Philadelphia Wage Equity Ordinance On Hold … For Now

By Alexa E. Miller and David J. Woolf

Earlier this year, Philadelphia became the first city to pass a law prohibiting employers from inquiring about a job applicant’s wage history and restricting their ability to consider wage history in setting new employee compensation. The pay equity ordinance was enacted to halt the perpetuation of gender discrimination in compensation practices.

As has been widely reported, the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit on April 6, 2017 to challenge the ordinance, which was scheduled to go into effect on May 23, 2017. The Chamber also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the Court to enjoin the enforcement of the ordinance while its lawsuit is pending, on the grounds that the ordinance violates businesses’ free speech rights under the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague.  The City of Philadelphia’s apparent first response has been to question whether the Chamber of Commerce even has standing to bring a lawsuit challenging the ordinance.

On April 19, Judge Mitchell Goldberg issued an order temporarily staying the enforcement of the ordinance until he can decide the Chamber’s preliminary injunction motion. Briefing on the standing issue will extend until at least May 12, with the Court’s decision on standing and possibly additional briefing related to the ordinance itself to follow.  Thus, it is unlikely that the ordinance will go into effect on May 23 as originally planned.

Although Philadelphia employers may be tempted to delay implementing changes to their hiring practices, we recommend that they remain alert and ready to comply. Legislation restricting employers’ ability to rely on a job candidate’s wage history in setting compensation is the latest trend in equal pay laws.  We predict that this trend will continue to gain momentum in other cities and states across the country.  Most recently, the New York City Council passed similar legislation amending the New York City Human Rights Law to prohibit employers from inquiring about an applicant’s wage history, which Mayor de Blasio is expected to sign shortly.  Prudent employers should review their hiring practices (e.g., update job applications and train managers about appropriate interview questions) and be prepared to comply with the law if the Chamber’s challenge is unsuccessful.

Additional background about the ordinance is available here.  We will continue to monitor the status of Philadelphia’s wage equity ordinance and update this site as developments occur.

Recruiting and “Off-Limits” Questions about Salary History – What Employers Need to Know

By Lynne Anderson

By October of 2017, NYC employers – and their recruiting agencies – will no longer be allowed to ask about an applicant’s salary and benefits history during the interview process due to a recent amendment to the NYC Human Rights Law. This law follows Executive Orders signed in November 2016 by Mayor de Blasio, and in January 2017 by Governor Cuomo, banning questions about salary history for NYC and NY state public-sector applicants prior to a conditional offer of employment. In addition, private employers in Philadelphia as of May 2017, and Massachusetts as of July 1, 2018, will also be banned from asking applicants about their compensation history. These laws are intended to help break the perpetuation of salary inequities by prohibiting reliance on prior, possibly inequitable compensation levels, as a means to set salaries and other compensation for incoming employees. Public Advocate Letitia James co-sponsored the NYC bill after a study conducted by her office found that women in New York earn $5.8 billion less in wages than men every year, or 87 cents for every dollar that men make, and the wage discrepancies were worse for minority females.

What does the NYC law prohibit?

It will be a discriminatory employment practice to do the following.

(1) Ask an applicant, or their current/prior employer – either in writing or during the interview process – about the applicant’s wage, benefits or other compensation history. This prohibition extends to inquiries made by search firms on behalf of the prospective employer. However, applicants can be asked about their historic productivity metrics, such as their level of revenue or sales at their current or prior employers.

(2) Conduct internet or other searches of public records in an effort to determine the candidate’s salary history. Employers are still permitted to conduct background checks of applicants, but if the background check discloses an applicant’s salary history, the employer may not rely on such disclosure for purposes of determining an applicant’s compensation.

(3) Rely on the compensation history of an applicant in determining what to offer the applicant with regards to salary, benefits or other compensation, unless the applicant “unprompted” and “willingly” discloses that information. However, this exception is not necessarily that helpful as employers can expect that the issue of whether a disclosure was truly “willing and unprompted” to be the subject of much debate.

What are the penalties for violations?

The NYC Commission on Human Rights will enforce the prohibition, and may impose a civil penalty of up to $125 for an intentional violation, and up to $250,000 for an “intentional malicious violation.” Plaintiffs’ employment lawyers will also file private cause of actions, and will likely seek discovery related to recruiting practices in an effort to ferret out potential violations they will cite to as evidence in support of disparate impact sex discrimination claims.

What should employers do now?

Employers are watching to see if these laws will be challenged before implementation. For example, Philadelphia’s law is currently being challenged in a federal lawsuit filed in early April by The Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia seeking to block implementation of the law on ground of violation of First Amendment rights. The NYC law is also expected to face a challenge from industry groups, although the Bronx Chamber of Commerce has publicly supported the new law.

Until a challenge is successful, employers should consider the following action items with regards to the NYC law:

  • Remove salary history questions from job applications, including online applications.
  • Provide notice, in writing, to recruiting agencies and background check companies, to exclude salary history inquiries as part of their process, and direct them not to provide salary history information to your company as the potential employer. You can also work this into contract renewals and any Statement of Work or recruiting search request, along with an indemnification obligation if a lawsuit ensues due to an agency’s failure to comply.
  • Train HR, internal recruiters and other employees who interface with job applicants not to ask about salary/benefits/compensation history, but to explore other permissible areas. For example, the NYC law allows employers to discuss an applicant’s compensation expectations, including with regards to unvested equity or deferred compensation that an applicant would forfeit if they left their current employer to accept a new job offer. Interviewers are also still able to ask questions to probe the candidate’s level of experience and proficiency such as performance results, management experience, etc.
  • Train these same individuals about the need to document, in writing, when a candidate makes an unprompted disclosure of his/her salary history.
  • Consider posting salaries, or salary ranges, for open jobs. The new NYC law does not require this, but the bill suggests to businesses that they post salaries for jobs instead of relying on salary history to set compensation.
  • Don’t ignore ongoing obligations to audit to protect against potential pay inequities. As we have been discussing, all private employers with 100 or more employees will likely have to report pay data broken down by gender and race as part of the new federal EEO-1 reports due in March 2018 for 2017 data, and California employers must comply with record keeping requirements imposed by California’s Fair Pay Law in effect since 2016. California’s Fair Pay Law was also amended, effective January 1, 2017, to provide that prior salary will not, by itself, justify a disparity between the salaries of similarly situated employees.

Also, keep in mind that while removing prior salary history from the hiring process may help limit perpetuation of wage gaps, the practical reality is that a candidate’s ability to negotiate a higher salary will likely still drive salary differentials. Employers will need to protect against unintended pay inequities resulting from the recruiting process.

How to Comply With the EEO-1’s Proposed New Hours Reporting Requirements

By Valerie Dutton Kahn

As you may have heard, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released revised EEO-1 reporting guidelines on July 13, 2016 (for an overview of the new guidance in its entirety, see EEOC Issues Revised EEO-1 Proposal).  These new guidelines apply to employers with 100 or more employees and require them to report, among other things, hours worked by exempt and non-exempt employees, subdivided by gender, race, ethnicity, job classification, and pay band.  For an example of the proposed new reporting form, click here.  Although employers and other members of the public will have until August 15, 2016 to comment on the revised proposal, it is unlikely that any further substantive revisions will be made. Currently, it appears that employers will be required to submit the new EEO-1 form on March 31, 2018, giving them approximately a year and a half to prepare their recordkeeping systems to capture the newly required data.  Therefore, employers are advised to review, and update if necessary, internal recordkeeping systems to be prepared to report hours worked, and pay data, for calendar year 2017 when filing the EEO-1 on March 31, 2018.

What Are “Hours Worked” And Why Does The EEOC Want Them?

In response to employer requests for guidance concerning the definition of “hours worked,” the EEOC has specified that, for employees covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), their hours should be recorded as follows:

Non-exempt Employees: The EEOC should report “hours worked” as defined by the FLSA.  “Hours worked” includes time when the employee is actually working (either at the employer’s premises or remotely).  Therefore, “hours worked” would not include meal time, vacation, PTO or other leave, even if the non-exempt employee is paid for that time off, and even though the compensation for those hours will be reflected in the W2 data provided on the EE0-1 form.

Exempt Employees. Employers have two options: (1) provide the actual hours of work of exempt employees if the employer already maintains accurate records of this information, or (2) report a proxy of 40 hours per week for full time exempt employees and 20 hours per week for part-time exempt employees, multiplied by the number of weeks the individuals were employed during the reporting year.

The EEOC provides a few reasons for requiring disclosure of hours worked. First, if the EEOC discovers a pay disparity, it intends to use this information to it assess whether a disparity is caused by the part-time or full-time status of the respective employees, rather than by gender, race, or ethnicity.  Second, the EEOC intends to use the hours worked data to assess whether employees in protected classes are subject to discrimination in terms of hours instead of pay, with an employer habitually assigning more hours and overtime to some employees while denying it to others.

Next Steps For Employers

Employers are well-served to apply the same analysis that the EEOC intends to use while doing internal audits to determine if there are statistical concerns, and the reasons behind the patterns.  The employer can then consider if actions are warranted now to remediate any issues before 2017, or, be able to explain the legitimate business reasons for any disparities if called upon to defend pay practices.

Employers should also audit time-keeping protocols and policies to be sure that non-exempt employees are accurately recording “hours worked”.  Employers should also confirm that their HRIS systems can run reports of hours worked, that do not include paid time off.  Additionally, if employers intend to report actual hours worked for exempt employees, rather than the 40 hour proxy for full time employees, then the same recommendations apply.

For assistance with an employee payroll audit or advice concerning EEO-1 forms or other federal or state fair pay act requirements, contact Valerie Kahn, Kate Gold, Lynne Anderson,  or any member of the Drinker Biddle & Reath’s Labor & Employment Group.