HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Court: Employers can pay ...

Thu Apr 27, 2017, 10:09 PM

Court: Employers can pay women less based on past salaries

Source: Associated Press


Sudhin Thanawala, Associated Press Updated 9:00 pm, Thursday, April 27, 2017



SAN FRANCISCO (AP) Employers can legally pay women less than men for the same work based on differences in the workers' previous salaries, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower-court ruling that said pay differences based exclusively on prior salaries were discriminatory under the federal Equal Pay Act.

That's because women's earlier salaries are likely to be lower than men's because of gender bias, U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Seng said in a 2015 decision.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit cited a 1982 ruling by the court that said employers could use previous salary information as long as they applied it reasonably and had a business policy that justified it.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Court-Employers-can-pay-women-less-based-on-past-11104097.php

20 replies, 4843 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply Court: Employers can pay women less based on past salaries (Original post)
Judi Lynn Apr 2017 OP
Post removed Apr 2017 #1
PoliticAverse Apr 2017 #2
clementine613 Apr 2017 #3
elleng Apr 2017 #4
DURHAM D Apr 2017 #5
SharonAnn Apr 2017 #6
cstanleytech Apr 2017 #7
Jim Lane Apr 2017 #8
Cal Carpenter Apr 2017 #9
forgotmylogin Apr 2017 #10
Bayard Apr 2017 #11
LanternWaste Apr 2017 #13
Yupster May 2017 #20
Bradical79 Apr 2017 #12
Nitram Apr 2017 #14
pandr32 Apr 2017 #15
Maxheader Apr 2017 #16
moondust Apr 2017 #17
TexasMommaWithAHat May 2017 #18
Floyd R. Turbo May 2017 #19

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Apr 27, 2017, 10:15 PM

2. Rec'd for exposure. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Apr 27, 2017, 10:18 PM

3. There's one judge who needs to be impeached and imprisoned.

Edit: Sorry... I didn't read it carefully enough. Three judges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Apr 27, 2017, 10:36 PM

4. This is too damn bad.

Remember, courts don't make policy, they enforce policies made by legislatures. Often this is not a good thing, policy-wise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Apr 27, 2017, 10:40 PM

5. JFC - is this 1917? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Thu Apr 27, 2017, 11:10 PM

6. So if they've discriminated in the past, they get to keep discriminating. Sad

We really need the get the legislation in place to prevent this from happening. The judges are interpreting the law (legislation) which doesn't require Equal Pay.

We need the ERA - Equal Rights Amendment. It's way past time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SharonAnn (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 27, 2017, 11:36 PM

7. Well there is some hope the judge could maybe issue another ruling that the court could give

the ok on otherwise its going to be up to scotus (assuming they agree to hear it) which I wouldnt place much hope on considering the courts majority is Repugnant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SharonAnn (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 28, 2017, 08:49 AM

8. The ERA, if ratified, would not have changed this result.

 

The Civil War Amendments, enacted to protect newly freed blacks from governmental discrimination, did not prohibit private acts of discrimination, in such areas as pay, service at restaurants, housing, etc. Those rights are statutory, based on laws enacted after World War II through the work of the civil rights movement. (As a side note, the Civil War Amendments were for decades largely unenforced even as to racial discrimination by government, but at least the framework was there. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) addressed discrimination by government but discrimination by private employers was legal in many states until the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.)

The interpretation of the Civil War Amendments has now gone beyond racial discrimination and can in some circumstances be applied to other factors, including gender. The ERA, however, tracks the Civil War Amendments in applying to government action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Apr 28, 2017, 10:14 AM

9. And this is where we see that "rule of law" and "justice"

can fundamentally conflict.

So fucked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Apr 28, 2017, 10:45 AM

10. So essentially...

Women cannot be paid equally because they've never been paid equally?

Fucked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Apr 28, 2017, 12:38 PM

11. Two wrongs don't make a right

I'm assuming they're talking about the age old business wisdom of not bringing in a new employee, or giving a raise to a current one, of more than 10% of current salary. But if you're already underpaid, that just doesn't hold water.

Isn't this the same court that Rump wants to break up? This decision should make him happier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bayard (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 28, 2017, 01:15 PM

13. I'd guessed at least one person would attempt to rationalize this.

 

I'd guessed at least one person would attempt to rationalize this.

Since we're both guessing, and all...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #13)

Tue May 2, 2017, 10:23 AM

20. I know a company that kind of does this

It's a commission sales job where the new employee is unlikely to make money for the company for up to five years. The company is willing to subsidize the new employee as long as it sees progress being made toward profitability.

When it hires a new person it offers them a guaranteed pay based on a percentage of what they were making at their previous job. Therefore, two new employees can make significantly different starting pays.

The theory behind it is if they don't offer close to what they were making they won't take the job. If you offer more than what they were making before, they won't work as hard as they can to get their business off to a strong start.

IT's a job that requires very hard work and long hours the first few years getting started, but has the potential to make very large incomes.

I'm sure if it was analyzed, it would show that starting male workers were offered more than starting female workers just because the offers were based on their previous salary histories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Apr 28, 2017, 12:46 PM

12. I don't know the law

 

But sensible reasoning shows the obvious ethical deficiency in this conclusion. It reinforces prior sexism, plain as day. Pisses me off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Apr 28, 2017, 01:30 PM

14. Brilliant! The reason for a discriminatory wage structure is that the worker was

discriminated against previously. Kind of like using pre-existing conditions as an excuse to charge higher health insurance premiums. Conservatives really are a piece of work. Or a piece of something a lot stinkier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Apr 28, 2017, 01:54 PM

15. Good gawd!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Apr 28, 2017, 02:03 PM

16. If your a woman

and you work for sam brownbutt...you'd better have those dresses
no higher than 3" above the knee...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1052963

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Apr 28, 2017, 03:18 PM

17. And keep slaves based on past slavery?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 10:01 AM

18. Can pay a man less based on prior salary, as well

I think we're reading this ruling a bit too narrowly.

As I understand, anyone can negotiate for a higher salary when interviewing for a new position, and previous salary is usually one of the main predicates for being in the position to negotiate for a higher salary. This cuts across both sexes. Should the law allow a woman to negotiate for a higher salary, but not a man?

The result may appear to suck, but the ruling is correct, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon May 1, 2017, 02:27 PM

19. Another reason to never ever disclose one's salary history to a potential employer!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread