Pay Equity Litigation Trends
Victoria Woodin Chavey and Ana C. Shields of Jackson Lewis write: With rapid legislative developments on pay equity in numerous states, and with high visibility on the issue in many forums, pay equity litigation is likely to continue to occupy a prominent and important place in workplace legal issues.
July 18, 2017 at 12:00 AM
8 minute read
New requirements and prohibitions on compensation practices around the country are making pay equity a hot topic. These obligations seek to address the “gender pay gap,” which the latest reports estimate is at a little over 20 percent, with women across all occupations having median earnings around 78 percent of the median earnings of men across all occupations. Although some dispute whether there is in fact a gender pay gap, its existence is so widely accepted that many jurisdictions are taking steps to promote pay equity.
This article gives an overview of trends in pay equity litigation.
Background
In 2016 alone, states, including California, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York, implemented new pay equity legislation that impose stricter standards on employers. These come with severe consequences for noncompliance. For example, the New York legislature amended the state Labor Law, effective 2016, to bar employers from prohibiting employees from discussing, disclosing, or asking about their compensation. This pay transparency provision (designed to facilitate employees' sharing of pay data and to enhance the likelihood pay disparities are discovered in the regular course of employee interactions and cannot be kept hidden by the employer) is comparable to newly added features of the fair pay laws in many other states. The New York Labor Law amendments also significantly increase available liquidated damages, to three times the amount of wages due.
A significant feature of the much of the new pay equity legislation is the creation of broader comparisons among employees. For example, under the federal Equal Pay Act, an employee pursuing a claim of gender-based unequal pay must demonstrate she performs work that is equal in skill, responsibility, and effort to the work performed under similar working conditions by one or more male comparators. Under the newly enacted California and Massachusetts laws, however, the employee must show only that her job duties are “substantially similar” to those of a male comparator. The recently enacted Oregon Equal Pay Act of 2017 likewise requires the employee to show her job duties are “substantially similar” to those of a male comparator. Although the New York Labor Law was amended, effective in 2016, to create stricter pay equity requirements, its terms continue to use the “equal work” language used in the federal Equal Pay Act, not adopting the new, broader standards of the California and Massachusetts equal pay laws.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A Trip-Wire for Financial Executives
9 minute readJustices, Unanimously, Extend Reach of Federal Age-Discrimination Law
Managing New Employee Paid Leave Laws in Conjunction With ADA, FMLA and Workers' Compensation
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 2Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 3Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
- 4UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 5Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250