Massachusetts recently joined a growing list of states amending their equal pay legislation. On July 1, 2018, the Act to Establish Pay Equity, originally passed in 2016, took effect, amending Massachusetts’ existing Equal Pay Act.
The law bans pay differentials on the basis of sex where two people perform comparable work, adopting the more liberal “equal pay for comparable work” standard, as opposed to the federal law’s “equal pay for equal work” standard. Comparable work is defined as work that requires substantially similar skill, effort, and responsibility that is performed under similar working conditions. Like other equal pay laws, employers can plead certain affirmative defenses in response to an employee’s claim of pay discrimination, if the employer can show the pay differential is due to:
Continue reading “Massachusetts Equal Pay Act Took Effect July 1, 2018”
Westchester County’s salary history ban, signed on Equal Pay Day in April 2018, took effect on July 9, 2018. The law amends the Westchester County Human Rights Law, and makes it unlawful for an employer, including labor organizations and employment agencies or “agents” thereof, to:
- rely on the wage history of a prospective employee from any current or former employer in determining wages; and
- request or require as a condition of being interviewed, as a condition of being considered for an offer of employment, or as a condition of employment, that a prospective employee disclose wage history information.
Continue reading “Westchester County’s Salary History Ban Takes Effect July 9, 2018”
Earlier this week, Wendy Moore, a former partner at Jones Day, filed a representative action against the law firm in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging a single cause of action pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) for alleged violations of the California Equal Pay Act, as amended by the Fair Pay Act of 2015, and related violations of the California Labor Code. The PAGA permits employees to bring civil suits to recover penalties on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees for Labor Code violations. Unlike class actions, PAGA claims can proceed regardless of whether the plaintiff can meet the requirements to certify a class.
Continue reading “Big Law Hit Again With a California Gender Discrimination Lawsuit”
Late last year, a bipartisan coalition in the United States Senate sponsored legislation to ban the use of mandatory arbitration agreements to settle sexual harassment and sex discrimination claims (H.R. 4734/S. 2203). While that bill—titled the “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act of 2017”—remains pending, a similar bill is also now pending before the California legislature (A.B. 3080). If enacted, A.B. 3080 would prohibit employers from requiring mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment, continued employment, or the receipt of any employment-related benefit, such as a bonus.
Continue reading “California Considers Ban On Forced Arbitration By Employers”
In the wake of the #MeToo movement, a number of states are considering legislation that would limit an employer’s ability to use non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”) when settling sexual harassment claims. New York was the first state to enact such legislation, which was passed as part of a wide-ranging budget bill that takes effect July 11, 2018. New York’s law bans non-disclosure provisions in settlements of claims involving sexual harassment allegations, unless confidentiality is the “complainant’s preference,” provided some onerous procedures are complied with. Washington State passed a similar law. Arizona, California, and Pennsylvania are also considering legislation to restrict the use of NDAs.
Continue reading “Legislative Alert: New Jersey on A Fast Track to Ban Waivers of, and NDAs relating to, Employment Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation Claims”
As we previously reported, a federal district court in Philadelphia recently struck down the provision of Philadelphia’s salary history ban prohibiting employers from asking about salary history (the “inquiry provision”), but upheld the provision of the law prohibiting employers from relying on such information (the “reliance provision”). The law was initially scheduled to take effect May 23, 2017, but had been stayed by the district court pending resolution of the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce’s challenge to the law. The Judge’s decision ostensibly resolved the litigation at the district court level, however, both the Chamber of Commerce and the City of Philadelphia have appealed the ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Third Circuit has not yet issued an order staying the reliance provision, which the district court upheld. We therefore caution Philadelphia employers to act as though the reliance provision is in full effect, and to refrain from relying on salary history information in determining employees’ compensation. We will continue to report on the appellate process as it unfolds.