Pay and Compensation Discrimination
Federal law prohibits employers from paying workers of two different sexes unequal compensation and benefits for “equal work.” California expands upon this prohibition by forbidding that employers provide unequal compensation for “substantially similar work” between coworkers of different sexes, races, and/or ethnicities. There are limited circumstances under which legitimate pay disparities may be made due to differences in the experience, education, and/or training of workers being compared. However, most of the time, if workers are engaged in the same skills, responsibilities, and efforts, they may not lawfully receive unequal pay and benefits for substantially similar work.
Additionally, California law requires that workers be properly classified as employees vs. independent contractors, based on several nuanced factors outlined within state law. Misclassification of an employee as an independent contractor can serve as grounds for a misclassification lawsuit. Similarly, failure to provide workers with the minimum wages, overtime wages, and/or rest breaks that they are entitled to under state law can also serve as grounds for legal action on the part of the affected employees.
If you believe that you may have suffered from unlawful harm as a result of pay
discrimination, misclassification, and/or wage and hour infractions on the part of your employer, please schedule a confidential, cost-free, risk-free consultation with our legal time. If you put in time on your employer’s behalf, you deserve any and all compensation to which you’re entitled under the law, regardless of your job title, documentation status, protected classifications, and/or economic situation. Contact our firm today to clarify your rights under the law and explore how you can fully exercise those rights accordingly.
Comprehensive Representation of Workers Navigating Wage and Hour Claims
Pay inequity, misclassification, and wage and hour claims “cut to the chase” regarding an employer’s bottom line. Remaining profitable is a worthy goal for a business. Remaining profitable while taking unlawful advantage of workers is unacceptable. Holding employers to account for these violations not only directly benefits workers who have been affected by unlawful policies, this act also helps to build a fairer, more equitable society overall.
Our legal team
advocates tenaciously on behalf of workers who have suffered as a result of
unlawful wage and hour practices. We strongly believe that hard-working people deserve to receive every penny and minute of rest to which they are entitled. While our team never pressures our clients to commit to any action whatsoever, we proudly build strong, effective, and efficient cases on behalf of those who opt to exercise their rights under state, federal, and
local laws.
Pay Inequality – Claims Under the
California Equal Pay Act
There are times when both federal law and state law address the same issues. In the event that the state law is more expansive than a federal law that concerns the same subject, the state law governs related legal issues accordingly. For example, the federal Equal Pay Act safeguards against pay inequity between genders in the event that two coworkers of different genders are engaged in “equal work” and are potentially receiving unequal compensation for that equal work. Conversely, the California Equal Pay Act not only prohibits employers from compensating workers differently based on their gender, but also as a result of their race or ethnicity. Additionally, CEPA not only guards against pay inequity in the event of “equal work” but also in the event of “substantially similar work.” This is a significant expansion upon the protections afforded by the federal Equal Pay Act, as CEPA protects a worker’s right to equitable pay and benefits provided that the worker in question exercises similar skill, effort, and responsibility when compared with a coworker of a different gender, race, or ethnicity.
CEPA is also more expansive than the federal Equal Pay Act, as employees of the same company need not work at the same location to have their compensation and benefits subject to legal scrutiny. Meaning, if one employee operating out of a company’s Sacramento office is exercising the same level of skill, effort, and responsibility as an employee working out of the company’s San Jose office, their salaries should be comparable. This broadened protection eliminates some of the geography-based excuses that employers historically used to justify unequal pay for substantially similar work. This law also reinforces the standard that retaliating against workers who seek to exercise their rights and enforce the law is illegal. Practically speaking, this law allows California employees to speak freely about and inquire into compensation and benefits afforded to their coworkers. Finally, CEPA prohibits employers from using evidence of a worker’s previous salary to justify any pay-related disparities between coworkers based on sex, race, or ethnicity.
Considerations: Substantially Similar Work and Lawful Pay Disparities
As noted above, California employers are prohibited from providing unequal pay and benefits for coworkers who perform substantially similar work when the pay disparity in question is based on sex, race, or ethnicity. Substantially similar work refers to:
- Skill – education, ability, training, and experience executed under similar working conditions to pursue specific goals
- Effort – amount of exertion (physical, mental, emotional, practical) necessary to perform job-related duties
- Responsibility – duties and degree of accountability required to complete the job in question
If all of these conditions are equalized between coworkers, their sex, race, or ethnicity cannot be used as justifications for pay disparity. With that said, there are some factors that could permit an employer to lawfully pay coworkers unequal compensation and/or benefits despite the fact that each provides the employer with substantially similar work. Specifically, if there is significant evidence that seniority, merit, a system that objectively measures productivity/production, and/or a “bona fide factor other than sex, ethnicity, or race” can account for a difference in wages, an employer may be able to successfully defend against allegations of unlawful pay inequity. A defense against such allegations may only be totally successful however, if an employer can prove that the above-mentioned factors account for the total difference in wages between the affected workers in question.
It is worth noting that California law has made it increasingly difficult to use the “bona fide factor other than sex, ethnicity or race” justification for
wage disparity as an excuse for otherwise unlawful pay inequity. In addition to the fact that this factor in question cannot be based on or derived from anything having to do with the worker’s sex, race, or ethnicity, the factor in question must also be job-related and consistent with a business necessity. Acceptable bona fide factors may include significant differences in the education, training, or experience of the workers being compared.
How Do CEPA Claims Succeed?
For a CEPA claim to be successful, a worker must prove that they are being paid less and/or receiving less valuable benefits than a coworker of a different race, ethnicity, or sex who is engaging in substantially similar work and that the employer has not made an active determination that this inequity was initiated legitimately due to one or more of the four potentially successful defense justifications noted above. It is important to note that the workers being compared may not be subjected to unlawful pay inequities in the name of having different job titles. CEPA is concerned with the performance of substantially similar work, not how that work is internally classified by an employer.
CEPA claims may be filed successfully by either private or public employees, which is significant for Sacramento residents to take note of, given how many public employees invest their efforts in the public sector. With that said, no matter who chooses to file a CEPA claim, the claim in question must be filed (at an absolute maximum) within two years of the pay inequity violation in question – three years if the pay inequity violations are willful on the part of the workers’ employer. CEPA’s statute of limitations only provides affected workers with this window of time in which to file legitimate claims. Thankfully though, each pay period (usually biweekly, although weekly and monthly payment schemes are also relatively common) is considered a violation for the purpose of filing a CEPA claim. This means that even if pay inequity has been an issue for years, as long as the victimized worker files a claim within the two-year window of an affected pay period marked by the inequity violation, that claim will not be barred by the statute of limitations.
Depending on the circumstances surrounding the claim in question, the affected worker may choose to file their claim in court, with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or the Labor Commissioner’s Office. If and when you opt to file a CEPA claim, our experienced legal team will explain where it is most appropriate to file your claim and how this filing decision may potentially impact your case. Note also that workers are protected from retaliation in the event that they take any action to “invoke or assist in any manner” with the enforcement of CEPA. Thus, if you are hesitant to explore your legal options because you are concerned about employer retaliation, know that consultations with our firm are confidential and that should you choose to act, the law protects your right to do so. Retaliation claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations.
Misclassification, Wages, and Breaks
California Labor Code Section 2750.3 requires that you be properly classified as an employee (not as an independent contractor) and afforded all the benefits and protections extended to employees under California law, provided that one or more of the following criteria applies to your situation:
- You are bound by the control and direction of the company that you provide services for;
- You perform work within the usual course of the business operated by the company in question; or
- You are not engaged in an independently established occupation, business, or trade of the same nature as the work you perform on behalf of the company in question
California law similarly safeguards against inadequate payment of workers per minimum wage and overtime laws. Additionally, you are entitled to breaks of specific lengths, free from responsibility.
Minimum wage, overtime, and break-related laws are complex and may be impacted by circumstance, industry-type, and worker classification. As a result, if you have questions about your rights under any of these laws, please speak with our firm directly so that we can provide you with personalized guidance.
Contact Our Firm Today for a Free Case Evaluation
If you have not yet scheduled a confidential, no-risk, and no-cost consultation with our legal team, please do so now. You don’t need to know for sure whether you have a strong case to schedule a free case evaluation. Taking this meeting will allow you to ask questions and receive personalized guidance unique to your situation. This area of law is mathematically complex and nuanced. To receive trustworthy, respectful, and compassionate legal guidance regarding a potentially “touchy” subject, please connect with our firm today. We look forward to speaking with you.