In 2009, Plaintiff Aileen Rizo (“Plaintiff”) began working for the Fresno County School District. Her starting salary was determined using the school district’s standard salary schedule, “Standard Operating Procedure 1440[4],” which was routinely and uniformly applied to all management-level employees, including Plaintiff. Based on the County’s application of this facially neutral policy, which is based on an employee’s prior salary, Plaintiff’s pay was lower than those of her colleagues with higher past salaries, including her male coworkers.

The pay disparity between Plaintiff and her male coworkers was undisputed by the County in this case. But, the County argued that its use of prior salary falls squarely under one of the affirmative defenses to the EPA – i.e., that prior salary amounts to an “other factor other than sex.”[5]

Plaintiff responded by arguing that if an employer’s pay structure is based “exclusively on prior wages,” then any resulting pay differential between men and women cannot be interpreted to be based on “any other factor other than sex.” Her position was consistent with Tenth and Eleventh Circuit decisions and the EEOC’s stance on this topic. Plaintiff further claimed that the use of prior salary alone can’t be considered a “factor other than sex” because it perpetuates existing pay disparities and further undermines the purpose of the Equal Pay Act. The lower court agreed with Plaintiff and found that women’s earlier salaries are likely to be lower than men’s because of historical gender bias; but, the District Court also acknowledged that its decision potentially conflicted with the 1982 decision in Kouba.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Courts decision and held that its earlier decision in Kouba was controlling in the present case.  In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that the Kouba decision “allow[s] an employer to base a pay differential on prior salary so long as it showed that its use of prior salary effectuated some business policy and that the employer used the factor reasonably in light of its stated purpose and its other practices.”  Here, the County offered four business reasons for it policy: (1) the policy is objective, in the sense that no subjective opinions as to the new employee’s value enters into the starting-salary calculus; (2) the policy encourages candidates to leave their current jobs for jobs at the County, because they will always receive a 5% pay increase over their current salary; (3) the policy prevents favoritism and ensures consistency in application; and (4) the policy is a judicious use of taxpayer dollars.

The matter was remanded to the District Court for (1) an evaluation of the four business justifications offered by the County regarding its gender-neutral preset pay scale, and (2) a determination of whether the County’s use of employees’ prior salary is “reasonable in light of [its] stated purpose” under the standard set forth in Kouba.

Many states, including California, recently revised their state law equal pay protections to address the use of prior pay in hiring decisions, and whether it perpetuates prior pay discrimination. In particular, California’s equal pay law now includes a provision that expressly prohibits the use of prior salary “by itself [to] justify any disparity in compensation.” Interestingly, California’s amendment, which was passed prior to the Ninth Circuit’s decision, was not addressed at all in the decision. But, arguably here, all allegedly discriminatory decisions were made prior to the amendment’s passage.

In light of these new state and local laws’ prohibitions and/or restrictions on the use of prior pay as a determinant in setting an applicant’s salary, even if the Ninth Circuit finds that the federal Equal Pay Act permits the use of pay history for this purpose (under certain circumstances), in many jurisdictions, state and local laws will prohibit it. Employers should be aware both of the split in the circuits on this issue, and also of any applicable amendments to state and local equal pay laws that may impact their ability to rely on prior pay in setting an applicant’s rate of pay.

[1] The panel included Circuit Judges A. Wallace Tashima and Andrew D. Hurwitz and the Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.

[2]Kouba v. Allstate Insurance Co. ( 9th Cir. 1982) 691 F.2d 873.

[3] As Defendant Jim Yovino was sued in his official capacity as the Fresno County Superintendent of Schools, the Ninth Circuit utilized the word “County” when referring to the Defendant. For simplicity, we utilize the same term.

[4] To determine a candidate’s salary using “Standard Operating Procedure 1440,” the County applies a 5% increase to an individual’s most recent prior salary, then places the candidate on a “step” of the County’s salary schedule based on that calculated amount. This schedule consists of twelve “levels,” each of which contains ten “steps.”

[5] Under the EPA, a wage disparity is permissible if an employer can plead and prove an affirmative defense based on one of the following exceptions: (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex.

The law, which was set to become effective May 23, 2017, has been challenged by the Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia (the “Chamber”). The Chamber’s lawsuit alleges that the pending law violates the First Amendment by restricting an employer’s speech because, among other reasons, “it is highly speculative whether the [law] will actually ameliorate wage disparities caused by gender discrimination.” It is also alleged that the law violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Pennsylvania’s Constitution as well as its “First Class City Home Rule Act” by allegedly attempting to restrict the rights of employers outside of Philadelphia.

On April 19, a judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stayed the effective date of the law, pending the resolution of the Chamber’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Prior to resolving the injunction, the parties will first brief the court on the Chamber’s standing to bring the lawsuit. This issue, regarding whether the Chamber is an appropriate party to bring this lawsuit, will be fully briefed by May 12, 2017, before the law is set to become effective. However, there are several other issues to be resolved as part of the lawsuit. The City’s decision to stay enforcement of the pending law until all issues are resolved is intended to help employers and employees avoid confusion during the pendency of the lawsuit.

Although the City of Philadelphia will not enforce this law in the interim, employers with any operations in Philadelphia should review their interviewing and hiring practices in case the lawsuit is decided in favor of the City. Further, employers in Massachusetts and New York City will also be subject to similar restrictions on inquiring about an applicant’s salary history when those laws go into effect. Massachusetts’ law is scheduled to become effective in July 2018, and New York City’s law will become effective 180 days after Mayor de Blasio signs the law, which may occur as soon as this week.

Following is an excerpt:

Earlier this week New York Governor Andrew D. Cuomo (D) signed two executive orders and announced a series of legislative proposals specifically aimed at eliminating the wage gap in gender, among other workers and strengthening equal pay protection in New York State. The Governor’s actions are seen by many as an alternative to employer-focused federal policies anticipated once President-elect Donald J. Trump (R) takes office. …

According to the Governor’s Press Release, the Governor will seek to amend State law to hold the top 10 members of out-of-state limited liability companies (“LLC”) personally financially liable for unsatisfied judgments for unpaid wages. This law already exists with respect to in-state and out-of-state corporations, as well as in-state LLCs. The Governor is also seeking to empower the Labor Commissioner to pursue judgments against the top 10 owners of any corporations or domestic or foreign LLCs for wage liabilities on behalf of workers with unpaid wage claims. …

Read the full post here.

In December 2015, EEOC Chair Jenny Yang released a statement highlighting the need for employers to “remain vigilant” in light of the recent terrorist attacks. Yang commended employers that have “taken steps to issue or re-issue policies preventing harassment, retaliation, and other forms of discrimination in the workplace.” At the same time this statement was released, the EEOC also released two technical guidance tools regarding religious discrimination: “Questions and Answers for Employers: Responsibilities Concerning the Employment of Individuals Who Are, or Are Perceived to Be, Muslim or Middle Eastern” (“Employer Q&A”) and a similar guide for employees.

The Employer Q&A does the following:

• provides helpful insight on the various measures that employers should undertake to avoid violations of Title VII, which prohibits discrimination based on religion and national origin, among other protected categories;
• addresses questions about hiring and other employment decisions, harassment, religious accommodation, and background investigations;
• reminds employers that they may not discriminate against an individual because the individual’s religious garb may make customers feel uncomfortable; and
• emphasizes the need to engage in an interactive process with employees who request a religious accommodation, such as time off for religious holidays and exceptions to dress and grooming codes.

When evaluating whether the religious accommodation will cause an undue hardship, the EEOC (through the Employer Q&A) explains that employers may not speculate on whether other employees may seek the same accommodation and make decisions based on those speculations. Rather, each accommodation request must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Earlier this year, the EEOC joined forces with other federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, to create an interagency initiative aimed at religious bias. As part of this initiative, in March 2016, the EEOC released another technical guidance tool titled “What You Should Know About Religious and National Origin Discrimination Against Those Who Are, or Are Perceived to Be, Muslim or Middle Eastern” (“What You Should Know Guidance”).

Among other things, the What You Should Know Guidance:

• summarizes some of the ways in which discrimination against individuals who are (or could be perceived to be) Muslim or Middle Eastern can materialize in the workplace;
• reminds employers of their obligations to prevent and correct unlawful discrimination or harassment, and provide reasonable religious accommodations;
• points out several recent cases brought against retailers that involve claims of religious and national origin discrimination and harassment, or a failure to accommodate based on these factors; and
• highlights the increase in litigation in these areas (in particular, the What You Should Know Guidance reports that, since 9/11, there has been a 250 percent increase in EEOC charges involving religious discrimination against Muslims).

These guidance tools serve as a follow up to the EEOC’s previously released guidance on religious garb and grooming in the workplace, which provides even more detail on how employers should address these issues. Given the EEOC’s increased scrutiny of religious and national origin discrimination against people who are, or are perceived to be, Muslim or Middle Eastern, retailers should be particularly wary of religious or national origin bias. Retailers can work toward preventing this type of bias in the workplace by reviewing and disseminating their anti-discrimination policies and providing training to employees and managers.

A version of this article originally appeared in the Take 5 newsletter “Five New Challenges Facing Retail Employers.”

Among other provisions, most of the Equal Pay Laws contain four components. They aim to (i) strengthen current equal pay standards, (ii) create pay transparency rules, (iii) expand equal pay protections beyond gender, and (iv) redefine the geographic reach of existing equal pay laws.

Strengthening of Current Equal Pay Standards

The Equal Pay Laws modify the standards required for plaintiffs to prevail on equal pay claims. Previously, these laws tracked the federal Equal Pay Act, which permits exceptions to equal pay for equal work, “where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex.” The Equal Pay Laws, however, each modify the fourth prong, so that they now permit pay differentials based on a “bona fide factor other than sex” (emphasis added). This additional language allows plaintiffs to bring claims alleging that a neutral factor produced a wage differential that disparately impacts employees based on their sex, and notwithstanding this impact, the employer did not adopt an alternative business practice that would serve the same purpose without resulting in the wage differential. The new standard also broadens a plaintiff’s ability to allege a prima facie case of wage disparity.

Pay Transparency

Many of the Equal Pay Laws include pay transparency provisions, meaning that employers cannot create policies or enforce rules that would restrict an employee’s ability to discuss his or her wages with co-workers. The Massachusetts bill, which is still in the state legislature, has another unique twist (one that actually passed the legislature in California earlier this year but was vetoed by the governor). The Massachusetts equal pay law would prohibit employers from asking about an applicant’s salary history on an application or during interviews for employment. This would mean that an employer could no longer ask applicants how much they earned at their past jobs when considering making an offer of employment to an applicant. This twist aims to ensure that prior pay discrepancies are not compounded when an applicant’s pay rate with a new employer is based on unequal pay rates that the applicant received in the past.

Expanding Beyond Pay Equality Based on Gender

While the Equal Pay Laws were initially intended to ensure that women received equal pay in relation to men, some of the Equal Pay Laws seek to expand equal pay protection to other protected categories. The proposed California law, which is intended to amend the recently amended equal pay law in that state, would expand protections to race- and ethnicity-based pay differentials. Further, Maryland’s recently enacted law requires equal pay based on gender identity.

Geographical Reach

Finally, the Equal Pay Laws differ as to their geographical scope. For example, the New York law limits the reach of pay differentials to “no larger than a county.” In other words, women cannot compare themselves to other employees outside the county where they work. Some of the other Equal Pay Laws have significantly broader reach, such as California, which has no geographic limit. The New Jersey law, which was vetoed on May 2, 2016, but may be reintroduced in the state legislature, would permit wage comparisons based on compensation rates “in all of an employer’s operations or facilities.” This could mean that New Jersey employees could base their equal pay claims on the pay differential between their own compensation and that of employees of the employer in other jurisdictions (even in locations where the standard of living is considerably higher). Unlike New Jersey, the law proposed in Massachusetts would permit employers to base pay differentials on geographic location if one location has a lower cost of living based upon the Consumer Price Index.

Conclusion

As a result of the Equal Pay Laws, employers should consider whether to perform an internal audit (with the assistance of counsel) in order to identify and address any potential pay disparities. Indeed, in light of the recently published regulations on the overtime exemption status of various employees, this summer may be a good time for employers to review their pay practices for all employees.

A version of this article originally appeared in the Take 5 newsletter “Five New Challenges Facing Retail Employers.”

[1] Maryland’s equal pay law was signed by Governor Larry Hogan on May 19, 2016, and becomes effective October 1, 2016. New York’s and California’s laws are currently effective.

[2] California has introduced a second equal pay amendment addressing wage disparity based on race and ethnicity. The first equal pay amendment became effective on January 1, 2016.

[3] Louisiana’s equal pay bill was recently rejected in the state House committee, despite passing the Senate and having strong support from Governor John Bel Edwards.

New FMLA Poster

The FMLA requires covered employers to display a copy of the General FMLA Notice prominently in a conspicuous place. The new poster is more reader-friendly and better organized than the previous one. The font is larger and the poster contains a QR code that will connect the reader directly to the DOL homepage. According to the DOL, however, the February 2013 version of the FMLA poster can continue to be used to fulfill the FMLA’s posting requirement.

The Employer’s Guide to The Family and Medical Leave Act

According to the DOL, the Guide is intended to provide employers with “essential information about the FMLA, including information about employers’ obligations under the law and the options available to employers in administering leave under the FMLA.” The Guide reviews issues in chronological order, beginning with a discussion of whether an employer is covered under the FMLA, all the way through an employee’s return to work after taking FMLA leave. The Guide includes helpful “Did You Know?” sections that shed light on some of the lesser-known provisions of the FMLA. The Guide also includes hyperlinks to the DOL website and visual aids to improve the reader’s experience. Overall the Guide helps navigating the complex FMLA process; however, it does not provide any guidance beyond the existing regulations.

When:  Thursday, October 15, 2015    8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.

Where:  New York Hilton Midtown, 1335 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019

This year, Epstein Becker Green’s Annual Workforce Management Briefing focuses on the latest developments that impact employers nationwide, featuring senior officials from the U.S. Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. We will also take a close look at the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its growing impact on the workplace.

In addition, we are excited to welcome our keynote speaker Neil Cavuto, Senior Vice President, Managing Editor, and Anchor for both FOX News Channel and FOX Business Network.

Our industry-focused breakout sessions will feature panels composed of Epstein Becker Green attorneys and senior executives from major companies, discussing issues that keep employers awake at night.  From the latest National Labor Relations Board developments to data privacy and security concerns, each workshop will offer insight on how to mitigate risk and avoid costly litigation.

View the full briefing agenda here. Contact Kiirsten Lederer or Elizabeth Gannon for more information and to register.   Seats are limited.

The presentation slides and the recording for the webinar – Creating and Maintaining a Lawful Internship Program – are now accessible for your viewing.  If you would like to review, please contact Kiirsten Lederer to obtain instructions. 

During this timely and important webinar, we discussed how to minimize both your organization’s liability and the risk of wage and hour lawsuits. Specifically, participants walked away with answers to the following questions:

• What are the best practices for recruiting and hiring interns, and what critical language should you include (or avoid) in offer letters, employment contracts, and other communications?
• What assignments are appropriate for interns, and what tasks must you prevent interns from doing?
• How does the Fair Labor Standards Act apply to interns?
• What is the best way to handle various forms of remuneration (money, academic credit, company discounts, etc.) for interns?
• How do the rules of for-profit and non-profit companies differ (and what rules apply to public-sector employers)?
• How do child labor laws affect internships?
• What are best practices for organizations—before, during and after an internship program?
• Do company policies apply to interns?
• What rules should you consider if you would like to hire an intern on a full-time basis in the future?
• When does workers’ compensation or other insurance kick in, and how should you handle unemployment insurance?
• What common blunders should you avoid when setting up school internship programs?
• What ethical considerations apply when creating an internship program?

We look forward to your participation in future EBG educational programs.  Please click here for a list of upcoming webinars/events that may be of interest to you or your colleagues.

A hot topic for every summer – but particularly this summer – is the status of unpaid interns. You are probably aware that several wage and hour lawsuits have been brought regarding the employment status of unpaid interns, particularly in the entertainment and publishing industries. The theory behind these cases is that the interns in question don’t fall within the “trainee” exception to the definition of “employee” under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as well as applicable state laws. If the intern does fall within this exception, he or she is not subject to wage and hour laws (such as minimum wage or overtime) and the unpaid internship is thus permissible.

Federal and New York State Factors

According to the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”), all six of the following factors must be met if an intern can be exempted from wage and hour laws under the “trainee” exception:

1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training that would be given in an educational environment. The more an internship program is structured around a classroom or academic experience as opposed to the employer’s actual operations, the more likely the internship will be viewed as an extension of the individual’s educational experience.
2. The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern. The intern should get more out of the internship than the employer.
3. The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under the close supervision of existing staff. If an employer uses interns as substitutes for regular workers or to increase its existing workforce during certain time periods, then they are more likely to be deemed employees.
4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded.
5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship. The internship should be of a fixed duration, established prior to the outset of the internship, and should not be used as a “long-term job interview” for employment.
6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship. The parties should enter into a written agreement on this point.

In addition, the New York State DOL has a five-factor test for whether an intern is not an employee.  According to the New York State DOL, all five of these factors must be met, in addition to the U.S. DOL’s six factors:

1. Any clinical training is performed under the supervision and direction of people who are knowledgeable and experienced in the activity. The intern should be supervised by a person in that field, not by an administrator or HR.
2. The trainees or students do not receive employee benefits. The intern should not be eligible for health care, vacation, or discounted services.
3. The training is general and qualifies trainees or students to work in any similar business.  It is not designed specifically for a job with the employer that offers the program. The training must be useful, transferable to any employer in the field, and not specific to that employer.
4. The screening process for the internship program is NOT the same as for employment and does not appear to be for that purpose. The screening only uses criteria relevant for admission to an independent educational program. There should be a separate application and selection process for interns and employees.
5. Advertisements, postings, or solicitations for the program clearly discuss education or training, rather than employment, although employers may indicate that qualified graduates may be considered for employment. It should be obvious that a job posting is for an internship and not for employment.

How Are the Courts Interpreting These Tests?

Several federal circuit courts of appeal have addressed this issue applying various tests. At least one court has used the “all or nothing” test, whereby all six U.S. DOL factors must be met if the interns will be considered “trainees.” Other courts have followed the “totality of the circumstances” test. These courts hold that the six factors are relevant to help determine whether an individual is a trainee, but are not “hard and fast” requirements. Still other courts have used an “economic reality” test, similar to that used in classifying employees and independent contractors under the FLSA. Yet another court created a “primary beneficiary” test, which asks whether the employer or employee is the primary beneficiary of the intern’s labor.

Courts in the Southern District of New York have generally followed the totality of the circumstances test in determining whether an intern is an employee or a trainee, but the scope of the analysis has differed. Currently there are two cases pending in the Second Circuit for a joint decision as to the proper analysis, among other issues. Even after the Second Circuit rules, the Supreme Court will likely weigh in on this topic. However, the Supreme Court recently denied a certiorari requested by a party to an intern case in the Eleventh Circuit.

Practical Considerations in Establishing a Compliant Unpaid Internship Program

• Even if an intern meets the test of being a “trainee,” who is not subject to the FLSA, interns in New York City (and perhaps in other jurisdictions to come) are afforded the same rights against employment discrimination as employees, under the applicable fair employment practices laws.
• When recruiting interns, use different postings, applications, and screening processes than when recruiting employees.
• When drafting an offer letter, ensure that the intern knows that he or she will not be paid, and is not entitled to a job at the end of the internship.
• Review your policies and other benefit plans (for example, vacation/sick leave, workers’ compensation) to determine if interns are included or excluded from coverage.
• Structure the unpaid internship to include shadowing and classroom learning, and if possible, have interns receive school credit. While receiving school credit is not determinative under any of the tests, it is one of the best indicators that the intern is not an employee.

Topics to include:

• Legal, logistical, ethical, and other factors to consider when creating and implementing internship programs
• Ramifications of newly-enacted state and local laws on handbook policies and general operating procedures
• Legal considerations surrounding the creation and implementation of wellness programs
• Analysis of severance agreements in light of recent changes to applicable law and challenges by governmental agencies

Click here to read more about the roundtable summit.

For additional information, please contact Kiirsten Lederer at 212/351-4668 or [email protected].