People Processes: Best Practices for pay equity, and I-9’s

What this episode covers

Law firm’s pay equity guidance points to trends — PRACTICE TIP Acknowledging Equal Pay Day on April 10, Seyfarth Shaw’s Pay Equity Group released a pair of reference guides on pay equity that are aimed at enhancing employers’ compliance efforts: the 2018 Trends and Developments in Pay Equity Litigation Report and the 2nd Annual 50-State Pay Equity Desktop Reference.  From XPERT HR (full report): The law firm practice group also pointed to several emerging trends: Amped-up pay laws: While California, New York, and Massachusetts led the way in adopting stricter state pay equity laws, other states, including Maryland and Oregon, soon followed suit. The trend continues into 2018 with New Jersey and Washington passing similarly onerous laws in recent weeks. Laws banning employers from asking candidates for employment about prior salary is another trend. Laws have been enacted in nine jurisdictions, and several other states are considering similar salary history bans. Litigation uptick: Not surprisingly, concurrent with these new laws and developments, the Seyfarth Pay Equity Group has seen an increased interest by the plaintiff’s bar in litigation under the federal Equal Pay Act and analogous state laws. The primary targets for this new wave of litigation have been firms in the legal and tech industries. Those cases are already generating new and intriguing law that has the potential to reshape the landscape of pay equity litigation, including whether and how those claims can be maintained as collective or class actions. Federal circuit split on pay factors: Recent cases demonstrate that Federal circuit courts are split on whether prior salary can be used as a factor that justifies differences in pay under the federal Equal Pay Act. On April 9, the Ninth Circuit changed course in an en banc decision and held that an employee’s prior salary does not constitute a “factor other than sex” upon which a wage differential may be based under the statutory “catchall” exception in the federal Equal Pay Act (Rizo v. Yovino). Stay tuned to see this in the Supreme Court. Push towards greater transparency and more structure: The benefit to having more defined pay structures and being more transparent about pay is that it often helps demystify what has long been thought to be a taboo topic. Structure also provides an opportunity to reassure employees about their pay and if they are paid in line with their peers, and helps employers identify any concerns that may have been unintentionally overlooked. Lastly, employers are weighing voluntary or mandatory (like in the U.K.) disclosures about pay. This raises additional concerns and, at the same time, provides additional opportunities. Seyfarth notes that it expects this trend to continue. Report identifies best practices for I-9 compliance — PRACTICE TIP  The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is...