Philadelphia's Salary History Ban Violates the First Amendment, Judge Rules
The city didn't walk away completely empty-handed, as the judge also held that companies cannot base hiring decisions on salary history.
May 02, 2018 at 05:04 PM
3 minute read
Photo: Shutterstock.com
A federal judge has ruled that Philadelphia's ordinance banning employers from inquiring about a job-seeker's salary history violates the First Amendment, an impediment to the city's stated goal of leveling the playing field for women and minorities seeking equal wages.
However, the city didn't walk away completely empty-handed, as the judge also held that companies cannot base hiring decisions on salary history.
U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of The Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia, which argued the law was bad for businesses.
The law is made up of two components: an inquiry provision that deals with employers asking candidates about wage history, and a reliance provision that makes it illegal for companies to rely on salary history in making a hiring decision.
Companies violating the rules can face a $2,000 fine per instance and potential jail time for repeat offenders.
“I conclude that the city's inquiry provision violates the First Amendment. Although the ordinance represents a significant positive attempt to address the wage gap, the First Amendment compels me to enjoin implementation of the inquiry provision,” Goldberg wrote in his opinion. “The reliance provision, however, does not offend the First Amendment and remains intact. I commend the city for pursuing a novel method of attempting to reduce the wage gap, but am bound by the First Amendment's exacting requirements for speech restrictions.”
In a statement released by the Chamber, a spokesperson said that the organization agreed with the city's position on wage equity and remains willing to work with the city to advance that goal. The lawsuit was always about the unconstitutional prohibition of salary knowledge, the Chamber argued.
“The Philadelphia business community fully supports closing the gender wage gap and pledges to continue to seek ways to ensure that every worker is paid fairly regardless of gender,” the statement said. “As an advocate of the regional business community, the Chamber recognizes that addressing the evolving demographic changes in our region is fundamental to the growth and sustainability of our members. Creating an inclusive environment that engages individuals reflective of the full spectrum of our region is key to the success of Greater Philadelphia. This ordinance, however, is not the answer to closing the gender wage gap.”
Mike Dunn, a spokesman for Mayor Jim Kenney, said the city is looking at its next step.
“While the city is evaluating its options following the ruling, we are encouraged that the judge agreed that the city does have the legal authority to prohibit employers from relying on salary history when determining the wage of a new hire,” Dunn said. “In other words, even if employers ask job applicants about salary history, employers can't use the answers to determine how much to pay someone. In doing so, the ruling upholds a key aspect of the legislation.”
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 AllPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute read'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 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