On February 25, 2019, in a much awaited decision, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a per curiam ruling in Yovino v. Rizo, No. 18-272, 586 U.S. ___ (2019). Rather than address the substantive issue of whether an employer may rely on salary history to establish starting pay under the federal Equal Pay Act (EPA), the Court vacated and remanded the matter on a procedural—yet still important—issue.
As discussed in our previous article, “California Governor Signs Law Banning Salary History Inquiries,” as of January 1, 2018, California employers are required to comply with California Labor Code Section 432.3, which prohibits employers from asking job applicants about their salary histories.
On October 12, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 168, prohibiting California employers from asking job applicants about their salary histories.
On April 27, 2017, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a district court’s ruling denying an employer’s motion for summary judgment on an Equal Pay Act (EPA) claim. In so doing, the court reaffirmed precedent and reinforced how an employer can use prior pay to account for a pay differential between male and female employees.
April 4 is Equal Pay Day—a day originated by the National Committee on Pay Equity designating how far into the calendar year women would have to work to earn the same as men in the previous year.
Following the growing trend of states enacting laws that address pay equity in the workplace, Texas State Representative Eric Johnson introduced House Bill 290 in the Texas legislature, seeking to amend the Texas Labor Code to prohibit sex discrimination in compensation.
As employers are learning about the many trends and changes that are bringing pay equity issues to the fore, they are asking questions regarding what they can do to protect themselves from potential liability.
Any college football fan can attest that this has been quite the year for upsets. As interesting as the on-field action has been, we have seen increasing media attention and fan commentary focused on the action off the field—especially on the activities of college football coaches and players.
Part one of this two-part series covered the details of the interactive process in California and discussed a scenario in which the employee fails to respond to the employer’s attempts to communicate on an accommodation to his disability. Part two covers two additional scenarios and provides key take-aways to be drawn from recent California court rulings on the interactive process.
California employers are not only required to refrain from discriminating against any employee on the basis of disability, but they also have an obligation to provide “reasonable accommodations” for employees with disabilities. Additionally, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides that to determine whether there is an effective and reasonable accommodation that can be implemented, employers and employees must participate in a mutual, good-faith interactive process. While this sounds like a relatively simple obligation, it has become a topic that often confuses employers and employees alike. In litigation, the issue of the interactive process has become one of the most important aspects for litigants, counsel, and judges.
Cell phones are ubiquitous. At some companies, employees use their personal phones to make business calls. Does an employer need to “pay” for that use of the phone, even if the employee did not incur any extra expenses for doing so? Yes, according to an appellate court in a recent…..
On August 12, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 292 which amends section 12940 of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The bill addresses the decision in Kelley v. Conoco Companies and clarifies that an individual who sues for sexual harassment under state law need…..
Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., D061055 (March 20, 2013): In a recent decision, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of class certification where there was not a predominant common question on a claim of misclassification of managers and assistant managers who were seeking overtime pay. William Dailey worked as an assistant manager
Alamo v. Practice Management Information Corp., No. B230909 (Cal. App. 2d, Sept. 24, 2012): In Alamo, a former employee who was fired upon her return from maternity leave brought a lawsuit for pregnancy discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. After the
On September 8, 2012, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 1964, the Religious Freedom Act of 2012, which amends Section 12926 of the California Government Code. This new law enhances the protections for employees against religious discrimination by, among other things, strengthening the definition of what constitutes an undue…..