Search form

California Expands Fair Pay Act Protections

By Jonathan A. Siegel
  • October 13, 2015

Requiring employers to prove an employee’s higher pay is determined on factors other than gender and allowing workers to sue if they are paid less than co-workers of a different gender with different job titles doing “substantially similar” work highlight California’s expanded Fair Pay Act (SB 358), signed by Governor Jerry Brown on October 6, 2015.

The Act provides:

An employer shall not pay any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, except where the employer demonstrates:

(1) The wage differential is based upon one or more of the following factors:

(A) A seniority system.

(B) A merit system.

(C) A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production.

(D) A bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience. This factor shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that the factor is not based on or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation, is job related with respect to the position in question, and is consistent with a business necessity. For purposes of this subparagraph, “business necessity” means an overriding legitimate business purpose such that the factor relied upon effectively fulfills the business purpose it is supposed to serve. This defense shall not apply if the employee demonstrates that an alternative business practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing the wage differential.

(2) Each factor relied upon is applied reasonably.

(3) The one or more factors relied upon account for the entire wage differential.

Further, every employer must maintain records of the wages and wage rates, job classifications, and other terms and conditions of employment of employees for a period of three years.

The Act also provides workers with protection from discrimination and retaliation for any action taken by an employee to invoke or assist in the enforcement of the Act.

An employer may not prohibit an employee from disclosing the employee’s own wages, discussing others’ wages, asking questions about another employee’s wages, or aiding or encouraging any other employee to exercise rights under the Act. However, the Act states expressly it does not create an obligation to disclose wages.

The new standards likely would make it easier for an aggrieved plaintiff to prevail in a lawsuit. Workers can file expanded claims in court or through the state labor commissioner’s office, beginning January 1, 2016.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding this new law and assist employers in achieving compliance with its requirements.

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

June 12, 2018

Nevada Supreme Court Rejects an Interpretation of ‘Health Insurance’ that Would Nullify State Wage System

June 12, 2018

In the last of a series of decisions reached by the Nevada Supreme Court interpreting the Minimum Wage Amendment (“MWA”) to the Nevada Constitution, the Court concluded that an employer may pay the lower of the state’s two-tier minimum wage “if the employer offers health insurance at a cost to the employer of the equivalent of at least... Read More

June 7, 2018

Number of Contingent Workers Inches Higher, DOL Survey Finds

June 7, 2018

The Department of Labor (DOL) has confirmed the gig economy is alive and well, but the number of workers has increased only slightly in the past decade. The DOL released its much-anticipated “Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangements Survey” report on June 7, 2018. The number of U.S. workers classified as “contingent” (... Read More

May 7, 2018

California Supreme Court Broadens Definition of Employee in Independent Contractor Analysis

May 7, 2018

Diverging from decades-old precedent, the California Supreme Court has broadened the definition of “employee” in the context of the State’s Industrial Work Commission (IWC) wage orders when undertaking the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2018 Cal.... Read More

Related Practices