Women changing the rules · Research in progress
A law is the visible end of work that began much earlier: someone noticed a problem, someone listened, people documented it, organizations formed alliances, and someone with authority accepted a remedy. I'm researching those connections, not just the dates and names of laws.
Three laws
United States · 1978
Made clear that discrimination because of pregnancy is sex discrimination under federal employment law. Signed by President Carter on October 31, 1978, two years after the Supreme Court's 1976 Gilbert decision found that leaving pregnancy out of an employer's disability plan was not sex discrimination. A coalition, the Campaign to End Discrimination Against Pregnant Workers, organized the response.
Official source →United States · 2009
Changed when a claim of pay discrimination can be brought, so that each discriminatory paycheque can restart the time limit. It followed the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which had ruled Lilly Ledbetter's claim too late. It was the first bill President Obama signed, on January 29, 2009.
Official source →British Columbia · 2023
Introduced requirements on pay information, job postings and employer pay-gap reporting. It received Royal Assent on May 11, 2023. Before it passed, a coalition of more than 125 organizations led by West Coast LEAF called for pay equity legislation. What the government passed was a pay transparency law. The difference between what advocates asked for and what was enacted is part of what this research looks at. In June 2026 the government reported that about 700 employers with 300 or more employees had been required to publish pay transparency reports by November 2025, and about 64% did. Reporting is expanding to employers with 50 or more employees from November 2026. Reporting shows whether employers met the requirement, not whether pay gaps closed.
Official source →All files on this law →These show that laws can change. They don't yet show the full chain of people, organizations and actions behind each one. Mapping that chain is the research.
Two directions
Not every problem needs a new law. Sometimes the missing step is enforcing a protection that already exists, a workplace policy, a collective agreement, resources, or someone being held accountable.
The same five levels as the homepage chart
Level 1
Understanding her own situation, privately. It can stop here, and still matter.
Level 2
Women's groups, unions and associations that compare concerns and advocate.
Level 3
What is documented, what has been checked, and what is still uncertain.
Level 4
Employers, regulators, tribunals and government bodies, depending on the issue and the place.
Level 5
Protections, requirements and possible reforms.
Back down to one woman, an example. British Columbia's pay transparency law requires employers to include pay ranges in job postings. A woman applying for a job in British Columbia can use the posted range as a starting point when she negotiates. The law changes little for her until she knows it's there and how to use it.
What the research will look at next
What did individual women experience before each law? How did separate experiences become a shared pattern? Who carried them forward, and who opposed them? What would the same path look like now that women can use AI to see patterns sooner? And does change look different from province to province and state to state?
This is research in progress. Collecting stories doesn't automatically prove a systemic problem or produce a change in law, and nothing here is legal advice.
If you see a connection with your work, I'd like to compare notes.