Connecticut Law Prohibiting Wage History Inquiries and Restrictions on Employee Wage Discussions Now in Effect

Q: I have employees in Connecticut.  What do I need to know about the new pay equity law?

A:  Effective January 1, 2019, employers are not allowed to: (1) inquire (whether directly or through a third party) about a prospective employee’s wage history; or (2) prohibit employees from disclosing or discussing the amount of their wages or the wages of another employee that has been voluntarily disclosed by the other employee.

“Wages” are defined as “compensation for labor or services rendered by an employee, whether the amount is determined on a time, task, piece, commission or other basis of calculation.” 2018 Conn. Pub. Act No. 18-8, Section 1(a)(3).  Employers can  inquire about the existence of other elements of a prospective employee’s compensation structure (such as stock options), but cannot inquire about the value of those elements.

Under the new law, employees must be permitted to discuss wages with each other, but the law does not require any employer or employee to disclose the wages paid to any employee.  As a result, employees have a right to discuss their wages with other employees, but are under no obligation to do so.  Importantly,  employers may continue to keep individual employee wage information confidential.

Connecticut joins many other states and localities that have enacted similar laws, including New York City, Delaware, and California. Like New York City’s law,  Connecticut’s prohibition on, inquiries about wage history does not apply if the applicant discloses his or her wage history voluntarily.  The question of whether such a disclosure was made voluntarily can be tricky, however, especially after the fact, so employers should tread carefully.

The Connecticut law provides a private right of action to both prospective employees and employees, and authorizes suit within two years of an alleged violation. Employers who are found to have violated the law may be liable for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.

To ensure compliance, employers should review job applications for positions in Connecticut to ensure that they do not include inquiries about wage history. Employers should also review offer letters and employment agreements to ensure they do not contain language prohibiting disclosure and/or discussion of compensation.  Finally, employers should update internal policies and interview guidelines, and ensure that all relevant personnel are aware of the new law.

Jessica Rothenberg

PAID Program Provides a Way to Resolve Overtime and Minimum Wage Violations

Q.  I suspect that our company may have inadvertently committed overtime and minimum wage violations. Is there a way I can make this right without incurring substantial legal liability?

A.  Possibly. Earlier this year, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division announced the creation of a new nationwide pilot program called the Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program. In short, the PAID program encourages employers to conduct payroll self-audits and, if they discover overtime or minimum wage violations, self-report those violations to the DOL and work with the DOL to rectify the problem and ensure employees are paid any wages owed.

Before reaching out to DOL in an effort to resolve any pay issues under PAID, employers must certify that they have read certain compliance materials about the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). After reviewing the compliance materials, employers can self-audit their payroll practices by themselves. While the materials on the DOL website about the PAID program do not address attorney involvement, a company may consider conducting a payroll audit under the direction of an attorney. One benefit of auditing payroll practices under the supervision of an attorney is the potential to keep confidential the legal analysis and conclusions from such an audit under the attorney-client privilege. However, if an employer chooses to resolve any wage and hour issues with the DOL through the PAID program, information collected in a payroll audit inevitably will need to be disclosed to the federal government.

The PAID program is not available to employers to resolve claims that are already being investigated or litigated. Further, if either DOL or a court has determined in the past five years that the employer has violated the FLSA by engaging in the same compensation practices at issue in the proposed PAID self-audit, an employer will be prohibited from participating in PAID.

The benefit of this program? After evaluating information provided to it, DOL can accept a company into the PAID program and then facilitate the payment of wages to employees in exchange for employees agreeing to release claims with regard to the particular FLSA violation at issue—all while the company avoids the payment of liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees. Companies typically cannot require employees to waive wage claims unless the process is supervised by a court or the DOL.

The major downside? Neither the employer nor the DOL can force an employee to sign a waiver and release of claims. Employees may opt to accept payment and sign a release of claims or they can decline to accept payment and then file a private lawsuit with the knowledge that its employer believes it may have violated the law. However, an employee may be reluctant to file a private lawsuit because of the likelihood that it would take many years and require the employee to incur the cost of both attorneys’ fees and litigation.

In addition, it is possible but not certain that the DOL may share this information with other agencies, resulting in further liability.   It also appears unclear whether the DOL will apply a two year or three year statute of limitations to employers who participate in the PAID program.

The PAID program’s impact on employee claims under state wage and hour laws is uncertain. According to the DOL website, DOL “may not supervise payments or provide releases for state law violations.”  Thus, even if an employee signs a release of claims while participating in the PAID program, the employee may not release claims under state law. As such, a state labor department or private plaintiff may still try to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees if available under state or local law.

As a pilot program, much remains to be seen about how the PAID program will actually be implemented. There are perhaps just as many risks as there are benefits for an employee participating in the PAID program. If your company is interested in conducting an audit of its payroll practices, or exploring the possibility of participating in the PAID program, please contact any member of the Pepper Hamilton Labor & Employment group.

Lee Tankle

Portion of Philadelphia Salary History Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

Q.  Am I permitted to ask about an applicant’s salary history in Philadelphia?

A.  In a ruling that could provide a roadmap for challenging salary history bans in other jurisdictions, a Philadelphia federal judge issued an opinion on April 30 invalidating a major element of the Philadelphia salary history ordinance enacted by the city in January 2017. Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg held that the portion of the ordinance prohibiting an employer from inquiring about a prospective employee’s wage history is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. However, Judge Goldberg also held that the portion of the law prohibiting employers from relying on wage history to determine a salary for an employee did not implicate constitutional concerns. Philadelphia employers now find themselves in a difficult position: They are permitted to ask about an applicant’s salary history but cannot rely on that information.

For more information, please click here.

Tracey E. Diamond and Lee E. Tankle

 

Got Employees in Massachusetts and New Jersey? What You Need to Know as MA and NJ Employers are Mandated to Break the Glass Ceiling

Q.  Are there any Equal Pay Acts that apply specifically to employers in Massachusetts and New Jersey?

A.  On July 1, 2018, an updated equal pay law becomes effective in Massachusetts, referred to as “MEPA” (Massachusetts Equal Pay Act). MEPA covers nearly all Massachusetts employers, irrespective of size, and most employees, including full-time, part-time, seasonal, per-diem, and temporary employees. Employees who telecommute to a primary place of work in Massachusetts also are covered.

The Massachusetts law provides that “[n]o employer shall discriminate in any way on the basis of gender in the payment of wages, or pay any person in its employ a salary or wage rate less than the rates paid to its employees of a different gender for comparable work.” “Comparable work” is not defined by an employee’s job title; rather, “comparable work” is work that requires substantially similar skill, effort, and responsibility, and is performed under similar working conditions. For multistate employers, employees in the same “geographic location” within Massachusetts are to be paid equally for comparable work.  The statute does not define the term “geographic location.”

Employers can rely on one of the six permissible variations in pay for comparable work: (1) a system that rewards seniority with the employer; (2) a merit system; (3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, sales, or revenue; (4) the geographic location in which a job is performed; (5) education, training or experience to the extent such factors are reasonably related to the particular job in question; or (6) travel, if the travel is a regular and necessary condition of the particular job.

The State of New Jersey enacted legislation similar to the MEPA.  The Act, prohibits New Jersey employers from paying different salaries to employees based on any protected category, including sex, where the employees are engaged in “substantially similar” work.  Like Massachusetts, the effective date of the New Jersey statute also is July 1, 2018.

The phrase “substantially similar” work is not defined, other than a statement that it is to be viewed as a “composite of skill, effort and responsibility.” An employer in New Jersey may pay a different rate of compensation only if the employer demonstrates that the differential is made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, or the employer demonstrates that: (1) the differential is based on one or more legitimate factors other than sex (or any other protected category), such as training, education or experience, or the quantity or quality of production; (2) the factors are not based on, and do not perpetuate a sex-based or other protected-category based differential in compensation; (3) each of the factors is applied reasonably; (4) one or more of the factors account for the entire wage differential; and (5) the factors are job-related with respect to the position in question and based on a legitimate business necessity. A factor based on business necessity shall not apply if it is demonstrated that there are alternative business practices that would serve the same business purpose without producing the wage differential.

Both statutes significantly expand the reach of the concept of equal pay, by broadening the net of jobs used for comparison purposes to “comparable” (MEPA) or “substantially similar” (NJ). Both standards are somewhat vague and will need to be interpreted by the courts.  Employers in Massachusetts and New Jersey will have to evaluate their pay  structures carefully to comply with the law and to assess risks of actions under these statutes.

When MEPA becomes effective, employers with employees in Massachusetts not only will be unable to justify pay differential based on salary history, but also will not be permitted to ask for an applicant’s salary history prior to an employment offer, or seek such information through a recruiter. By contrast, the New Jersey ban on salary history questions, which was put in place by Executive Order effective February 1, 2018, applies only to employer that are state agencies.

Employers who violate either the Massachusetts or New Jersey laws will be liable for back pay and liquidated damages.

Rebecca Alperin and Tracey E. Diamond

 

 

 

 

Ninth Circuit Finds That Employers May Not Use Salary History to Justify Differences in Pay

Q.  Can my Company use an applicant’s salary history to set their current pay rate?

A.  Not for employees in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington).  In a case decided the day before Equal Pay Day, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, in a claim for violation of the Equal Pay Act, salary history is not a defense to a claim of gender discrimination when a female employee complains that her salary is lower than that of  her male counterpart.

For more details about this case, click here.

Hope A. Comisky and Tracey E. Diamond