join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More
Rizo v. Yovino, No. 16-15372 (Apr. 9, 2018)

Articles Discussing Case:

Ninth Circuit Holds "Catchall" Exception to the Equal Pay Act is Limited to "Job-Related" Factors, Excludes Consideration of Prior Salary

Littler Mendelson, P.C. • April 22, 2018
In Rizo v. Yovino,1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently examined whether an employer can justify a wage differential between male and female employees by relying on prior salary. The Ninth Circuit determined that prior salary—alone or in combination with other factors—cannot justify such a wage differential because prior salary is not job-related, and perpetuates the gender-based assumptions about the value of work that the Equal Pay Act was designed to end. In reaching this conclusion, the Ninth Circuit became the first appellate court to definitively address whether and how employers may consider wage history. Other federal appellate courts that have examined this question have typically concluded that while employers may not rely on an individual’s salary history alone to support a wage differential, they may do so if prior salary is considered among other factors.2

Employers Can't Use Salary History to Justify Gender Pay Gaps, 9th Circuit Rules

XpertHR • April 22, 2018
An employee's prior salary cannot justify a pay gap between men and women for performing similar work, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in Rizo v. Yovino.

What Employers Need to Know Now About the Ninth Circuit’s Salary History Decision

Ogletree Deakins • April 12, 2018
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently released its opinion in Rizo v. Yovino, No. 16-15372 (April 9, 2018). In this high-profile case, the court held that “prior salary alone or in combination with other factors cannot justify a wage differential” between male and female employees. This article provides practical answers to employers’ questions regarding the ruling.

Employers Can’t Use Salary History to Defend Pay Gap

Franczek Radelet P.C • April 12, 2018
On Monday, April 9, 2018, the day before Equal Pay Day, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that employers cannot use an employee’s past salary to justify paying women less than men under the federal Equal Pay Act (EPA). The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Rizo v. Yovino overruled prior holdings in the circuit that past salary is a “factor other than sex” that employers could use to justify a pay gap between men and women under the EPA, concluding that prior salary cannot be used, alone or in combination with other factors, to justify a wage differential.

Salary History is Not a Permitted ‘Factor Other Than Sex’ under Equal Pay Act, Ninth Circuit Holds

Jackson Lewis P.C. • April 10, 2018
Prior salary alone or in combination with other factors cannot justify a wage differential between male and female employees under the Equal Pay Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held in an en banc decision. Rizo v. Yovino, No. 16-15372 (Apr. 9, 2018). This decision overturns the 2017 decision of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit and the Court’s 1982 decision holding that prior salary was a permissible “factor other than sex” under the Equal Pay Act. Kouba v. Allstate Ins. Co., 691 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 1982).

Pay Equity and Equal Pay Day: A Short Primer on Bans on Salary History Inquiries

Ogletree Deakins • April 10, 2018
Pay equity legislation is burgeoning: in 2017, several jurisdictions—including Albany, New York City, California, San Francisco, Massachusetts, Delaware, Philadelphia and Oregon —approved bans on salary history inquiries. The ostensible purpose of these laws is to prevent the continuation of pay disparities that may have affected female applicants in their work experiences prior to seeking employment with a new company. In addition, on April 9, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an en banc decision in Rizo v. Yovino, holding that prior salary does not qualify as a “factor other than sex” to justify a pay difference under the Equal Pay Act—appearing to support the thinking behind the salary history bans.