California’s Equal Pay Act — An Introduction
This post provides basic information about California’s Equal Pay Act, which is found in Labor Code sections 1197.5 and 432. The Equal Pay Act (or “EPA”) prohibits employers from paying employees less than employees of the opposite sex for equal work. As January 1, 2017, it also prohibits an employer from paying its employees less than employees of another race, or of another ethnicity, for substantially similar work.
Basic Provisions of California’s EPA
In 2015, California’s Fair Pay Act amended and strengthened the Equal Pay Act and underscored California’s commitment to achieving gender pay equity by doing the following, among other things:
- Requiring equal pay for employees who perform “substantially similar work.”
- Eliminating the requirement that any employees being compared work at the “same establishment.”
- Making it more difficult for employers to justify unequal pay.
- Clarifying that it is illegal for an employer to retaliate against employees who seek to enforce the EPA.
- Making it illegal to prohibit employees from discussing or asking about their co-workers’ wages.
These provisions were effective as of January 1, 2016.
Recent Amendments to California’s EPA
Recent years have brought additional protections to California workers.
For example, as of January 1, 2017, California law prohibits an employer from paying its employees less than employees of another race, or of another ethnicity, for substantially similar work. In addition, California law prohibits employers from using prior salaries to justify any sex-, race-, or ethnicity-based pay difference.
Critically, as of January 1, 2018, the Equal Pay Act covers public employers. Additionally, Labor Code section 432.3 prohibits employers from seeking applicants’ salary history information.
Employer Defenses under California’s EPA
Employers can defeat Equal Pay Act claims by proving that a difference in pay is due to:
- Seniority;
- Merit;
- A system that measures production; and/or
- A “bona fide factor other than sex, race, or ethnicity.”
To prevail on this type of defense, an employer must show that it reasonably applied one or more of these factors and that the factor accounts for the entire difference in wages.
Critically, however, employers cannot justify pay differences based on past salaries. Employers are permitted to base compensation on a current employee’s current salary. However, any wage differential resulting from that compensation decision must be justified by one or more of the reasons set forth above.
Deadlines for Filing Claims under California’s EPA
In order to proceed on a claim under California’s EPA, an employee must file their claim within two years of the date of the violation. If the employer has acted willfully, then the employee has up to three years to file. Every paycheck that contains unequal pay serves as a separate violation of the EPA.
If you have questions about whether you are being discriminated against with respect to your pay, please feel free to contact Hunter Pyle Law and make use of our free and confidential intake process. We can be reached at inquire@hunterpylelaw.com or at www.hunterpylelaw.com.
U.S. Supreme Court Rules that the Vote of a Deceased Judge in Federal Court does not Count
On February 25, 2019, the United States Supreme Court had to decide whether a federal court could lawfully count the vote of a judge who died before a decision was issued. Yovino v. Rizo, No. 18-272 (February 25, 2019). The Supreme Court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred when it counted the vote of Judge Reinhardt who died prior to the opinion being filed.
Aileen Rizo brought a case against her employer, the Fresno County Office of Education, on the grounds that the county was violating the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Ms. Rizo claimed she was paid less than her male counterparts for performing the same job. The county justified the pay disparity by factoring in issues such as salary history. When the case was initially brought before the Ninth Circuit, the court held that the employer’s reliance on prior history salary was lawful because this factor had nothing to do with sex. Ms. Rizo then petitioned for an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit, which was granted. After the en banc review, the Ninth Circuit reversed its prior opinion, holding that prior salary history may not be considered to justify pay disparity. (more…)
The Ninth Circuit Examines Whether Prior Salary Can Justify Wage Discrepancies Under the Equal Pay Act
The Equal Pay Act prohibits employers from paying men and women differently for equal work. However, is it unlawful for an employer to have a policy that offers its new hires a salary that is five percent higher than their previous salary if the policy results in a female worker getting paid less than all her male colleagues?
In a 1982 decision, Kouba v. Allstate Insurance, the Ninth Circuit held that an employer can take prior salary into account when deciding an employee’s pay rate if the prior salary effectuated a business policy and was reasonable. 691 F.2d 873 (9th Cir. 1982). In a decision last month, the Ninth Circuit provided further guidance on the extent to which employers can rely on prior salary in determining its employees’ pay. Rizo v. Yovino, No. 16-15372 (April 27, 2017). (more…)
California Fair Pay Act Expands State Law Against Pay Inequality
The California Equal Pay Act prohibits employers from paying men and women differently for equal work. On October 6, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed the California Fair Pay Act, which expanded and strengthened the Equal Pay Act in several respects. Under the California Fair Pay Act, employers are required to pay men and women equally for “substantially similar work” rather than merely “equal work.” “Substantially similar work” refers to work that is similar in skills, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions.