October 2, 2022

Volume XII, Number 275


September 30, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Second Verse, Same as the First: Ninth Circuit Reiterates That Salary History Does Not Justify Pay Differences Under the Equal Pay Act

On February 27, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in Rizo v. Yovino, (again) found that salary history is not a “factor other than sex” that can justify a pay disparity in defense of a claim under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA). The Ninth Circuit made the same finding in 2018, but the Supreme Court of the United States remanded the case because the judge who authored the original opinion died before it was published.

The EPA requires employers to provide equal pay for “equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.” The EPA provides that employers may identify legitimate reasons for differences in pay, including “a seniority system,” “a merit system,” “a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production,” or “any other factor other than sex.”

In Rizo, the Ninth Circuit reiterated that an employee’s “prior rate of pay” does not qualify as a “factor other than sex.” The Court found that “only job-related factors may serve as affirmative defenses to [EPA] claims.” The Court stated, “Allowing employers to escape liability by relying on employees’ prior pay would defeat the purpose of the Act and perpetuate the very discrimination the EPA aims to eliminate.”

The Ninth Circuit also clarified that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis, which applies to discrimination cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does not apply to cases under the EPA. The EPA does not require a plaintiff to prove that an employer intended to discriminate.

There is a split among circuit courts as to whether salary history can justify differences in pay. It is expected that the Rizo case will again be appealed to the United StTrates Supreme Court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recognizes prior salary as a factor other than sex that may justify a difference in pay under the EPA. The Second, Fourth, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh circuits, like the Ninth Circuit, have limited the scope of the “factor other than sex” language. The Ninth Circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

Many states are taking action specifically to prohibit inquiries into or the use of salary history in setting pay. For example, California Labor Code section 432.3 (effective January 1, 2018) prohibits employers from seeking an applicant’s salary history in previous private sector employment, requires an employer to provide an applicant with the pay scale for the position upon reasonable request, and restricts how employers can use properly obtained salary history information. But the court’s opinion in Rizo means that, even in states within the Ninth Circuit that allow salary history inquiries, employers may not base pay decisions on that information.

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 73

About this Author

Sarah Platt, Ogletree Deakins Law Firm, Employment Law Attorney
Of Counsel

Sarah Platt is of counsel in the firm’s Milwaukee office. She represents employers in all areas of employment law, including:

  • Proactive, practical counseling regarding hiring, discipline, accommodation, leave, and termination issues to avoid litigation and create a strong record to defend employment actions should litigation arise;

  • Drafting strong employment policies to comply with state and federal laws and guide employee conduct;

  • Investigating and responding to...

Tracie L. Childs San Diego Employment Law, Litigation, Class Action, Higher Education, Pay Equity, Wage and Hour, Ethics Compliance, Investigations and Whistleblower Response

Tracie Childs focuses her practice on defending national employers against class, representative and collective actions.  She also has extensive experience representing Fortune 500 companies, for profit and non-profit organizations, public, and quasi-public entities, in defense of various complex labor and employment issues. She handles litigated matters from inception to verdict, and has jury trial experience in the following areas: wrongful termination, harassment, discrimination, breach of employment contract, whistleblower, qui tam/False Claims Act, corporate D&O disputes...