle's bill is meant to rectify. Under the Kennedy-era Equal Pay Act, successful complainants are awarded compensatory back pay-double pay upon a showing of willful violations-and reasonable attorneys' fees. The aggrieved party is made whole, but no one else profits. The new Paycheck Fairness Act wouldn't be so stingy.

Under Daschle's scheme, the Equal Pay Act would be amended to allow for unlimited punitive damages and larger class-action suits. This will attract trial lawyers like flies because under the current law there is no need to show a discriminatory intent by the employer to win a case. The provision for damages, a veteran Senate staffer says, would represent "a huge change in employment law and a huge boon for trial lawyers." Currently, there are no provisions for unlimited damages in any federal employment law. Threatened with exorbitant damages, on top of the light burden of proof required of plaintiffs, businesses will be under pressure to settle even the weakest cases.

Furthermore, potential class-action plaintiffs in Equal Pay Act cases would under the Daschle plan have to "opt out" of lawsuits. As affected individuals typically do nothing when notified about a suit on their behalf, the elimination of the act's current provision that plaintiffs must affirmatively "opt in" will likely increase dramatically the size of classes. The average size of a class in a federal suit under "opt in" rules is 633; under "opt out" provisions the number balloons to 32,797. Federal courts have referred to this type of class- action suit as "judicial blackmail" because the potential costs of losing are so high, defendants almost have to settle.

This blackmail is not without beneficiaries. "Civil-rights groups derive a huge amount of their income from these large cases," points out the Labor Policy Association's McGuiness. He expects that if equal-pay cases include unlimited damages and new class-action rules, Democrats will then press to "reform" similarly the rules governing other employment cases brought under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This would change the legal landscape for businesses drastically for the worse, and give the Left a pressure point to dictate to businesses how they compensate women; the Paycheck Fairness Act instructs the Labor Department to develop comparable-worth "guidelines" that employers should be encouraged to adopt.

There is good reason for Democrats to be optimistic about their chances. The Washington Post's Judy Mann writes, "Timing on equal pay efforts, especially in Congress, couldn't be better. The right wing has been routed, the Republicans are terrified of the women's vote, and the economy is certainly robust . . . " True enough. But why should Republicans be applauding?