Court: Employers can pay women less based on past salaries

[Judi Lynn]

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

[PoliticAverse]

2. Rec'd for exposure. n/t

[clementine613]

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

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

[elleng]

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.

[DURHAM D]

5. JFC - is this 1917? nt

[SharonAnn]

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.

[cstanleytech]

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.

[Jim Lane]

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.

[Cal Carpenter]

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

can fundamentally conflict.

So fucked up.

[forgotmylogin]

10. So essentially...

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

Fucked up.

[Bayard]

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.

[LanternWaste]

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...

[Yupster]

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.

[Bradical79]

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.

[Nitram]

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.

[pandr32]

15. Good gawd!

[Maxheader]

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

[moondust]

17. And keep slaves based on past slavery?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

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.

[Floyd R. Turbo]

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