loader
Page is loading...
generic_insight_detail

En Banc Panel Rules in Favor For Administrator In Pay Disparity Case


The question before the panel was simple: can an employer justify a wage differential between male and female employees by relying on prior salary? Based on the text, history, and purpose of the Equal Pay Act, the panel held that prior salary – whether alone or in combination with other factors – may not justify a difference in pay between male and female workers doing the same job. The opinion was written by Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt prior to his death in early April at age 87. The April 9 decision arose from a math consultant hired by the Fresno County Office of Education.  Prior to that position, the consultant was a math teacher earning an annual salary of $50,630.  The consultant’s new salary with the Office of Education was based on a standard operating procedure where base pay for new hires was based on their most recent prior salary, adding a small percentage, and placing the hire on the corresponding step of its salary schedule. During a lunch with her colleagues, the math consultant learned that her male colleagues had been subsequently hired as math consultants at higher salary steps. The math consultant complained to her employer, which responded that all salaries had been set in accordance with the standard operating procedure. The only rationale offered by the County was that the math consultant’s salary was lower at a prior job.  The math consultant then sued the agency under the Equal Pay Act and other laws. The panel concluded “unhesitatingly, that 'any other factor other than sex' is limited to legitimate, job-related factors such as a prospective employee's experience, educational background, ability, or prior job performance" and that prior salary alone or in combination with other factors cannot justify wage differential under Equal Pay Act. And that to hold otherwise—to allow employers to capitalize on the persistence of the wage gap and perpetuate that gap ad infinitum—would be contrary to the text and history of the Equal Pay Act, and would vitiate the very purpose for which the Act stands. Notably, this decision does not affect whether or under what circumstances, past salary may play a role in the course of an individualized salary negotiation.


LEAVE YOUR COMMENT

RELATED ARTICLES

Illinois EPA Amendment Lowers Standard For Discrimination Claims

August 8, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Employment Discrimination

Illinois Amends Equal Pay Act To Ban Questions About Applicants' Pay History

August 6, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Employment Lessons

Divided SCOTUS Affirms Auer Deference to Agencies’ Interpretations

July 3, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Supreme Court Watch

EEOC Proposes Employers Provide 2018 Pay Data by September

April 4, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, EEOC

Asking: “How much do you currently make?” in 2018?

December 29, 2017 | EEOC, Employment Lessons, Currents - Employment Law

Subscribe

Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.

View Subscription Center
RELATED TOPICS
Equal Pay Act
male and female employees
Pay Disparity
salary
wage
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.