Last year, the 9th circuit ruled that it was okay to pay a teacher from Arizona who moved to California less than her co-workers because the formula was based strictly on the previous salary and had nothing to do with sex. If the teachers in question had all been male or all been female, the salary discrepancy would have been the same.
This week, though, in an En Banc ruling, they flipped it around to say the previous salary is never a valid reason for a difference in pay.
Many states and cities have made it illegal to ask a candidate for salary history, making basing their current offer on a previous salary difficult (but not impossible). Keep in mind, none of these laws prevent employers from asking what salary someone is looking for. A person who currently earns $50,000 is most likely going to say she is looking for a lower salary than someone who currently earns $80,000. The best way is for companies to state a salary range up front: “This job pays between $75-$85,000. Does that work for you?”
Regardless, using previous salary was a legal way to determine a current salary but the 9th Circuit said no more. Why? Not because of the plain language that allows difference based on “any other factor other than sex” but because the end result can look like illegal sex discrimination. Judge Reinhart writes in the decision:
To keep reading, click here: 9th Circuit Rules Salary History Isn’t A Legitimate Way to Determine Pay