Employment Law
Rizo v. Yovino, 887 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2018) (en banc)
Study notes for Rizo v. Yovino: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Under the Equal Pay Act, prior salary cannot be used as a legitimate factor to justify wage disparities between male and female employees.
In Rizo v. Yovino, the Ninth Circuit addressed a critical issue concerning gender-based pay disparities and the interpretation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA). The court emphasized that relying solely on a prior salary to justify wage differences perpetuates systemic gender discrimination by failing to consider the individual's value and contributions relevant to the current role. The decision underscores the importance of a comprehensive evaluation of pay practices, prompting employers to adopt fairer compensation policies that do not reinforce historical inequities.
Moreover, this case serves as a vital reminder for law students and practicing attorneys that the spirit of the EPA aims to eradicate gender discrimination in pay structures. As such, it invites a thorough examination of how economic factors intersect with issues of fairness and equality in the workplace. This ruling sets a precedent that challenges traditional compensation practices and compels employers to rethink their approach to pay equity.
Prior pay perpetuates disparity - no justification for pay based on old numbers.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. | Ledbetter focused on the timeliness of filing claims and the discovery of discriminatory pay practices, while Rizo specifically addressed the use of prior salary as a factor for pay differentials. |
| Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Boeing Co. | While Boeing dealt with the employer's justification of a pay system as a business necessity, Rizo emphasizes that prior salary histories cannot serve as an acceptable justification under the EPA. |
The decision promotes pay equity by ensuring that past salary does not continue to disadvantage employees, thereby supporting broader efforts to eliminate gender-based wage gaps.
Employers may argue that prior salary provides a pragmatic basis for wage setting, reflecting market conditions and individual performance histories that should influence compensation.
Exam questions may focus on the interpretation of 'factors other than sex' under the Equal Pay Act, emphasizing how Rizo v. Yovino redefines what constitutes acceptable justifications for wage disparities.