Cities Step Up Worker Protections - Has Yours?

The United States is way behind most other western nations in protecting its workers. While Congress has dropped into paralysis, U.S. cities have stepped in where Congress and the states have failed to protect working Americans. Florida is one of the most anti-employee states in the nation. The cities here could do much to help working people if they had the political will.

Here are some examples of how cities are stepping up to help workers:

Intern sexual harassment: New York City, along with Washington, D.C., Delaware, and Oregon, have laws against sexually harassing unpaid interns. There is not a single federal law banning intern sexual harassment. Title VII doesn’t cover it because they aren’t “employees.” Same with most state laws including Florida. So, yay for sexual harassers. High school and college students are fair game.

Paid sick leave: San Francisco, Oakland, Emeryville, Los Angeles, Berkeley and San Diego; Washington, D.C.; New York City; Seattle, Tacoma and Spokane; Philadelphia; Montgomery County (Md.); Chicago and Cook County; St. Paul, Minneapolis and Duluth); Newark, Jersey City, Irvington, Passaic, East Orange, Paterson, Trenton, Montclair, Bloomfield, New Brunswick, Elizabeth, Plainfield and Morristown; and Austin all have some form of paid sick leave. Eleven states including California provide some form of paid sick leave. Not Florida, of course.

Paid safe days: The cities that provide paid "safe" days, giving time for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking to seek services include: San Francisco, Emeryville, San Diego, Los Angeles, Berkeley and Santa Monica; Washington, D.C.; Seattle, Tacoma and Spokane; Philadelphia; Montgomery County (Md.); Chicago and Cook County; Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth; New Brunswick; and Austin.

Salary history: 13 states and 11 cities have banned employers from asking about salary history. The reason behind the legislation is that basing pay on prior salary can lock in pay discrimination. The sponsor of the Philadelphia ordinance explained: “Simply put, when a woman is paid less at the beginning of her career she will continue to earn less throughout her career. By eliminating the question of salary history we will be one step closer to decreasing the wage gap.”

Ban the box:  33 states and over 150 cities and counties have adopted “ban the box” laws. These laws generally prevent employers from asking about applicant arrests or convictions at the beginning of the application process, and only allow inquiries after the applicant passes their initial screening. Why? Because about 70 million Americans have some criminal record, and the majority of them are minorities. An entire class of citizens has been made almost completely unemployable due to criminal records that have nothing to do with their ability to do jobs.

Predictable schedules: San Francisco, Emeryville, San Jose, Chicago, New York, Seattle and Washington, D.C. have ordinances requiring that employers give specified advance notice of work schedules, advance notice of shift cancellations, and/or predictability pay for last minute cancellations. Oregon is the first state to enact such a law.

Paid family leave: 35 cities/counties and 11 states have paid parental leave laws.

Right to vacation: New York City would require most employers to offer 10 days of paid vacation to employees under this proposed ordinance

Firing for just cause: This proposed law would prevent employers in New York from firing on a whim.

Minimum wage: Florida’s legislature has prohibited local ordinances raising minimum wage, and that was just upheld. Sad. Many other cities around the nation have raised minimum wage for their workers.

Some cities that have led the way on employee rights are San Francisco, New York, A list of San Francisco’s very pro-employee ordinances is here. New York’s employee rights page is here.

So talk to your local elected officials about stepping up to help working people. If the state and federal governments won’t help workers, it will be up to the cities to protect them.

9th Circuit Decision Proves Need For Laws Banning Prior Salary Inquiries

A few weeks ago I wrote that some states are passing laws banning prospective employers from asking applicants about their salary history. The reason lawmakers give for this law is that basing salary on an applicant's pay with another employer locks in discrimination. This practice particularly impacts women.

A recent case out of the normally very liberal 9th Circuit demonstrates the need for laws banning salary history inquiries. The Court found in Rizo v. Yovino that an employer may legally justify paying women less than men where it based pay solely upon 5% above prior salary. The Court said that, under the Equal Pay Act, prior salary could be a factor other than sex that justified a pay disparity. The appellate court overturned the district court's ruling in favor of the employee:

The district court determined that, under the Equal Pay Act, prior salary alone can never qualify as a factor other than sex, reasoning that “a pay structure based exclusively on prior wages is so inherently fraught with the risk . . . that it will perpetuate a discriminatory wage disparity between men and women that it cannot stand, even if motivated by a legitimate non-discriminatory business purpose.”

The appellate court analyzed the employer's justification for the pay disparity:

The County has offered four business reasons for using Standard Operation Procedure 1440, under which starting salaries are based primarily on prior salary: (1) the policy is objective, in the sense that no subjective opinions as to the new employee’s value enters into the starting-salary calculus; (2) the policy encourages candidates to leave their current jobs for jobs at the County, because they will always receive a 5% pay increase over their current salary; (3) the policy prevents favoritism and ensures consistency in application; and (4) the policy is a judicious use of taxpayer dollars. But, the district court did not evaluate whether these reasons effectuate a business policy or determine whether the County used prior salary “reasonably,” as required by Kouba.

The Court noted that other circuit courts had held, contrary to their ruling, that prior salary was not sufficient justification for gender pay disparities, citing Angove v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 70 F. App’x 500, 508 (10th Cir. 2003); Irby v. Bittick, 44 F.3d 949, 954 (11th Cir. 1995); Price v. Lockheed Space Operations Co., 856 F.2d 1503, 1506 (11th Cir. 1988); and Glenn v. Gen. Motors Corp., 841 F.2d 1567, 1570–71 (11th Cir. 1988). So yay for my own 11th Circuit.

Here's what the Court directed the district court to do on remand:

On remand, the district court must evaluate the four business reasons offered by the County and determine whether the County used prior salary “reasonably in light of [its] stated purpose[s] as well as its other practices.” Kouba, 691 F.2d at 876–77. We emphasize that because these matters relate to the County’s affirmative defense rather than to the elements of the plaintiff’s claim, the County has the burden of persuasion. See Maxwell, 803 F.2d at 446. Thus, unlike in a typical case under Title VII involving the burden-shifting method of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), the plaintiff does not have to present evidence that the County’s explanation for the pay differential is a pretext for intentional gender discrimination. Rather, it is up to the employer to persuade the trier of fact that its stated “factor other than sex” actually caused the salary differential, that the stated factor “effectuate[s] some business policy,” and that the employer used the factor “reasonably in light of [its] stated purpose as well as its other practices.” Kouba, 691 F.2d at 876–77. Of course, the plaintiff is free to introduce evidence of pretext (or any other matter that casts doubt on the employer’s affirmative defense) if it chooses to do so. Maxwell, 803 F.2d at 446.

This case was not a disparate impact case, so I wonder what would happen if the same set of facts were raised under the theory that a facially neutral practice of basing pay on prior salary alone has a disparate impact on women.

In the meantime, this case should give the legislators and lobbyists who are pushing laws to ban salary history inquiries some ammunition to prove that salary history inquiries are bad for women and are thus bad public policy.

States With Pro-Employee Laws: No Asking About Applicant Salary History

In a movement that started in Massachusetts, states and cities are starting to ban employers from asking applicants about their salary history. The reason behind the legislation is that basing pay on prior salary can lock in pay discrimination. The sponsor of the Philadelphia ordinance explained: “Simply put, when a woman is paid less at the beginning of her career she will continue to earn less throughout her career. By eliminating the question of salary history we will be one step closer to decreasing the wage gap.”

The Massachusetts law makes it illegal to:

[S]eek the salary history of any prospective employee from any current or former employer; provided, however, that a prospective employee may provide written authorization to a prospective employer to confirm prior wages, including benefits or other compensation or salary history only after any offer of employment with compensation has been made to the prospective employee.

New York is the most recent city to ban salary history inquiries. Puerto Rico also has a salary history ban. Similar proposed laws are pending in D.C., California, New Jersey, New York State and in Congress (that one won't pass, but it's a nice try).

This is a good move to try to end the pay gap that still exists between men and women. It could well help stop the cycle of pay disparity for women and minorities.

And really, what business is it of anybody what you make now? Employers should know what they plan to pay for a job and actually pay it. While nothing stops you from saying no to such inquiries now, unless you're a highly sought after recruit saying no may end the interview.

For multistate employers, this may have an impact on the way they conduct interviews and prepare applications now. For others, now is the time to start rethinking this outdated and unduly nosy practice.