“Equal pay for equal work.” Everyone – employees and employers alike – can agree that no workers should be paid less than others simply because of their gender, race, veteran status, or any other protected characteristic. But the reality of the pay gap is more complicated. Employers make salary decisions based on a number of business factors, like experience, education, and merit, as well as prior salary history. The Oregon Equal Pay Act (the “Act”), which was unanimously approved by the legislature and is expected to be signed into law by Governor Kate Brown this week, will prohibit employers from asking job applicants about past salary history.
Continue Reading Time to Revise Your Job Applications: Oregon Prohibits Salary History Inquiries in Effort to Address Systemic Wage Inequality
Landmark Seventh Circuit Decision Interprets Title VII Protections To Prohibit Sexual Orientation Discrimination
“Who will be hurt if gays and lesbians have a little more job protection?” Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals posed this question a few months ago during oral argument in a case involving a teacher who alleged she was fired because she is lesbian. On Tuesday, the en banc Seventh Circuit answered Judge Posner’s rhetorical question in a landmark decision holding that Title VII protects employees from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. The court is the first court of appeals in the country to apply Title VII’s job protections to employees on the basis of their sexual orientation, interpreting the definition of “sex” under Title VII to include “sexual orientation.”
To casual followers of the law, this decision may seem unremarkable after the Supreme Court ruled nearly two years ago that same-sex marriage enjoys constitutional protection. (See our blog on the Obergefell decision here, and our blog on the decision’s impact on employee benefits here.) But it is a watershed decision with ripple effects far beyond the three states within the Seventh Circuit.
Continue Reading Landmark Seventh Circuit Decision Interprets Title VII Protections To Prohibit Sexual Orientation Discrimination
Whistleblower Retaliation Protection Expands in Oregon
We are confident that employers already take employee reports of potentially unlawful activity seriously. Such internal reports can help employers investigate and eliminate unlawful conduct in the workplace. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that retaliating against an employee for making an internal report of potentially unlawful activity—not a report to an external agency—is unlawful whistleblower retaliation.
What Happened
In Brunozzi v. Cable Communications, Inc., an employee complained several times to his supervisor that he was not being properly paid for working overtime.
Continue Reading Whistleblower Retaliation Protection Expands in Oregon
Breaking: Court Rules Against Double Overtime for Oregon Manufacturing Employers
Oregon manufacturing employers have been following the ongoing turmoil surrounding the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries’ (“BOLI”) recent interpretation of Oregon’s requirement that manufacturing employees receive overtime when they work more than 10 hours in a day. In the latest turn, a Multnomah County Circuit Court judge ruled yesterday that, contrary to BOLI’s advice, a manufacturing employer is not required to pay employees daily overtime and weekly overtime when manufacturing employees work more than 40 hours in a work week. Instead, the judge ruled that the employer must pay the employees the greater of either weekly overtime or daily overtime, but not both. A copy of the opinion in the case (Mazahua v. Portland Specialty Baking LLC) is here.
Here is the background.
Continue Reading Breaking: Court Rules Against Double Overtime for Oregon Manufacturing Employers
The City of Portland Issues Rules for “Ban the Box”
We previously blogged about Portland, Oregon’s restrictive “ban the box” ordinance. The City of Portland recently issued administrative rules for its ordinance. The administrative rules are available here. The key provisions are:
Excepted Employers
As explained in our prior blog, you are excepted from the ordinance’s timing restriction (but not its other requirements) if the position you are hiring for has been determined by administrative rule to present public safety concerns or a business necessity. The rules define these positions to include:
Continue Reading The City of Portland Issues Rules for “Ban the Box”
Portland, Oregon’s More Restrictive “Ban the Box” Ordinance
Portland, Oregon’s new “ban the box” ordinance went into effect on July 1, 2016. We blogged about Oregon’s statewide “ban the box” law here. Portland’s new ordinance is more restrictive and prohibits covered employers from conducting criminal background checks until after a conditional job offer is made. Detailed information about the new ordinance is available here.
Are You a Covered Employer?
The Portland ordinance applies to private companies that have six or more employees, with at least one employee who spends a majority of his or her time working within the City of Portland.
You are completely exempt from the law if:
- You have fewer than six employees;
- Federal, state, or local law requires you to consider an applicant’s criminal history;
- You are a law enforcement agency or part of the criminal justice system; or
- You are seeking a nonemployee volunteer.
Continue Reading Portland, Oregon’s More Restrictive “Ban the Box” Ordinance
DOL Imposes New Exempt Salary Requirement on Employers
We knew it was coming, and – while business groups fought hard against it – the much-anticipated Department of Labor Final Rule regarding “white collar” exemptions from minimum wage and overtime requirements is now a reality. The rule, announced by the White House on Twitter last evening, imposes a major increase in the salary threshold
EEOC Promotes Gender Equality by Imposing Another Burden on Employers
Employers with 100 or more employees take note: a major new reporting requirement may be coming your way next year.
On January 29, 2016, President Obama announced that beginning in September 2017, employers with 100 or more employees must report the earnings and hours worked for all of their employees. That’s right. Employers must disclose compensation information for all employees, including executives – which many employers consider to be highly confidential – to the EEOC.
Employers will be required to disclose this compensation data as a new category on the EEO-1 report, which employers already provide to the federal government and which contains workforce data sorted by race, ethnicity, gender, and job category. Specifically, the “revised EEO-1 will collect aggregate W-2 data in 12 pay bands for the 10 EEO-1 job categories” already used. The EEOC noted that it does not intend to require employers to track hours worked by salaried employees, but that it is seeking input on the issue.Continue Reading EEOC Promotes Gender Equality by Imposing Another Burden on Employers
Affirmative Action Update: Challenging the Pay Gap
According to government studies, last year women overall made approximately 77 cents to the dollar in compensation compared to men. Black women made 64 cents to the dollar. Hispanic women made even less—55 cents to the dollar. Most pay disparity isn’t due to base salaries; it’s due to other forms of compensation such as bonuses,
EEOC Rules That Title VII Prohibits Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
In a 3-2 decision published on Thursday, July 16, 2015, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) concluded that intentional discrimination against an employee based on their sexual orientation is sex discrimination- an act strictly prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is premised