66
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES             H.C.R. NO.            H.D. 1
TWENTIETH LEGISLATURE, 1999                                
STATE OF HAWAII                                            
                                                             
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________


                     HOUSE CONCURRENT
                        RESOLUTION

REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS TO
   CONDUCT A STUDY AND TO TAKE ACTION TO PROHIBIT
   DISCRIMINATORY PRICING PRACTICES IN THE PROVISION OF
   SERVICES.



 1       WHEREAS, every person should be charged the same price for
 2   the same service, or surcharged equally for an identical extra
 3   service, irrespective of gender; and
 4   
 5       WHEREAS, existing laws prohibit any business from
 6   discriminating against any person based on gender; and
 7   
 8       WHEREAS, charging different prices for services that are
 9   the same or similar in nature based on a consumer's gender
10   constitutes a form of discrimination; and
11   
12       WHEREAS, disparate pricing for services that are the same
13   or similar in nature most often affects women; and
14   
15       WHEREAS, while prices for services should only vary if a
16   service takes longer or is more difficult to provide, women are
17   often charged more for services by certain types of businesses,
18   such as salons, dry cleaners, and clothing alterations based on
19   gender stereotypes, not actual labor costs; and
20   
21       WHEREAS, a 1996 City Council survey in New York City
22   provided strong evidence that gender-based price discrimination
23   existed in haircutting, dry cleaning, and clothing alterations
24   finding that:
25   
26       (1)  Out of one hundred and ninety nine haircutters
27            surveyed, forty-eight per cent charged women more than
28            men for a basic haircut, making the average price of a
29            woman's haircut nineteen per cent more than a man's
30            haircut; 
31   
32       (2)  Women paid, on average, one hundred and ninety per
33            cent more than men for having the waist of a pair of
34            suit pants taken in one inch at twenty-four major
35            clothing retailers surveyed; and

 
Page 2                                                     66
                                  H.C.R. NO.            H.D. 1
                                                        
                                                        

 
 1       (3)  Women paid, on average, thirteen and one-half per cent
 2            more than men to have shirts dry cleaned;
 3   
 4   and
 5   
 6       WHEREAS, a 1997 investigation conducted by the
 7   Massachusetts' Public Interest Research Group (MASSPIRG) found
 8   that:
 9   
10       (1)  Eighty-eight per cent of dry cleaners surveyed charge
11            women more than men to dry clean or launder a cotton
12            shirt;
13   
14       (2)  Of the dry cleaners that were found to discriminate in
15            the survey, women were charged an average of fifty-
16            three per cent more than men to have a shirt
17            laundered, and forty-seven per cent more to have a
18            shirt dry cleaned, and that in some cases, women were
19            charged three times the price men were charged for the
20            same service;
21   
22       (3)  Fifty-six per cent of hair salons surveyed charged
23            women an average of thirty-one per cent more for a
24            basic shampoo, hair cut, and blow dry than men;
25   
26       (4)  Seventy per cent of hair salons that were found to
27            charge different prices defended their gender
28            discrimination even after the surveyor explained that
29            a man's hair cut could be more complicated than a
30            woman's haircut; and
31   
32       (5)  Only thirty-three per cent of retailers surveyed
33            posted or made available their prices in writing;
34   
35   and
36   
37       WHEREAS, a 1991 Massachusetts Attorney General's Report
38   proved that common excuses used by dry cleaners for illegal
39   gender-based pricing practices were invalid, demonstrating, for
40   example:
41   
42       (1)  When dry cleaners claimed that women's shirts required
43            hand pressing because they did not fit the standard
44            body presses used for shirts, their claim was proven
45            untrue when investigators brought women's shirts as
46            small as an untapered size six to ordinary commercial

 
Page 3                                                     66
                                  H.C.R. NO.            H.D. 1
                                                        
                                                        

 
 1            launderers, who pressed them in the same way the
 2            launderers press men's shirts, without extra labor;
 3            and
 4   
 5       (2)  When dry cleaners claimed that women's blouses could
 6            not be pressed on a standard press because any
 7            ornamentation on the shirt precluded their use,
 8            investigators found shirts as fancy as men's pleated
 9            tuxedo shirts were pressed on a standard body press;
10   
11   and 
12   
13       WHEREAS, while not every business uses discriminatory
14   pricing practices, gender pricing continues to exist and costs
15   women extra money every year; and 
16   
17       WHEREAS, according to the United States Department of
18   Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, full-time women workers in
19   Hawaii make approximately eighty-two and four-tenths cents for
20   every dollar earned by male workers, thus causing women to
21   suffer the double indignity of both earning less at work and
22   paying more for services that are the same or similar in nature
23   to services provided to men; now, therefore,
24   
25       BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the
26   Twentieth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session
27   of 1999, the Senate concurring, that the Legislative Auditor in
28   consultation with the Civil Rights Commission, is requested to
29   conduct a study regarding discriminatory pricing of services by
30   persons, partnerships, firms, corporations, or other entities
31   engaged in business within the State, and to take action to
32   prohibit discriminatory pricing practices in the provision of
33   services to consumers based on race, creed, color, national
34   origin, age, gender, disability, marital status, sexual
35   orientation, or alienage or citizenship status of such
36   consumers; and 
37   
38       BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, for purposes of the study, the
39   Legislative Auditor is requested not to consider as
40   discriminatory:
41   
42       (1)  Price differences based on the amount of time,
43            difficulty, or cost of providing services as
44            discriminatory; and
45   
46       (2)  Laws related to health and safety or insurance;

 
Page 4                                                     66
                                  H.C.R. NO.            H.D. 1
                                                        
                                                        

 
 1   and
 2   
 3       BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Auditor is
 4   requested to report on its findings, and the Civil Rights
 5   Commission to report any actions it has taken to prohibit
 6   discriminatory pricing practices to the Legislature no later
 7   than twenty days prior to the convening of the Regular Session
 8   of 2000; and
 9   
10       BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this
11   Concurrent Resolution be transmitted to the Director of
12   Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Director of the Legislative
13   Reference Bureau, the Attorney General, the Hawaii Civil Rights
14   Commission, the Hawaii Chamber of Commerce, and the Hawaii
15   State Commission on the Status of Women.