Tag: Equal Pay

Washington State’s Pay Transparency Law Takes Effect January 1, 2023

Effective January 1, 2023, Washington employers must comply with SB 5761, commonly known as Washington’s Pay Transparency Law, signed by Governor Jay Inslee on March 30, 2022. SB 5761 amends Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunity Act (RCW 49.58) to require employers with 15 or more employees to include in each job posting the wage scale or salary range of the job and a general description of all of the benefits offered and to identify other compensation offered. The law also requires employers to provide existing employees who are promoted or offered a new position with the wage scale or salary range of the new position.

IN DEPTH

Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunity Act currently only requires employers to provide applicants with the minimum wage or salary for the position they seek and only upon the applicant’s request after the employer makes the job offer.

WHAT IS THE PAY TRANSPARENCY LAW?

Effective January 1, 2023, employers must disclose in each posting for each job opening the wage scale or salary range and a general description of all benefits and other compensation to offered to the hired applicant.

Job postings mean “any solicitation included to recruit job applicants for a specific available position,” and electronic or hard-copy records that describe the desired qualifications, whether the employer solicits applicants directly or indirectly through a third party.

Washington’s Department of Labor and Industries (DLI) has published a draft administrative policy that provides employers with guidance on compliance.

WHICH EMPLOYERS ARE COVERED?

The law applies to employers with 15 or more employees.

DLI’s guidance clarifies that the law applies to all employers with 15 or more employees, engaging in any business, industry, profession or activity in Washington. The 15-employee threshold for covered employers “includes employers that do not have a physical presence in Washington, if the employer has one or more Washington-based employees.” This law applies to employers even if they do not have a physical presence in Washington but engage in business in Washington or recruit for jobs that could be filled by a Washington-based employee.

WHAT MUST EMPLOYERS INCLUDE IN THE POSTING?

Employers must disclose in each posting for each job opening:

  • The opening wage scale or salary range
  • A general description of all benefits and other compensation offered.

Per the DLI’s guidance, employers must make these disclosures in postings for remote work that could be performed by a Washington-based employee. Employers cannot avoid these disclosure requirements by stating in the posting that it will not accept Washington applicants.

Wage Scale or Salary Range

The DLI’s guidance identifies examples of information that should be included in a posting.

A wage scale or salary range should provide the applicant with the employer’s most reasonable and genuinely expected range of compensation for the job, extending from the lowest to the highest pay established by the employer prior to publishing the job posting. If the employer does not have an existing wage scale or salary range for a position, the scale or range should be created prior to publishing the job posting. For example, the scale or range’s minimum and maximum should be clear without open-ended phrases such as “$60,000/per year and up” (with no top of the range), or “up to $29.00/hour” (with no bottom of the scale).

Employers should update the posting to reflect any changes to the wage scale or salary range. If the employer offers a different position than what the applicant applied for, the employer may offer the applicant the wage scale or salary range specific to the position offered, rather than the position in the posting.

If an employer intends to implement a “starting range” or “starting rate” for an initial timeframe of employment or probationary period, the starting range or rate may be listed on the posting, but the entire scale or range must also be listed on the posting.

If an employer publishes a job posting for a job opening that can be filled with varying job titles, depending on experience, the employer should specify all potential wage scales or salary ranges that apply. The job posting should clearly define the lowest to highest pay established for each potential job position, as indicated in the example below:

  • Accounting Analyst 1: $27.00 – $29.00 per hour
  • Accounting Analyst 2: $65,000 – $75,000 per year
  • Accounting Analyst 3: $80,000 – $95,000 per year.

If an employer posts a job that is compensated by commission rates, the employer should include the rate or rate range (percentage or otherwise) that it would offer to the hired applicant, as indicated in the example below:

  • Commission-based salesperson: 5–8% of net sale price per unit.

General Description of All Benefits 

A general description of all benefits includes, but is not limited to, healthcare benefits, retirement benefits, any benefits permitting paid days off (including more-generous paid sick leave accruals, parental leave, and paid time off or vacation benefits), and any other benefits that must be reported for federal tax purposes, such as fringe benefits.

If the general description of all benefits changes after an employer has published a posting and the posting remains published, the employer should update the posting.

If insurance or retirement plans are included as part of the position’s benefits package, employers should list the types of insurance and retirement plans in the job posting, such as medical insurance, vision insurance, 401k and employer-funded retirement plan. Similarly, if an employer offers paid vacation, paid holidays or paid sick leave benefits, employers should list in detail the amount of days or hours offered for each benefit.

The DLI’s example of a general description of all benefits is as follows:

  • “Employees (and their families) are covered by medical, dental, vision, and basic life insurance. Employees are able to enroll in our company’s 401k plan, as well as a deferred compensation plan. Employees will also receive eight hours of vacation leave every month, as well as eight hours of Washington paid sick leave every month. Employees will also enjoy twelve paid holidays throughout the calendar year. Two weeks of paid parental leave will also be available for use after successful completion of one year of employment.”

General Description of Other Compensation 

Other compensation includes, but is not limited to, any discretionary bonuses, stock options or other forms of compensation that would be offered to the hired applicant in addition to their established salary range or wage scale. Some forms of other compensation can include, but are not limited to, commissions, bonuses, profit-sharing, merit pay, stock options, travel allowance, relocation assistance and housing allowance.

Employers need only describe the other compensation and need not include the total monetary value of the other compensation in a job posting. However, employers who choose to include the total monetary value of other compensation in a job posting must also include the required general description of benefits and other compensation in addition to the wage scale or salary range.

The DLI’s example of a general description of other compensation is as follows:

  • “Hired applicant will be able to purchase company stock, receive annual bonuses, and can participate in profit-sharing. Hired applicant will also receive an equity grant in the form of either a direct grant of stock that will be specified in the employment contract or an option to purchase stock in the future for a specified price.”

In electronic job postings, the posting must have the general description of the benefits and other compensation, but employers can use a link to provide a more detailed description of benefits and other compensation. However, “it is the employer’s responsibility to assure continuous compliance with functionality of links, up-to-date information, and information that applies to the specific job posting, regardless of any use of third-party administrators.”

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NONCOMPLIANCE?

Where an employer is out of compliance with this law, applicants and employees will be able to file a complaint with the DLI or file a civil lawsuit against the employer in court.

If applicants or employees file a complaint with the DLI, the DLI may issue a citation and/or notice of assessment and order the employer to pay to the complainant actual damages, double statutory damages (or $5,000, whichever is greater), interest of 1% per month on compensation owed, payment to the department for the costs of investigation and enforcement, and other appropriate relief. The DLI may also order an employer to pay civil penalties in response to complaints, ranging from $500 for a first violation to $1,000 or 10% of damages (whichever is greater) for a repeat violation.

If applicants or employees file a civil lawsuit, remedies may include actual damages, double statutory damages (or $5,000, whichever is greater), interest of 1% per month on compensation owed, and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs. Recovery of wages and interest will be calculated back four years from the last violation.

Note: This alert was drafted based on Washington State’s Department of Labor & Industries’ Draft Administrative Policy, which may be superseded by a revised final version before January 1, 2023. 

Article By Yesenia M. Gallegos, Michelle S. Strowhiro, and Paulina Chau of McDermott Will & Emery

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 McDermott Will & Emery

Illinois Department of Labor Publishes Guidance for Employers Seeking Equal Pay Registration Certificate

Effective March 24, 2022, the Illinois Equal Pay Act (IEPA) was amended to require private businesses with more than 100 employees in Illinois to obtain an Equal Pay Registration Certificate (EPRC) by March 23, 2024, and every two years thereafter.

To apply for the EPRC, businesses must submit the following to the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL): (1) a filing fee; (2) an equal pay compliance statement; (3) a copy of the employer’s most recently filed EEO-1 report; and (4) a list of employees separated by gender and the race and ethnicity categories as reported in the employer’s most recently filed EEO-1 report, and the total wages paid to each employee during the past calendar year.

The IDOL recently updated its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for the EPRC, addressing, among other things, the application and submission processes, fee requirements, recertification, publicly available data, and penalties for employer noncompliance.  Here are key takeaways:

  • All employees based in Illinois, including those working remotely, should be included in the total employee count for reporting purposes. An employer’s total employee count includes the total number of people employed who worked in or were based out of Illinois on December 31 of the 12-month calendar year immediately prior the year the employer is required to submit an EPRC application.
  • For reporting purposes, “wages” means any compensation paid to an employee by an employer pursuant to an employment contract or agreement between the two parties, including wages, salaries, earned commissions, earned bonuses, stocks and ownership shares. This does not include retirement health insurance benefits, or other fringe benefits.
  • If an employer’s submitted wage data in its EPRC application shows that the employer is paying unequal wages to male and female employees or to African-American and non-African American employees, the IDOL may initiate its own investigation pursuant to Sections 10(a) and 15(c) of the IEPA and Section 320.200 of the IEPA regulations.
  • Before any fines may be imposed for a violation of the IEPA, the IDOL will provide notice to an employer that violates the IEPA and inadvertently fails to file an initial EPRC application or recertification that they have 30 calendar days to submit the application or recertification. If the employer fails to do so, it shall be fined up to $10,000.
  • An employer that falsifies or misrepresents data on an EPRC application faces suspension or revocation of the EPRC and civil penalties up to $10,000.
  • Current employees subject to the IEPA may request anonymized data from the IDOL regarding their job classification or title and the pay for that classification.

Illinois employers should audit their pay practices to ensure that any differences in wages amongst employees of similar job classifications are justified by legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more articles covering labor law updates, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

What Does Equal Pay Really Mean?

By now you’ve certainly heard of the U.S. women’s soccer team’s challenge to their pay arrangement. Back in the spring of 2019, the players sued the United States Soccer Federation (“USSF”) alleging they were unfairly compensated in comparison to the men’s soccer team–a dispute that has been going on since at least 2017. The federal court dismissed the pay claims on summary judgment, ruling that the women were not, in fact, paid less than the men per game played.

Recently the players appealed the federal court’s ruling to the 9th Circuit. In their opposition brief, the USSF argued that the women cannot challenge a payment schedule they expressly negotiated and agreed to via a collective bargaining agreement.

The case presents two very interesting and important issues on the fair pay landscape. The first question is whether an individual can challenge their pay as unequal when they expressly bargained for and negotiated that pay, especially where–as here–they had full knowledge of what employees of the opposite sex were paid.

The second issue is how much “market realities” (as the USSF has called them) are allowed to play a role in the Equal Pay Act analysis as a legitimate job-related factor other than gender (one of the statutory exceptions). For example, in 2018 and 2019, FIFA paid out $38 million to the winner of the men’s world cup, but only $4 million to the winner of the women’s world cup. That is, in the international market, the men’s soccer competitions (generally speaking, not just the U.S. men’s team specifically) sell more tickets and at higher prices, have more expensive sponsorship deals, and generate more revenue.

The USSF argues that because of the potential to generate more revenue from their competitions (even if they end up losing and failing to generate that revenue), the men stand to earn more in their contracts via win bonuses. In response, the women argue that they have, in fact, generated more revenue than the men’s team over the past few years, yet do not have the same bonus opportunities.

It will be interesting to watch how the 9th Circuit wrestles with these two issues, particularly as the result may have lasting impacts for individual employees making equal pay claims. For example, would pay transparency and negotiated salaries be a strong defense to later equal pay claims? Moreover, would revenue generation or even potential revenue generation be a strong defense even when actual performance suggests the lower-paid female employee is generating more revenue than the male employee?

The 9th Circuit will likely hear oral argument on the appeal in early 2022.

{ U.S. women’s soccer team players sought a collective-bargaining agreement that prioritized guaranteed salaries and benefits over potentially higher bonuses, and can’t now pursue “equal pay” claims based on a pay structure they rejected, the U.S. Soccer Federation argued . . . .

 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-soccer-women-equal-pay-11632341799

©1994-2021 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team Wins Class Certification in Equal Pay Fight

A federal court has ruled that the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team’s (USWNT) equal pay claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act can move forward as a class action, as opposed to myriad individual cases.

As part of its decision, the court also allowed the USWNT’s Equal Pay Act (EPA) case to proceed as a collective action.

Factual background

Earlier this year, the USWNT players filed a complaint in federal court against their employer, the USSF. The lawsuit alleges that USSF violated the EPA and Title VII by, among other things, paying the women’s team less than the men’s team for doing equal work.

Equal Pay Act and Title VII Legal Frameworks To Prove Wage Discrimination

To win their EPA case, the USWNT must first prove a prima facie case under the EPA. The team can do so by showing:

  • the employer pays different wages to employees of the opposite sex;
  • the employees perform equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility; and
  • the jobs are performed under similar working conditions

If the USWNT establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the USSF to establish one of four affirmative defenses: (1) that the pay difference is due to a seniority system, (2) a merit system, (3) a system that measures quantity or quality of production, or (4) “any factor other than sex.”

If the USSF makes this showing, the USWNT can still win if it shows that the USSF’s justification for the pay disparity was a pretext.

Title VII also makes it illegal to discriminate based on sex in pay and benefits, which is why the USWNT is also suing USSF under this law. Title VII prohibits discrimination in compensation and other terms and conditions of employment, so it has a broader reach than the EPA (and also outlaws, among other things, discrimination based on race, religion, and other protected characteristics).

The USWNT Argues That, Despite Their Better Results, They Are Paid Less For Equal Work

The USWNT’s complaint contains evidence and statistics supporting their argument that the USSF has unlawfully paid them less than the men’s soccer team. For example, the complaint alleges:

The USWNT is the preeminent women’s soccer team in the world and has contributed to the finances and reputation of the USSF at least as much as the USMNT. The complaint lists three World Cup titles (which is now four titles), four Olympic gold medals, and asserts that the USSF revised its projected earnings for 2016 from a net loss of $429,929, to a net gain of $17.7 million, because of the successes of the USWNT, particularly at the 2015 World Cup.

The USSF pays the women’s team less than the men’s team, despite requiring players on both teams to perform the same job duties that require equal skill, effort and responsibilities performed under similar working conditions. The complaint states that the women’s team players spend more time practicing, playing, and promoting the USSF than the men’s team does; indeed, from 2015 to 2018, the USWNT played in nineteen more games than the USMNT.

In addition, the complaint asserts that from 2013 to 2016, the USSF paid USWNT players $15,000 for trying out and making the World Cup team. Yet the USSF paid USMNT players $55,000 for making the team.

Similarly, in 2014, the USSF paid the USMNT more than $5.3 million in bonuses after their World Cup loss in the Round of 16. While in 2015, the USSF paid the USWNT only $1,725,000 in bonuses after they won the World Cup.

Finally, the USWNT received less favorable training and travel conditions, as well as reduced marketing for their games. For example, in 2017, USSF chartered private planes for USMNT travel at least seventeen times, but zero times for the USWNT.

USSF’s Potential Defenses

To rebut these claims, the USSF might argue that its legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for paying USWNT players less than USMNT players is that the men’s team generates more revenue for USSF than the women’s team, which accounts for the difference in pay.  The USSF denies the allegations in the USWNT’s complaint.

According to a report, however, this may not be accurate. That is, between 2016 and 2018, USWNT games generated about $50.8 million, compared with $49.9 million for USMNT games.

Currently, player compensation is not directly linked to money generated by the team in ticket sales, brand deals, and other promotional activity. The USWNT’s complaint refers to 2016 negotiations with the USSF in which the USWNT’s union offered to enter a revenue-sharing model. Under this model, player compensation would increase in years in which the USSF derived more revenue from USWNT activities and decrease in years when it earned less from USWNT’s activities. USSF rejected the offer, according to the complaint.

© 2019 Zuckerman Law

ARTICLE BY Eric Bachman of Zuckerman Law.
For more employment and other litigation outcomes, see the National Law Review Litigation & Trial Practice law page.

#MeToo-Inspired Laws Hit the Midwest: Illinois Passes Anti-harassment, Pay Equity, and Board Diversity Legislation

After ending 2018 with a slew of new employment laws, Illinois continues to enact legislation impacting employers. Following the example set by California, Washington, and other states recently, the Illinois legislature passed four new bills targeting equity, transparency, and discrimination last week, and Governor J. B. Pritzker is expected to sign them into law. This gives Illinois companies the opportunity to reevaluate their policies and practices with regard to sexual harassment, equity, and discrimination.

Illinois State Law Changes

  • Sexual Harassment (Senate Bill 75)

As the #MeToo movement continues to be a top priority of state legislatures throughout the country, Illinois joins several other states, such as Arizona, California, Delaware, Oregon, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington, in passing proactive legislation on the topic. SB 75 contains several provisions designed to prevent harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

First, the law limits unilateral nondisclosure agreements and mandatory arbitration agreements relating to sexual harassment and employment discrimination claims. It remains to be seen whether, upon challenge, courts will find this law and others like it that prohibit arbitration agreements to be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.

The legislation also requires employers to disclose to the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) by July 1, 2020, and each July 1 thereafter, the total number of final adverse administrative rulings or judgments in the preceding year and whether any equitable relief was ordered. In addition, SB 75 requires employers to disclose to the IDHR during an investigation the total number of settlements entered into during the preceding five years that relate to any act of alleged sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination. However, the law prohibits the IDHR from relying on the existence of any settlement to support a finding of substantial evidence.

SB 75 also permits employees who are victims of gender-based violence to take unpaid leave and requires hotels and casinos to provide employees working in isolated spaces with panic buttons to prevent sexual harassment or assault.

Finally, under this law Illinois joins California, New York, Delaware, Connecticut, and Maine in requiring employers to hold annual sexual harassment training for all employees. Like New York’s law, SB 75 calls for the IDHR to produce a model sexual harassment training program, including a program specifically tailored to the restaurant and bar industry.

  • Equal Pay Act (House Bill 834)

HB 834, like recent legislation in Colorado, Washington, and Maine, prohibits employers from screening prospective employees based on salary histories and bars employers from requesting or requiring prospective employees to provide their salary history as a condition of being considered for employment. Importantly, the law expressly states that it does not apply to current employees applying for promotions or transfers with the same employer. The law also expressly permits discussions about an applicant’s expectations with respect to compensation and benefits.

HB 834 would ban employers from requiring employees to sign a contract or waiver that would forbid the employee from discussing compensation information (though human resources employees and supervisors may be prohibited from disclosing compensation information learned in their jobs).

This legislation amends Illinois’s Equal Pay Act of 2003. The law previously prohibited discrimination in pay among jobs that require “equal” skill, effort, and responsibility, but the new law will require employers to compare jobs that require “substantially similar” skill, effort, and responsibility. It also now requires that any factor that accounts for a pay differential must not be “based on or derived from a differential in compensation based on sex or another protected characteristic,” must be job related and consistent with business necessity, and must account for the entire differential. Employers that violate the law may be subject to compensatory or punitive damages. These changes to the Illinois Equal Pay Act may, therefore, call for a fresh look at an employer’s pay equity analysis.

  • Lower Threshold for “Employer” under the Illinois Human Rights Act (House Bill 252)

HB 252 amends the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) and provides that “employer” includes any person employing one or more employees within Illinois during 20 or more calendar weeks within the calendar year of or preceding the alleged violation. This significantly expands the previous definition of employer, which included any person employing 15 or more employees in Illinois (matching Federal Title VII’s requirements).

  • Disclosure of Board Demographics (House Bill 3394)

HB 3394 requires publicly traded companies based in Illinois to report the demographics of their board and executives, including the self-identified gender and race of each member of its board. The University of Illinois will then publish an annual report card on Illinois companies’ diversity. Companies will also need to report on their policies and practices for promoting diversity. A previous version of the bill would have required companies to include at least one woman, one African-American, and one Latino on their boards, but these requirements were removed from the bill before it was passed by the state legislature.

Practical Takeaways for Employers

Employers should be acutely aware of how these legislative changes affect their workplaces. To prepare for the implementation of the laws above, employers doing business in Illinois may consider doing the following:

  • Ensuring their sexual harassment and discrimination policies comply with the requirements outlined in SB 75
  • Adopting annual sexual harassment trainings that cover the standards set forth in Illinois law and federal law and preparing for such trainings
  • For employers with under 15 employees that were previously not covered by the IHRA, reevaluating policies to ensure they are in compliance
  • Limiting the use of arbitration or nondisclosure agreements with respect to harassment claims where necessary, and revising all employment agreements to ensure their nondisclosure and arbitration clauses meet the standards set forth in SB 75
  • Adjusting hiring or recruitment processes to eliminate questions about salary history as required by HB 834
  • Conducting privileged pay equity audits to evaluate compliance with the amended Illinois Equal Pay Act

Although #MeToo has not changed the fundamentals of federal discrimination law, the cultural shift continues to place new obligations on employers.

© 2019, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
This post was written by Kayla A. McCann and Sarah J. Platt at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
More on Employment & Pay Equality on the National Law Review Labor & Employment page.

Colorado Enacts Equal Pay for Equal Work Law, Effective 2021

Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (Senate Bill 85) into law on May 22. The intent of the new law is to help close the gender pay gap in Colorado and ensure that employees with similar job duties are paid the same wage rate regardless of sex, or sex plus another protected status. Unless a referendum petition is filed, the law goes into effect on January 1, 2021, providing employers with 19 months to come into compliance. Key points of the legislation follow.

Prohibited Conduct and Scope

The Act prohibits employers from:

  • paying differing wages based on an employee’s sex or on the basis of sex in combination with another protected status (disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, national origin, or ancestry) unless one of the statutory exceptions apply;

  • seeking the wage rate history of a prospective employee or relying on a prior wage rate to determine a wage rate for the position in question;

  • discriminating or retaliating against a prospective employee for failing to disclose their wage rate history;

  • discharging or retaliating against an employee for asserting the rights established by the Act, invoking the Act’s protections on behalf of anyone, or in assisting in the enforcement of the Act;

  • discharging, disciplining, discriminating against, coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with an employee or other person because they inquired about, disclosed, compared, or otherwise discussed the employee’s wage rate; and

  • prohibiting an employee from disclosing wage rate information.

The Act defines “employer” broadly to include “the state or any political subdivision, commission, department, institution, or school district thereof, and every other person employing a person in the state.”  “Employee” is defined as “a person employed by an employer.”

Exceptions to the Act

The Act allows exceptions to the prohibition against a wage differential based on sex if the employer demonstrates the difference in wages is reasonably based upon one or more factors, including:

  • a seniority system;

  • a merit system;

  • a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production;

  • the geographic location where the work is performed;

  • education, training, or experience to the extent that they are reasonably related to the work in question; or

  • travel, if the travel is a regular and necessary condition of the work performed.

In relying on these factors, the employer must not rely on prior wage rate history to justify a disparity in current wage rates.

New Employer Obligations

The Act also imposes new affirmative obligations on employers. Once the Act is in effect, employers must:

  • announce to all employees employment advancement opportunities and job openings, and the pay range for the openings; and

  • maintain records of job descriptions and wage rate history for reach employee for the duration of their employment, plus two years.

Private Right of Action and Enforcement

Employees have a private right of action in district court to pursue remedies specified in the law. They need not first file administrative wage discrimination complaints with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment before bringing suit.

The Act sets a two-year statute of limitations; a violation of the statute occurs each time a person is paid a discriminatory wage rate.

An employee may recover both economic damages (measured as the difference between the amount the employer paid and what the employee would have received had there been no violation) plus additional liquidated damages, equal to the amount of the economic damages. The liquidated damages provision is intended to compensate an employee for the delay in receiving amounts due. Employees may also recover attorneys’ fees and costs, and obtain legal and equitable relief, which may include reinstatement, promotion, and a pay increase.

The Director of the state Department of Labor and Employment is also authorized to enforce actions against an employer involving transparency in pay and employment opportunities, including fines of between $500 and $10,000 per violation. An employer’s failure to comply with the Act for one promotional opportunity or job opening is considered one violation.

Good Faith Defense and Wage Audits

An employer may avoid liquidated damages for a violation if it can establish that it had reasonable grounds for believing it was not in violation of the Act. The Act states that one factor to be considered in determining good faith is whether the employer had completed within the prior two years a “thorough and comprehensive pay audit of its workforce, with the specific goal of identifying and remedying unlawful pay disparities.”

Rebuttable Presumption Regarding the Failure to Keep Records

If an employer fails to keep required wage records and is later sued, the Act permits the court to impose a rebuttable presumption that the records not kept by the employer contained information favorable to the employee’s wage claim and the jury may be instructed that the failure to keep records is evidence that the violation was not in good faith.

Lessons for Employers

With pay equity issues increasingly in the news, we expect this new legislation to spur an uptick in litigation after it goes into effect in 2021. Because these are inherently fact-intensive cases, litigation involving the new Equal Pay for Equal Work Act will be complex and protracted. Colorado employers should audit and review their compensation systems now in order to identify and address potential problems. Consideration should be given to involving outside counsel in these audits in order to cloak them with the attorney-client privilege against public disclosure.

Copyright © by Ballard Spahr LLP
This post was written by Steven W. Suflas and Rachel R. Mentz of Ballard Spahr LLP.
Read more labor and employment news on the National Law Review’s Employment law page.

Cincinnati City Council Passes Ordinance Prohibiting Salary History Inquiries

In a thinly veiled attempt to steal the spotlight from Cleveland, the new destination city for the National Football League, on March 13, 2019, the Cincinnati City Council passed Ordinance No. 83-2019, titled Prohibited Salary History Inquiry and Use, barring employers from inquiring about or relying on job applicants’ salary histories. It is scheduled to become effective in March 2020, and it applies to private employers with 15 or more employees in the city of Cincinnati.

The ordinance makes it “an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer or its agent to:

    1. Inquire about the salary history of an applicant for employment; or
    2. Screen job applicants based on their current or prior wages, benefits, other compensation, or salary histories, including requiring that an applicant’s prior wages, benefits, other compensation or salary history satisfy minimum or maximum criteria; or
    3. Rely on the salary history of an applicant in deciding whether to offer employment to an applicant, or in determining the salary, benefits, or other compensation for such applicant during the hiring process, including the negotiation of an employment contract; or
    4. Refuse to hire or otherwise disfavor, injure, or retaliate against an applicant for not disclosing his or her salary history to an employer.”

The ordinance does not limit employers from asking applicants “about their expectations with respect to salary, benefits, and other compensation, including but not limited to unvested equity or deferred compensation that an applicant would forfeit or have cancelled by virtue of the applicant’s resignation from their current employer.” Ordinance No. 83-2019 requires that, following a conditional offer of employment, upon request, the employer must provide the conditional offeree the pay scale for the position. The ordinance provides a private right of action to enforce the law. Remedies for violating the ordinance include “compensatory damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, the cost of the action, and such legal and equitable relief as the court deems just and proper.”

Ordinance No. 83-2019 is designed to “ensure that . . . job applicants in Cincinnati are offered employment positions and subsequently compensated based on their job responsibilities and level of experience, rather than on prior salary histories.” In reality, it reaches well beyond Cincinnati, as state and local salary history bans are proliferating. Many municipalities, cities, and states across the country have passed laws limiting salary inquiries, and legislation is pending in numerous other jurisdictions around the country.

 

© 2019, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
Read more on Equal Pay issues on the National Law Review’s Labor and Employment page.

Connecticut’s Pay Equity Law Prohibits Salary History Inquiries

As of January 1, 2019, Connecticut employers are prohibited from inquiring about prospective employees’ wage or salary histories. Connecticut’s new pay equity law is intended to promote equality in pay and close the wage gap. Under the new law, employers—defined as entities having “one or more employees”—are also prohibited from using a third party to inquire about any applicant’s wage or salary history. Employers may still inquire about the components of an applicant’s compensation structure—for example, retirement benefits or stock option plans—but they may not inquire about the value of any individual component.

Nothing in the law prevents an employer from verifying salary information if a prospective employee voluntarily discloses such information. Additionally, the law does not apply where a federal or state law “specifically authorizes disclosure or verification of salary history” in the employment context.

A private right of action exists for violations of the law, and a prospective employee can potentially recover compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and punitive damages. A two-year statute of limitations applies.

In light of this new law, Connecticut employers should revise their employment applications to remove any requests for candidates’ salary histories. Employers that have hiring policies and/or hiring scripts should revise these documents to remove any questions about salary histories. Further, employers may want to affirmatively state that it is the employer’s policy not to make such inquiries. Connecticut employers may also want to ensure that any employees involved in interviewing candidates are trained on the new law and understand that they should not be asking about salary history information. Finally, employers may want to verify that any third parties they are using to help screen candidates are aware of and in compliance with the new law.

 

© 2018, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
Read more employment updates on the National Law Review’s employment law page.

BOLI Issues Final Rules on Oregon’s Equal Pay Law

On November 19, 2018, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) issued its final administrative rules relating to the state’s Equal Pay Law, which prohibits pay discrimination on the basis of protected class, as well as screening job applicants based on current or past compensation.

The rules establish definitions for several key words in the law, provide more concrete guidance on how to meet the law’s posting requirements, and seek to clarify certain provisions of the law related to screening job applicants based on salary history, determining whether employees perform work of comparable character, establishing bona fide factors that may justify paying employees performing work of comparable character at different compensation levels, explaining benefits as a component of compensation, and “red-circling” or freezing employee compensation in order to bring the pay of employees performing work of comparable character into alignment. Finally, the rules establish that an employer commits an unlawful compensation practice each time an employee is paid in violation of the Equal Pay Law.

Key Takeaways

  • Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 839-008-0005 provides that the Equal Pay Law’s prohibition on screening job applicants based on current or past compensation includes a prohibition on using anyinformation about an applicant’s past compensation, regardless of how the information was obtained, to determine a job applicant’s suitability or eligibility for employment. However, unsolicited disclosure of a job applicant’s past compensation (whether by the applicant or former employer) does not constitute a violation of the law, so long as the information is not considered by the employer making the hiring decision.

  • OAR 839-008-0010 expands upon the Equal Pay Law’s criteria for evaluating whether employees perform “work of comparable character” and thus should be paid the same absent the existence of one or more bona fide factors justifying any disparity. The rule provides that “work of comparable character” means work requiring substantially similar knowledge, skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions in the performance of work, regardless of job description or title. BOLI’s new rule provides non-exhaustive lists of factors that may be considered in determining whether employees have substantially similar knowledge, skill, effort, responsibility, or working conditions. For example, the rule provides that “skill” considerations “may include, but are not limited to, ability, agility, coordination, creativity, efficiency, experience, or precision.”

  • OAR 839-008-0015 establishes criteria that may be used to evaluate whether bona fide factors explain pay differentials that would otherwise violate the Equal Pay Law. The law already broadly delineates what constitutes a “bona fide factor” (i.e., a seniority system; a merit system; a system measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production; differing workplace locations, travel, education, training, experience, or any combination of those factors). While the rule seeks to further explain and provide examples of those factors. For example, the rule provides that education considerations “may include, but are not limited to, substantive knowledge acquired through relevant coursework, as well as any completed certificate or degree program.” Training considerations “may include, but are not limited to, on-the-job training acquired in current or past positions as well as training acquired through a formal training program.”

  • OAR 839-008-0020 seeks to clarify benefits as a component of compensation under the Equal Pay Law. Specifically, the rule provides that (1) employees performing work of comparable character may be provided different benefits so long as the same benefit options are offered to all employees performing work of comparable character; and (2) if an employee declines a benefit, the full cost of the benefit offered to the employee may be used to calculate the total amount of compensation paid to the employee under the Equal Pay Law.

  • OAR 839-008-0025 clarifies that “red circling,” freezing, or otherwise holding an employee’s pay constant as other employees performing work of comparable character are brought into alignment is not considered a reduction in pay for the employee whose pay is frozen.

Questions Remain Unanswered

While the rules clarify some aspects of the Equal Pay Law, many questions remain unanswered for employers. This is particularly true when it comes to performing an equal pay analysis to (1) determine and rectify any pay disparities among comparable employees and (2) take advantage of the law’s affirmative defense to compensatory and punitive damages. No guidance is given, for example, as to how to account for the protected classes that are not self-evident or self-reported. And, while the rules provide some information as to what amounts to a “bona fide factor” justifying a pay disparity, the list remains exclusive and vaguely defined at best.

Next Steps for Employers

Oregon employers that have not yet done so may want to perform equal pay analyses of their workforces as soon as possible. While the Equal Pay Law has been in effect since October 2017, employees will be able to bring claims beginning January 1, 2019, which carry the possibility of economic, compensatory, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys’ fees.

 

© 2018, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Equal Pay Act Claim Requires Show of Pay Disparity “Based on Sex” as Part of Prima Facie Case, Court Holds

Departing from other federal appeals courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that Equal Pay Act plaintiffs must establish that the pay differential between similarly situated employees is “historically or presently based on sex” to make out a prima facie case.

In Gordon v. U.S., No. 17-1845 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2018), two female emergency room physicians employed by a Veterans Administration hospital alleged they were underpaid compared to male emergency room physicians. Their pay discrimination claim related primarily to one male physician who was hired at the same time they were hired at the same pay rate in the same position, but he received a pay increase one year after they were hired that the female plaintiffs did not receive.

To state a claim of an EPA violation, an employee must show the employer:

  • Paid employees of opposite sexes different wages;

  • For substantially equal work;

  • In jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility; and

  • That are performed under similar working conditions.

If an employee provides evidence establishing each of these elements, the burden shifts to the employer to prove the pay disparity is justified under one of four affirmative defenses: (1) a seniority system; (2) a merit system; (3) a pay system based on quantity or quality of output; or (4) any factor other than sex.

Here, the employer argued that the plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case and that, even if they had, the pay differential was justified under the “factor other than sex” affirmative defense. The Court, which hears appeals involving federal employee EPA claims, held that the plaintiff doctors must meet an additional requirement to establish their prima facie EPA violation:

To make their prima facie case, however, [the doctors] must also establish that the pay differential between the similarly situated employees is “historically or presently based on sex.”

Id. at 9-10. The Court held that the plaintiffs could not make this showing and that the employer was entitled to summary judgment on this basis alone. Notably, the Court held the employer had not introduced sufficient evidence to establish the “factor other than sex” affirmative defense. Id. at 10 n. 4.

The holding was based on a prior ruling, Yant v. United States, 588 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Judge Reyna wrote the panel decision, but also wrote separately to express the view that Yant should be overturned because the additional requirement improperly shifts the burden of proof in a manner inconsistent with the text of the EPA and Supreme Court precedent. Judge Reyna also notes that no other Circuit Court of Appeals requires this additional showing as part of the prima facie case. Id. at 17.

 

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2018
This post was written by F. Christopher Chrisbens of Jackson Lewis P.C.