Jackson Lewis P.C. • March 24, 2019
This is the second article in our four-part series titled “Rethinking Pay Equity,” designed to provide practical guidance to help employers understand and address the many new rules, regulations, and best practices around pay equity in preparation for Equal Pay Day 2019.
Fisher Phillips • March 19, 2019
The U.S. Supreme Court took an unusual step in vacating a 2018 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit because the judge who authored the opinion, and was part of the majority in the precedent-setting ruling, died before the decision was published. The high court reversed a landmark pay equity ruling that held employers could not justify wage differentials between men and women by relying on previous salary information.
As we celebrate Women’s History Month this March, it has been 55 years since the passage of Title VII which banned gender discrimination (along with race, religion, color and national origin discrimination) by employers.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • March 12, 2019
This is the first in our four-part series titled “Rethinking Pay Equity,” a special series of legal alerts aimed at providing practical guidance to help employers address the many new rules, regulations, and best practices around equal pay in preparation for Equal Pay Day 2019. The series will culminate with a unique, complimentary webinar on April 2, Equal Pay Day, by the Co-Chairs of the Jackson Lewis Pay Equity Resource Group.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • March 12, 2019
The Jackson Lewis Pay Equity Resource Group is pleased to announce a special series to help employers prepare for Equal Pay Day. “Rethinking Pay Equity” will take a look at several of the biggest questions facing employers in the ever-evolving #equalpay landscape, including: How can prior salary information perpetuate the persistent pay gap, and how should we measure and address the impact of years-long reliance on such information in the hiring process? What data should we use when reviewing pay? Who should be compared against whom? What do we do if pay analyses reveal a problem? Should the company voluntarily make public disclosures about pay?
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • February 28, 2019
On February 25, 2019, the United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Rizo v. Yovino,1 in which it held an employer cannot justify a wage differential between men and women by relying on prior salary. The Supreme Court determined that the Ninth Circuit’s publication of the Rizo decision was contrary to established appellate precedent and judicial practice because the judge who authored the majority decision was deceased at the time the decision issued.2 Explaining that “federal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity,” the Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision.3
Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP • February 27, 2019
US Supreme Court reverses controversial Ninth Circuit Equal Pay Act ruling.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 27, 2019
Because the judge who authored the ruling died before the decision was issued, the Ninth Circuit erred in counting him as a member of the majority, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Yovino v. Rizo, No. 18-272 (Feb. 25, 2019). On this technicality, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit ruling that prior salary alone or in combination with other factors cannot justify a wage differential between male and female employees under the Equal Pay Act.
XpertHR • February 26, 2019
The Supreme Court has vacated a major 9th Circuit Court of Appeals salary history ban ruling because the appellate court released the opinion shortly after the judge who authored it had died.
Ogletree Deakins • February 26, 2019
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.