New Law Prohibits Employers From Asking Applicants About Salary History
Beginning Jan. 1, 2018, California employers will no longer be able to ask job applicants about their salary history.
October 19, 2017 at 05:00 PM
3 minute read
Beginning Jan. 1, 2018, California employers will no longer be able to ask job applicants about their salary history. California joins a small but growing group of states and cities that have enacted similar measures, including New York City, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Oregon, Delaware and Massachusetts. This development is the latest in a number of California legislative initiatives designed to promote pay equity.
Under California's new law, Labor Code Section 432.3, employers may not ask, either orally or in writing, for an applicant's compensation or benefits history. In addition, an employer cannot rely on an applicant's past salary as a factor in determining whether to offer employment or in determining what salary to offer. Lastly, the new law requires employers to provide, “upon reasonable request,” the “pay scale” for the applicable position.
However, there are a couple of exceptions to Section 432.3. First, a prospective employer may consider an applicant's pay history in determining what salary to offer the applicant if the applicant voluntarily offers salary history without prompting. But even if an applicant voluntarily offers salary history, the prospective employer may not ask additional questions about the applicant's compensation or benefits history, such as requesting the employee to provide copies of W-2s related to prior employment or other documents to support the employee's voluntary disclosure.
Second, pay history may be considered if it is publicly available under federal or state law, such as through California's Public Records Act or the federal Freedom of Information Act. However, California's Fair Pay Act (Labor Code section 1197.5) prohibits employers from relying solely on an employee's prior salary history to justify a sex, race or ethnicity-based pay difference.
To comply with this law, employers should remove questions regarding salary history from job applications and other hiring materials, such as template interview forms. In addition, employers should counsel their internal recruiters, interviewers and others involved in the hiring process about these new obligations to ensure they avoid asking questions about an applicant's salary history. Employers interested in gauging the market rate for a position or an applicant's salary expectation should plan to replace salary history questions with questions about an applicant's desired salary. Over time, specific guidance will develop regarding the application of the new law.
The authors all practice at Faegre Baker Daniels. Susan Elgin, an associate in the firm's Des Moines, Iowa office, represents businesses in employment litigation and advises clients in the area of employment law. Chuck Knapp, a partner in the firm's Minneapolis office, leads Faegre Baker Daniels' employment litigation team and focuses his practice on representing employers in employment-related litigation. Bonita (Bonnie) Moore, a partner in the firm's Los Angeles office, is a member of the firm's labor and employment group. Dan Prokott, a partner in the firm's Minneapolis office, advises businesses regarding complex workplace matters.
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 AllCalifornia Implements New Law Banning Medical Debt From Credit Reports
Lingering Questions at Supreme Court About Climate Change Litigation Need Resolution
6 minute read'Innovation Over Regulation': Tech Litigators and Experts Share Insights on the Future of AI, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Under Trump
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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