Companies Are Warned About Compliance 'Minefields' for Pay Equity
The hazards, for employers, are all around: recruiting, employee handbooks, HR manuals.
April 05, 2018 at 10:34 AM
4 minute read
Pay-equity claims are increasing amid greater public awareness, new state laws and multimillion-dollar settlements, putting company policies ever more in focus and creating “minefields” for compliance, a team of management-side lawyers said Wednesday.
Attorneys from Littler Mendelson, speaking on a webinar about the pay-equity landscape, urged companies to take fresh looks at compensation schemes and be prepared to upend long-held practices that have created lawsuit vulnerability.
“The number of claims are increasing,” said Denise Visconti, a Littler shareholder in San Diego. “The new statutes are coming online and we will continue to see this increase.”
Addressing risks and challenges, Visconti said companies should consider updating policies and training. Job descriptions, she said, should be specific, allowing companies to defend their pay scales.
“Look for the minefields in recruiting, employee handbooks, manuals for [human resources] and management training,” Visconti said. “You can run into trouble because documents don't match what you are saying.”
The attorneys pointed to several high-profile pay-equity cases, including more than 400 workers suing a pharmaceutical company in a lawsuit valued at $250 million and a prominent law firm sued by female attorneys for $100 million. A telecommunication company settled for $19.5 million, and a national insurer paid $4 million.
Two gender-pay class actions targeting Silicon Valley and Wall Street moved forward last week in the courts. Judges found in the cases against Google Inc. and Goldman Sachs that companywide policies were grounds to include thousands of women in the lawsuits.
Equal-pay claims are rising, with dozens of suits pending in state courts. Theses cases are single-plaintiff and class actions, and the suits often are coupled with discrimination, sexual harassment and wrongful termination. At the same time, the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements have fostered greater public awareness of alleged abuses in workplaces.
➤➤ Get employment law news and commentary straight to your inbox with Labor of Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
A new analysis from the National Women's Law Center released Wednesday shows the gender wage gap remains pervasive across industries. In low-wage jobs, women make 71 cents for every dollar paid to men and in high-wage jobs, women make 74 percent for every dollar paid to men in the same occupations. The high-wage jobs include lawyers and engineers. Among physicians, women make 66 cents on the dollar compared to men, according to the report.
Twelve states have recently filed legislation to address pay equity, including proposals to ban salary history questions during the interview process. Already, 23 states have equal-pay laws. These laws essentially reduce the number of defenses for employers when they are challenged, Visconti said.
“The focus becomes employers' policies and the employers' practices, and not just individual claims,” she said. “The theory is workers are not treated fairly, whether it's a discrimination issue, an access issue or pay-equity issue. The plaintiffs' attorneys will see what washes out in discovery.”
This wave of momentum in pay-equity law and lawsuits makes it important for businesses to recognize and consider reputation, said Allan King, an Austin-based Littler shareholder in the firm's class action practice. The recent social movements, he said, have “generated the most movement in the space for business and reputational standpoint,” King said.
Companies increasingly are repositioning themselves to differentiate and sell themselves.
“It's become a badge of honor that companies see as critical to maintaining talent,” King said. “That's a fundamental shift.”
Read more:
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 All'Major Change'? 6th Circuit Steps Into Fight Over NLRB's Expanded Money Remedies
8th Circuit Appeal Could Weaken Key Defense in Disability Bias Cases, Employment Lawyers Say
Attorney Urges DC Circuit to Revive Race Bias Lawsuit Against Morrison & Foerster
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
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