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 material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

August 7, 2019

New Jersey Wage Theft Law Increases Employer Liability for Wage and Hour Violations

August 7, 2019

New Jersey’s Wage Theft Act (WTA) significantly enhances employer penalties under the state’s wage and hour laws by adding liquidated damages and providing extra protections for employee retaliation claims. In addition, the WTA makes client-employers and labor contractors jointly and severally liable “for any violations of the provisions... Read More

August 5, 2019

Colorado Employer’s Vacation Policy that Included Forfeiture Provision Upheld

August 5, 2019

An employer’s vacation policy did not violate the Colorado Wage Claim Act (CWCA), despite stating that employees forfeit earned vacation pay if they are discharged or quit without giving two weeks’ notice, the Colorado Court of Appeals has held. Nieto v. Clark’s Market, Inc., 2019 COA 98 (Colo. App. June 27, 2019). Background... Read More

July 24, 2019

Ninth Circuit to Ask California Supreme Court to Decide Retroactivity of ‘ABC’ Test, Withdraws Opinion

July 24, 2019

Whether California’s recently adopted “ABC” test, used in the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis in cases involving California’s wage orders, must be applied retroactively should be decided by the California Supreme Court, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has decided, withdrawing its controversial... Read More

Related Practices