Summary: A Pennsylvania federal judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking Philadelphia from implementing a key element of its salary history ordinance. The judge found that the provision preventing employers from asking applicants about their salary history violated an employer's free speech rights because the city failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that wage inquiries perpetuate salary discrimination. In his 59-page ruling, Judge Goldberg found that the city had provided insufficient information at this stage in the litigation to support its contention that the harm to a worker who had a lower, discriminatory salary would be perpetuated by disclosure of those wages to his or her next employer. The city's witnesses, he said, "referred to a purported bias built into a woman or minority person's very first wage and then took the very large step to conclude that the prohibition of questions regarding wage history will prevent this bias from carrying over to future wages." The critical problem for the city, he said, was that such avowals are unsubstantiated.
A second part of the law, however, did not run afoul of an employer's free speech rights and will not be blocked. The "reliance" provision of the ordinance makes it unlawful for employers to "rely on the wage history of a prospective employee from any current or former employer of the individual in determining the wages for such individual at any stage in the employment process, including the negotiation or drafting of any employment contract, unless such applicant knowingly and willingly disclosed his or her wage history to the employer, employment agency, employee or agent thereof." The court agreed with the city that this part of the law regulates conduct only and does not implicate the First Amendment. |
| Impact(s): Philadelphia employers |
| Summary: A $7.5 million settlement was approved by a federal judge for a class action that claims an employer failed to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), as well as Massachusetts and California laws. According to the plaintiffs, the employer did not provide a "stand-alone" disclosure as required by the FCRA.
The settlement consists of two classes: (1) those subject to an arbitration provision by the Ninth Circuit (ADR Group) and; (2) those who are not subject to such a provision (the Court Group). The Court Group members will receive approximately $73.99 each and the ADR Group will receive approximately $32.15 each. Plaintiffs' counsel will receive $2,025,000. |
| Impact(s): FCRA compliance – for general legal review |
