June 2, 2020

June 02, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 01, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Ruling In Gender Pay Discrimination Case: Past Earnings Cannot Justify Pay Discrimination

One of the most hotly debated topics in employment law is whether basing employees’ salaries on past earnings is a sex-neutral policy or, instead, it amounts to pay discrimination. In Aileen Rizzo v. Jim Yovino, a pay discrimination case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that past earnings cannot justify pay disparities between women and men.

The appellate court’s decision reiterated that basing a female employee’s salary on her past earnings violates the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA). The court wrote that the purpose of the EPA was to eradicate employers’ common practice of paying women less than men simply because of their sex. It continued that relying on past pay would contravene the purpose of the EPA—historically, women have widely been paid less than men because they are women, and basing a woman’s current salary on her past earnings is not a sex-neutral practice.

In Rizzo, the court explained that Fresno County, where Ms. Rizzo was a math consultant, based employees’ salaries mainly on past earnings. At a lunch with colleagues, Ms. Rizzo learned that a male who had just started work as a math consultant made significantly more than she did, although she had been in her position for three years. Ms. Rizzo soon realized that she was the only female math consultant with the county and that she earned significantly less than all males in the same position, although she had more education and experience.

To establish a prima facie case of pay discrimination, a plaintiff must show

·     that she was paid less than male employees

·     for substantially similar work

·     performed under similar working conditions.

After a plaintiff proves her prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the employer to prove an affirmative defense under one of four exceptions to the EPA. These defenses are that the pay difference was based on:

·     a seniority system;

·     a merit system;

·     a system that measures earnings on quality or quantity of production; or

·     any other factor other than sex.

Rizzo established her prima facie case, and the county argued that basing pay on past wages falls under the fourth affirmative defense and is a factor other than sex.

The court held that based n the text and purposes of the EPA, only job-related factors other than sex fall under the fourth affirmative defense.

The court reasoned that, among other things, the fact that the first three affirmative defenses all relate to a plaintiff’s current job indicates that the fourth defense must also relate to the plaintiff’s current job, so the fourth affirmative defense only includes job-related factors other than sex.

Further, the court held that allowing prior pay to justify paying women and men differently for substantially similar work would undermine the purpose of the EPA. Using prior pay to excuse pay disparities could continually perpetuate the pay discrimination that the EPA sought to eradicate. “Because prior pay may carry with it the effects of sex-based pay discrimination,” the court wrote, “and because sex-based pay discrimination was the precise target of the EPA, an employer may not rely on prior pay to meet its burden of showing that sex played no part in its pay decision.” Therefore, the court held, prior pay is not a job-related factor other than sex, is not sex-neutral, and does not fall under any affirmative defense under the EPA.

The 9th Circuit’s decision is a step forward in eliminating pay discrimination. Indeed, basing unequal current salary on unequal past salary perpetuates wage discrimination and contravenes the purpose of the EPA. While wage discrimination is still far too prevalent in the workplace, it can be difficult to know how to fight against this unjustified difference in pay. 

© 2020 Zuckerman Law

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Eric Bachman, Discrimination Attorney, Zuckerman Law Firm
Of Counsel

Eric Bachman is Chair of the Discrimination and Retaliation practices at Zuckerman Law and has served in senior positions at the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.  Bachman’s wins include a $100 million settlement in a disparate impact Title VII class action, a record-setting Whistleblower Protection Act settlement at OSC, and a $16 million class action settlement against a major grocery chain.  Bachman holds extensive litigation experience, including trials in federal and state courts, and has also set important...

202- 256-6931
Katherine Krems Zuckerman discrimination, sexual harassment, whistleblower retaliation
Attorney

Katherine Krems represents employees in discriminationsexual harassment, and whistleblower retaliation cases.  She is focused on finding creative solutions and maximizing her clients’ recoveries.  Prior to law school, she worked on policy reforms in Congress to strengthen the rights of workers, women, and marginalized groups.  During law school, she was Senior Articles Editor of the Federal Communications Law Journal and served as a student attorney with Rising for Justice and an intern at the D.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence.  Katherine has a law degree from the George Washington University Law School and an M.A. in Nonfiction Writing from Johns Hopkins University, and she has taught writing workshops for middle school students in the D.C. Public Schools.  She is admitted to practice in Maryland.

(202) 262-8959