- Pay Disparity
- Religious accomodation in the workplace
- Equal pay and prior salary information
- I quit! How to avoid constructive discharge
- You Can't Shred Email
- Navigating Unemployment Claims
- Considering Criminal History in Pre-Employment Decisions
- Defamation Claims from Former Employees
- Mixed Motive Causation
- Requesting Accomodation: Kowitz v. Trinity Health
- Antitrust Law in Human Resources
- An Evolving Standard: Joint-Employment
- What Does At-Will Employment Mean for Employers?
- Let's Talk About Wages
- THE FLSA: CHANGES ARE COMING
- Follow Up: Obesity and the ADA
- The Importance of Social Media Policies
- Is Obesity a Qualifying Disability under the ADA?
- Retaliation on the Rise: The EEOC Responds
- What Motivates You?
- "But I thought ...
- Who’s expecting? And what is he expecting?
- Are You Still Doing Annual Performance Reviews?
- Who is Your Employee?
- The unpaid intern trap Part II
- “We’ve been the victim of a cyber-attack”
- So, a Hasidic Jew, a nun in a habit and a woman wearing a headscarf walk into your office?
- The unpaid intern trap
- Pregnancy in the workplace
- Let's talk about honesty.
- "Did You Know" Series - Part I
- Conducting an Internal Investigation
- What HR can look forward to in 2015!
- The chokehold of workplace technology
- Does your company have trade secrets?
- North Dakota Construction Law Compendium for 2014
- Does the North Dakota baby boom affect you?
- Ban the Box? Why?
- The end of the world as we know it
- Everybody has an opinion
- Changes, Changes, Changes!
- Nick Grant presents at North Dakota Safety Council's 41st Annual Safety and Health Conference
- Email impairment: A potentially harmful condition
- Are Employers Required to Give Stressed-Out Employees Time Off?
- Can you obtain a credit report when investigating employee wrongdoing?
- Can’t we just sidestep the ACA?
- Should Your Employees Telecommute? Part III
- Should Your Employees Telecommute? Part II
- Should Your Employees Telecommute?
- Proper Investigation of Employee Misconduct
- Battles in the Wellness War
- Rules are rules! Aren’t they?
- What's going on in Bismarck
- A glimpse ahead
- Obesity as a disability under the ADA – reweighing the issue
- What’s next for your business under the Affordable Care Act?
- Criminal Background Checks
- Becoming a lawyer is a process, not an event [Section 5 of 5]
- Congress Says Yes To North Slope Energy Jobs Bill
- Test Your Knowledge of Social Media Policies and Employee Discipline
- Becoming a lawyer is a process, not an event [Section 4 of 5]
- What Every Employer Needs to Know About the NLRA
- Will the 2012 Elections Make A Difference
- Where There's Smoke...
- Dress Code Etiquette: Is Casual Friday Becoming Freaky Friday
- The Next Disaster May Be Yours
- Hostile Work Environment Claims
- North Dakota Employment Law Links
- There's An App For That
- Am I a “Business Associate”? Why Should I Care?
- Do You Recognize a Cat's Paw When You See One?
- Cell Phones Can Cost a Lot, Part II
- Becoming a lawyer is a process, not an event [Section 3 of 5]
- Cell Phones Can Cost a Lot, Part I
- The Economy - What HR Professionals Need To Know
- Becoming a lawyer is a process, not an event [Section 2 of 5]
- Three New Challenges For HR Professionals
Pay DisparityBy: Allison Mann
On April 29, 2017, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it would not be requiring employers to report compensation information on their annual EEO-1 form filings, pursuant to a decision from the Office of Management and Budget. This would have been the first year the EEOC collected such information. The reason the EEOC gave for collection was to weed out and prosecute violators of the Equal Pay Act. The OMB’s reasons that the methods of collection to be used by the EEOC “lack[ed] practical utility, [were] unnecessarily burdensome, and [did] not adequately address privacy and confidentiality issues.”
The EEOC has stated that it “remains committed to strong enforcement of our federal equal pay laws,” and that this “decision will not alter EEOC’s enforcement efforts.” So, while last month’s decision may grant a temporary reprieve in documentation to certain employers, gender pay disparity is still an issue that should be on the radar of every human resource professional.
The Equal Pay Act (EPA) requires that men and women receive equal pay for equal work. Title VII is also applicable to wage disparity claims, and an employee that has a claim under the EPA will also likely have a corresponding Title VII claim. There are exceptions to this blanket statement related to differences in pay caused by seniority systems, merit systems, compensation systems based on quantity or quality of production, or based on a bona fide factor other than gender. North Dakota has its own equal pay law, codified as Chapter 34-06 of the Century Code, entitled Equal Pay for Men and Women. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender for “comparable work on jobs that have comparable requirements relating to skill, effort, and responsibility.” N.D.C.C. § 34-06.1-03(1). Many of the other provisions of this North Dakota law are substantially similar to those of the EPA described above, though there are some differences.
Courts use a burden shifting analysis when evaluating these claims. First, the employee must bear the burden of showing that the jobs involved are equal within the meaning of the EPA—not identical, but requiring the same effort, skill, and responsibility. If the employee can meet this burden, the employer bears the burden of showing that the pay disparity is based on an exception listed in the EPA.
In Usery v. Johnson, 436 F. Supp. 35 (D.N.D. 1977), the court was faced with just such a situation. The plaintiff here alleged that the employer was paying female sales clerks less than their male counterparts. The male employees were employed in the furniture department of the store, while the female employees mainly worked in the arts and crafts, books, and toys and games departments. The plaintiff was able to show that though the employees worked in different departments, the daily tasks associated with their jobs were almost identical. The employer defended itself, saying that the male sales clerks had additional responsibilities, which explained the pay disparity. The additional responsibilities centered around lifting heavier items and the “mental effort” it took to sell furniture. The court recognized that male employees may have been required to expend more physical effort on the job, but that the time consumed completing these tasks was insignificant. Additionally, the court discounted the employer’s “mental efforts” argument, after recognizing that the employer could not demonstrate that the male employees had any additional sales skills, and that female employees would assist with furniture department sales. The court ultimately found that the male and female sales clerk jobs were substantially similar, and awarded judgment for the plaintiff.
The Takeaway: Get in Front of the Issue
Penalties for violating equal pay laws can be steep, and include back pay, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, criminal fines, and imprisonment. Self-evaluation is key to preventing such violations. The following steps may be followed in such self-evaluation process:
2. Review job descriptions. Make sure that each position’s job description is accurate, and compare different job descriptions/titles to determine whether certain positions are substantially similar. Remember, job content, not job title, determines whether two jobs are substantially similar.
3. Review compensation structure. This involves determining how pay is set. Systems which use merit based pay or a seniority structure may need special examination to determine legality.
4. Evaluate whether pay disparity exists. The pay structure for jobs that appear to be substantially similar should be examined for potential disparity. Note, compensation includes everything—salary, benefits, bonus, profit sharing, etc.
5. Address any disparity discovered. In the event a pay disparity is discovered through this investigation, it should be legally addressed. If there is a wage disparity, first determine if there is an exception to the EPA that explains such disparity. If not, steps must be taken to remedy the pay differential. It is important that any correction in wage be done in compliance with the law. For example, employers may not reduce wages to any employee in order to correct wage disparity.
Our interest in serving you
My law firm’s goal is to give understandable information and to foster discussion about real-life issues facing human resource professionals. If we are not achieving that goal or if you would like us to address other employment law issues, please email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. We promise to take your comments and ideas to heart.
(Otherwise known as “the fine print”)
I make a serious effort to be accurate in my writings. These articles are not exhaustive treatises, though, so do not consider them complete or authoritative. Providing this information to you does not create an attorney-client relationship with my firm or me. Do not act upon the contents of this or of any article on our homepage or consider it a replacement for professional advice.
Reprinted with permission from an article submitted for publication in the September, 2017 Southwest Area Human Resource Association newsletter.