Circa Named a Winner of the Southeast Wisconsin Top Workplace 2023 Award. Read Press Release+
The effort to combat gender pay inequity has taken many twists and turns at the federal level. We've all seen reports and data about the difference in average pay between men and women (83%), and the even greater disparity involving minority women (i.e., 53%) when compared to non-minority males.
OFCCP and EEOC have been at the forefront of many attempted policy and program measures. Included among these are the OFCCP's pay transparency poster and Executive Order about wage confidentiality, both of which were enacted during the Obama administration. Other attempts involved the ill-fated Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order, and EEO-1 Equal Pay Report requiring intensive compensation data reporting – neither of which survived.
States and municipalities have joined the pay disparity battle, although from a very different perspective. Several states and local government entities have taken up the torch to combat perceived pay inequity between men and women through the job application, screening, and interview process.
This next wave of regulation to narrow the gender pay gap is prohibiting employers from asking an applicant's wage/salary history prior to extending a job offer. The philosophy behind these measures is the view that many employers extend job offers and compensation based on a candidate's current or recent rate of pay. Paying historically higher compensated (on average) males based on their current wage/salary perpetuates and compounds pay disparity going forward, even if future pay adjustments are comparable for men and women employees.
There are many variations on this theme, but it involves a ban on salary inquiries by employers at various stages of the employment process. Several states and local entities are prohibiting employers from asking questions about an applicant's salary history or using past pay history to justify a gender pay difference:
In addition, several major cities have undertaken similar steps:
Other states have undertaken preliminary steps by prohibiting their government agencies from inquiring about prior salary, while not regulating the private sector. In contrast, some states (such as Michigan and Wisconsin) have enacted legislation prohibiting local governments from implementing laws/ordinances that interfere with private employers' ability to inquire about pay history, thus moving in the opposite direction.
While the theory behind each of these state/local salary history bans seems to be consistent, the devil is in the details. Some of these laws ban inquiring about prior compensation at all, while some prohibit questions about prior salary before an initial job interview or a job offer. Other versions prohibit screening candidates in any manner based on salary history, and some prohibit using a third-party agent to do an ‘end-around' to inquire about salary, while other laws simply prohibit the use of a candidate's prior pay when establishing a job's compensation value. Still other laws permit discussion of compensation history in an interview if an applicant voluntarily discloses it.
Courts may now be willing to accept the theory behind these types of initiatives. Earlier this year the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that "prior salary is not job related and it perpetuates the very gender-based assumptions about the value of work that the Equal Pay Act was designed to end." Rizo v. Yovino (9th Cir. en banc; April 9, 2018). The Ninth Circuit essentially determined that prior salary history is not a reasonable factor other than sex under the Equal Pay Act for pay differences when there is substantially similar work.
What can an employer do when it has employees spread across multiple states or metropolitan areas with such prohibitions, and screening is done locally by hiring managers?
Tread these waters of applicant salary history carefully. Employers may find little insulation for violations by third-party agents or recruiters who pursue salary history as a screening tool when acting on behalf of their client employer. The safest approach to navigating the maze is to establish compensation levels or ranges according to market survey data or the value of the job, and follow a "don't ask, don't tell" approach. Notwithstanding, that's much easier said than done in this full employment economy when luring key talent away from competitors is so difficult.
Gary Chamberlin is the Chair of Miller Johnson's Affirmative Action & Government Contractors practice group. For questions about this article, or OFCCP/affirmative action and government contractor compliance matters, contact Gary directly at [email protected] or (616) 831-1709. Other resources are available on Miller Johnson's website.
The information in this article has been prepared for informational purposes only. This is not legal advice, nor intended to create or constitute a lawyer-client relationship. Before acting on the basis of any information or material, readers who have specific questions or problems should consult their lawyer.