Third Circuit Upholds Ordinance Banning Salary History Questions for Job Applicants
"In short, the Supreme Court has upheld similar restrictions based on much less evidence than the city presented here," Judge Theodore McKee said of the 2017 Philadelphia ordinance.
February 07, 2020 at 05:00 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Legal Intelligencer
A federal appeals court handed down a big win for equal pay advocates by ruling that a Philadelphia ordinance that prohibits employers from asking job candidates about wage history is not unconstitutional.
The precedential ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Feb. 6 reverses a lower court's holding that the portion of the ordinance banning salary history questions violated employers' First Amendment rights. The appeals court also upheld the lower court's ruling that employers can't rely on salary history in setting wages.
Passed by Philadelphia City Council in 2017, the Wage Equity Law is the city's answer to gender- and race-based pay gaps by helping to "break the discriminatory chain linking an employee's new salary to past salaries and any discriminatory judgments that may have influenced those past salaries," according to Third Circuit Judge Theodore McKee's opinion.
Employers who run afoul of the law are subject to a $2,000 fine and up to 90 days in jail.
In crafting the the ordinance, the City Council relied on testimony and scholarly studies that said, on average, women make 80 cents for every dollar a man in the same position makes. The law was challenged in court by the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, which argued that the measure stifles employers' constitutional right to free speech.
U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania agreed with the Chamber that the ordinance violated the First Amendment, ruling that the city had failed to meet the high burden of proof that the law was effective.
But McKee said that Goldberg held the city to a higher standard than was legally required.
"The Supreme Court has not demanded that the enacting authority achieve legislative certainty or produce empirical proof that the adopted legislation would achieve the stated interest even when applying strict scrutiny," McKee said. "Rather, the appropriate inquiry requires courts to determine whether the legislature 'has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.'"
He added that the city produced a "plethora" of evidence that a wage gap exists and that existing civil rights laws have been ineffective in closing it.
"In short, the Supreme Court has upheld similar restrictions based on much less evidence than the city presented here," McKee said.
Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney praised the ruling.
"I am pleased that the court saw this our way. We enacted this law to help close the wage gap that unfairly affects women and people of color in Philadelphia," Kenney said. "If employers were to keep asking job applicants for salary history, they would simply perpetuate the wage gap. Taking steps to ensure that women and people of color are paid the same as their white male counterparts will have significant social and economic benefits. It is, quite simply, the right thing to do."
Council president Darrell Clarke also said the ruling was a step forward for wage equality.
"I would hope that the business community understands the importance of this issue, as we continue to seek ways to work together to grow Philadelphia's economy for all our citizens," Clark said.
The Chamber did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
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 AllSocial Media Policy for Judges Provides Guidance in a Changing World
3 minute readBank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
3 minute read'Something Really Bad Happened': J&J's Talc Bankruptcy Vote Under Attack
7 minute readTrending Stories
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