Can Women Ever Be Paid Less Than Men? US Appeals Court Will Take New Look
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will revisit a pay-equality ruling that federal officials and advocacy groups argued would widen…
August 30, 2017 at 02:25 PM
3 minute read
The en banc court is set to hear the case in December. A three-judge panel in April said pay discrepancies exclusively based on previous salary are not discriminatory under the Equal Pay Act, which forbids employers from paying women less than men. The court said an employer could base a salary on previous pay if it shows its use was “reasonable and effectuated a business policy.”
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission called for the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case. The agency noted a split among earlier appeals court rulings and said there would be wide and harmful effects in closing the gender pay gap in the United States, where research shows women make 80 cents on the dollar compared to male counterparts.
“If, as the panel holds, employers may base starting pay on what employees earn in their previous jobs, women on average will continue to earn less than men for substantially equal work,” the EEOC argued in court papers. Rather than eliminating an existing gap, such a policy, the agency said, would perpetuate it.
In 2012, Aileen Rizo, who worked for a Fresno County, California, public school, sued her employer after she discovered her male co-workers were making higher salaries despite comparable or equal experience. Rizo complained to human resources, according to court papers, but her lawyers said officials “refused to take any action to rectify the pay disparity.” The Oakland law firm Siegel & Yee represents Rizo.
The county's standard policy for hiring added 5 percent to previous pay and then bumped her up to the minimum for her position at $63,000. Male colleagues with similar experience made as much as $10,000 or more than she earned, according to her complaint.
Fresno's lawyers at the firm McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth told the California trial judge in court papers: “A man in the exact same circumstances as plaintiff would have started at the same initial salary as plaintiff.”
The Equal Pay Act creates exceptions when pay is based on seniority, merit, quantity or quality of work or “any other factor other than sex.”
Related Articles:
|Erin Mulvaney, based in Washington, covers labor and employment. Contact her at [email protected]. On Twitter: @erinmulvaney
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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