Ninth Circuit Reverses Course on Whether Salary History Justifies Pay Differences

30 April 2018 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Jessica E. Joseph

Employers take note: At least within the area covered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (including Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington), prior salary history can no longer justify a pay difference between male and female employees. In a move that reversed the court’s own previous ruling, an 11-judge panel held that a woman’s salary history can never be used as a basis for paying her less.

The federal Equal Pay Act (EPA) prohibits employers from paying men and women differently, except where the difference is justified by merit, seniority, quantity or quality of work, or “any other factor other than sex.” When Aileen Rizo, a public school teacher in Fresno County, California, discovered that she was being paid less than her male colleagues with the same job, she filed a lawsuit against the county for unequal pay under the EPA.  The county argued that the pay disparity was justified by Rizo’s relatively low prior salary, and that this was a permissible “factor other than sex” under the EPA.

The court disagreed, concluding that “any other factor other than sex” only includes “legitimate, job-related factors” like a potential employee’s experience, educational background, ability, or prior job performance and does not include salary history. This decision is a direct reversal of a prior decision in the Ninth Circuit, and is more strict than the approach taken in some areas of the country covered by other federal circuit courts, such as the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits, where prior salary can be considered along with other non-discriminatory factors, though it still cannot justify pay disparity on its own.  The Ninth Circuit’s decision also conflicts with the Seventh and Eighth Circuit’s holdings that wage disparities based on salary history do not violate the EPA.

This decision comports with recent laws enacted by several states and cities specifically banning employers from asking job candidates about their salary histories. For example, in 2016, Massachusetts became the first state to put such a law on the books.  Similar laws are also now in effect in the states of California, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon,  as well as in the cities of Boston, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco.

Employers with employees in any of these jurisdictions should immediately make sure their hiring practices comply with the law. Given the split between the positions of the different federal appeals courts that have addressed the issue thus far, it may not be long before the Supreme Court weighs in.  Until that happens, however, the best practice is to be very cautious before asking prospective employees about their salary history or using it to determine their pay.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Hatch Comments on DNC-Related Construction Projects in Milwaukee
14 June 2019
Milwaukee Business Journal
Bernard Quoted on Debt-Relief Settlement with ITT Tech Lender
14 June 2019
Wall Street Journal
Dodd and Daughter Profiled in Wisconsin Golf
13 June 2019
Wisconsin Golf
Brinckerhoff Comments on SCOTUS Ruling in Patent Case
11 June 2019
Intellectual Property Magazine
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ
Foley's Government Contracts Annual Update
16 October 2019
Liviona, MI