Rizo v. Yovino, 887 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2018) (en banc)
Rizo v. Yovino is a landmark case in employment law that explores the intersection of equal pay for equal work with the discriminatory impact of basing salaries on an employee's prior salary history.
Can an employer use an employee's prior salary alone as a 'factor other than sex' to justify a pay disparity under the Equal Pay Act?
Under the Equal Pay Act, employers must provide equal pay for equal work regardless of sex. The Act lists four affirmative defenses, one of which allows wage disparities based on a 'factor other than sex.' Historically, factors such as experience, education, or performance can be acceptable, but the legitimacy of prior salary has been contentious.
The Ninth Circuit held that prior salary alone or in combination with other factors cannot justify a wage differential between male and female employees under the Equal Pay Act. Relying on prior salary perpetuates the very gender-based wage disparities the Act seeks to eliminate.
Rizo v. Yovino is crucial as it challenges ingrained salary practices and calls for a reassessment of what constitutes fair and equitable compensation. The en banc ruling categorically bars the use of prior salary as a standalone factor, promoting judicial alignment with the goals of the Equal Pay Act. For law students, this case emphasizes the dynamic interpretation of legislation in current socio-economic contexts and illustrates how courts' understanding of 'lawful factors' evolves with societal norms.