United States: Female Attorneys' Settlement Of Equal Pay Dispute With Farmers Insurance Provides Little Guidance For California Employers

Last Updated: June 15 2017
Article by Nicole Clark

California's Equal Pay Act (the "Act"), Cal. Lab. Code section 1197.5, is widely recognized as one of the most aggressive and pro-employee wage discrimination laws in the nation. The Act was intended to combat systemic wage discrimination by making it easier for employees to prevail on wage discrimination claims and by offering claimants greater protection from retaliation for bringing such claims. Recent amendments to the Act have left many employers uncertain of how to evaluate and justify wage anomalies and ensure compliance with the Act. Employers and practitioners hoped to receive additional guidance from the court in Coates v. Farmers Group Inc. et al., Case No. 15-CV-01913-LVK ("Coates"), one of the first high-profile cases addressing wage discrimination under the revised Act. As discussed below, however, the case settled before trial late last year, leaving employers still in need of judicial guidance.

In Coates, a putative class of nearly three hundred female attorneys challenged Farmers' compensation and promotion practices. The plaintiffs alleged that the company systemically "groomed and promoted" male attorneys while female attorneys were not promoted as readily, resulting in lower pay grades and unequal promotions for female attorneys throughout the company. The lead plaintiff in Coates brought suit after discovering that her male litigation counterpart, who graduated law school a year after she had, earned nearly double her salary. The lead plaintiff further alleged that she was effectively demoted (by being assigned menial administrative tasks) after bringing the wage discrepancy to the attention of her supervisors.

The case settled for $5 million and the settlement was approved by Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California late last year. The settlement came on the heels of Judge Koh's determination that, consistent with recent amendments to the Act, the putative class members could compare their wages to those of all Farmers attorneys nationwide, rather than restricting the plaintiffs' salary comparison to Farmers' San Jose office where the lead plaintiff was employed. Allowing broad comparisons was a significant departure from federal law and pre-amendment state law, which permitted comparisons only between employees performing the same job, at the same location. In Coates, the nationwide salary data was crucial to the plaintiffs establishing a gender-based wage gap within the organization – a gap which was mildly apparent in the San Jose office, but nearly quadrupled when the plaintiffs were permitted to compare their salaries to those of The multi-million dollar settlement may have been a cost-saving choice for the company, which faced class-wide exposure including two years of back pay per plaintiff (as necessary to bring each plaintiff's salary into compliance) as well as statutory penalties under California's Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). In addition to payment of this large monetary sum, Farmers agreed to a variety of injunctive measures aimed at addressing and correcting salary disparities over the next three years. Specifically, Farmers agreed to retain an independent human resources consultant to conduct full scale audits of the company's compensation policies and practices, and to implement changes as necessary to avoid unlawful wage disparities. Farmers also agreed to appoint a full-time internal compliance monitor to provide the company with regular diversity training, and to provide statistical reports and compensation analytics to plaintiffs' class counsel on a yearly basis and verify Farmers commitment to ending wage discrimination within the company.

1. Then and Now: Significant Recent Amendments to California's Equal Pay Statute

Prior to recent amendments, the Act was written to implement the adage "Equal Pay for Equal Work." To establish a prima facie case of unlawful wage discrimination under the pre-amendment statute, a claimant was required to demonstrate that despite performing "equal work" (i.e., same position, same tasks, performed at the same location), the claimant received a lower wage rate which was unlawfully based upon the claimants' sex or gender.

a. Equal Pay for Substantially Similar Work.

Amendments to the Act which became effective on January 1, 2016, eliminated the "Equal Pay for Equal Work" threshold for employer liability. Significantly, the amended statute no longer requires that a claimant demonstrate he or she performed "equal work" as compared to an employee of the opposite sex who received a higher salary. Instead, a claimant need only show the he or she was performing "substantially similar work when viewed as a composite of skill, effort and responsibility" – a substantially lower threshold than the previous "equal work" requirement. Further, as reflected in Coates, claimants are no longer restricted to making salary comparisons within a single location, but may now make salary comparisons to employees performing similar work at the employer's other facilities and locations, even if they are out of state. This change can create proof problems for employers who are called upon to justify compensation disparities based upon location-specific factors, such as the general profitability of the location, labor market conditions, and the local cost of living.

b. Burden Shifting.

The amended Act also shifts the burden of proof to the employer to demonstrate that any disparity in wages is not based on the claimant's sex (or other protected status, as discussed below). Thus, it is now the employer's burden to defend its compensation structure and demonstrate that any wage differential between employees performing substantially similar work resulted entirely from one of more of the following "reasonably applied" factors: (1) a seniority system; (2) a merit system; (3) a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (4) a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience. The amended statute further prohibits a "bona-fide factor other than sex" from being based on, or derived from, any sex-based differential in compensation. Additionally, a bona fide factor other than sex must be: (1) related to the position in question, and (2) consistent with a business necessity. "Business necessity" is further defined by the statute as "an overriding legitimate business purpose such that the factor relied upon fulfills the business purpose it is designed to serve" and accounts for the entire wage differential.

Even when an employer can demonstrate that a factor other than sex accounts for the entire wage differential between two employees of the opposite sex performing substantially similar work, the burden shifts back to the claimant to demonstrate that an alternative business practice exists that could serve the same business purpose without producing the inequitable wage differential. If the claimant is successful in demonstrating an alternative business practice, the employer's presumptive defense becomes invalid and despite effectively demonstrating that the wage differential was not caused by a sex-based policy or practice, the employee still prevails on his or her wage discrimination claim under the statute.

c. Prior Salary History.

Under additional amendments that became effective on January 1, 2017, the Act specifically prohibits employers from relying on a job applicant's prior salary history alone in setting compensation. The policy reasons for the amendment recognized that prior salary may be a historical artifact of a sex-based differential which, if relied upon to defend lower wages, would perpetuate systemic inequalities which have contributed to the wage gap.

In a recent case arising under the federal Equal Pay Act, Rizo v. Yovino (9th Cir. 2017) 854 F.3d 1161, the Ninth Circuit held that an applicant's prior salary could be relied upon as a factor other than sex which justified a pay differential, provided that the employer showed that prior salary "effectuate[s] some business policy" and the employer used salary history "reasonably in light of [its] stated purpose as well as other practices." In Rizo, a school teacher filed suit against Fresno County after discovering that she was paid less that male teachers performing the same work. Because the teacher filed her claim under the federal Equal Pay Act, California's prohibition on using salary history alone to justify a differential was not applicable. Thus, it remains to be seen how California courts will interpret the restriction on use of salary history.

d. Retaliation.

The Act, as amended, prohibits retaliation against claimants for exercising their rights under the Act or making inquiries about the wages paid to themselves or other employees. An employer need not provide information about another employee's wages, but cannot retaliate against an employee for making the inquiry. The Act also makes it unlawful for an employer to prohibit its employees from disclosing or discussing their wages with one another. Additionally, employers must maintain and provide at least three years of the employee's own compensation records for the employee's review following his or her request. The revised Act provides claimants with a private right of action if they are discharged or retaliated against after making a compensation inquiry.

e. Race Based Wage Discrimination.

Finally, in addition to lowering the threshold for a viable equal pay claim based on sex, amendments to the Act which became effective in January of 2017 extended the same protection from gender discrimination to race and ethnicity. California is the first state in the nation to protect employees from race and/or ethnicity-based wage discrimination. Under the Act, as amended, an employer has the burden of demonstrating that any differential in compensation is entirely based on legitimate factors and not an employee's race or ethnicity.

2. Where to From Here? Achieving Compliance with California's Amended Equal Pay Act

As described above, significant changes to California's Equal Pay Act took effect in 2016 and 2017. While plaintiffs and their counsel begin to test new theories and their wage discrimination claims make their way through California's courts, employers will gradually receive additional judicial guidance regarding compliance with the amended Act.

In the meantime, employers can work to minimize risk by conducting privileged compensation audits and analyzing wage disparities across a wide range of comparable positions. Specifically, positions which have similar job descriptions, or which require comparable skill, effort, or responsibility should be closely analyzed for any wage disparities between employee of different genders, races or ethnicities. When wage disparities are detected, each such disparity should be individually addressed and accounted for by the employer based on at least one of the following factors: (1) a seniority system; (2) a merit system; (3) a system that measures earning by quantity or quality of production; (4) a bona fide factor other than sex.

Additionally, when instances of disparate compensation are identified, employers should conduct an unbiased analysis of whether the factor(s) relied upon may reasonably account for the entire wage differential. When relying on a "bona fide factor other than sex" to justify a differential, employers should consider whether the factor may stem from an applicant's prior salary history alone which by itself no longer qualifies as "bona fide factors other than sex." Finally, whenever wage disparities are identified, employers should consider whether another business practice might be identified which could serve the same business purpose without producing the inequitable wage differential.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions