BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 358 Page 1 Date of Hearing: July 7, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mark Stone, Chair SB 358 (Jackson) - As Amended May 12, 2015 SENATE VOTE: 38-0 SUBJECT: Conditions of employment: gender wage differential KEY ISSUES: 1)Should California's Equal Pay Act be amended to ensure that employees receive equal pay for "substantially similar work" (as opposed to "equal work") regardless of their Sex? 2)Should the California Equal Pay Act be clarified to expressly state that the employer has the burden of proving that a wage disparity is based on a legitimate factor, other than sex, as opposed TO the plaintiff having the burden of proving that the wage differential is not justified? 3)Should an employer be prohibited from taking adverse actions against employees who invoke either their rights under the Equal Pay Act, or who discuss their wages with fellow employees? SYNOPSIS SB 358 Page 2 Enacted in 1949, California's Equal Pay Act targets wage discrimination against women by prohibiting an employer from paying an employee a wage rate that is less than the rate of an employee of the opposite sex who does comparable work. Although the language of the Equal Pay Act is gender neutral (i.e. it would prohibit paying a woman more than a man for the same work), the Act was designed to address wage discrimination against women. As the author notes, despite some considerable improvement since 1949, women still make less than men, even when they perform substantially the same work as men. The author believes that certain ambiguities and outdated terms have made the equal pay law less effective than it might otherwise be. SB 358, therefore, proposes a number of procedural and substantive changes to the Equal Pay Act in order to make it easier for a victim of wage discrimination to identify an unlawful wage disparity and seek an appropriate remedy. Most notably, the bill changes terminology so that an employee can more reasonably prove that he or she received lower wages for "substantially similar" work; clarifies the employer's burden to demonstrate that a wage disparity is based on some legitimate factor other than sex; and prohibits employers from interfering with employees' ability to discuss and share information about their wages. The bill is supported by an array of groups representing women, labor, community service organizations, business, and consumer and employment lawyers. The bill is opposed by the California chapter of the National Organization of Women, unless it is amended to extend the Equal Pay Act's provisions to wage discrimination based on racial, ethnic, LGBTQ, and disability status. The bill recently passed out of the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee on a 6-1 vote. The Committee suggests a clarifying amendment that the author may wish to consider. SUMMARY: Seeks to strengthen the California Equal Pay Act by, among other things, clarifying the relative burdens of proof and prohibiting retaliation against employees for disclosing or discussing their wages with co-workers. Specifically, this bill: SB 358 Page 3 1)Makes findings and declarations relating to the continuing, persistent, and structural disparities in wages between men and women. 2)Modifies an existing prohibition on sex-based wage discrimination by prohibiting an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for "substantially similar work" (as opposed to "equal work") when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, except where the employer demonstrates: a) The pay differential is based upon one or more of the following: i) A seniority system. ii) A merit system. iii) A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production. iv) A bona fide factor that is not based on sex, as specified, and is consistent with a business necessity, as defined, such as a difference in job-related education, training, or experience. However this defense shall not apply if the employee demonstrates that an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing the wage differential. b) Each factor that is relied upon is applied reasonably. SB 358 Page 4 c) The one or more factors relied upon account for the entire wage differential. 3)Eliminates a requirement in the existing Equal Pay Act that the claim of discrimination be based upon a comparison of the wages of employees in "the same establishment." 4)Increases, from two years to three, the period of time that the employer must maintain records relating to wages and job classifications, and other conditions of employment of the employees. 5)Prohibits an employer from taking any adverse action against an employee that seeks to enforce the provisions of the Equal Pay Act. Nor shall an employer prohibit an employee from disclosing the employee's own wages, discussing the wages of others, inquiring about another employee's wages, or aiding or encouraging another employee to exercise his or her rights under the provisions of the Equal Pay Act. 6)Extends the existing enforcement mechanisms, as specified, for wage discrimination under existing law to claims for retaliation, and provides a one-year statute of limitations for retaliation claims. 7)Authorizes any employee who has been discharged, discriminated or retaliated against in violation of the Equal Pay Act to recover, in a civil action, reinstatement, lost wages and work benefits, including interest, and appropriate equitable relief. EXISTING LAW: SB 358 Page 5 1)Prohibits an employer from paying any employee at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex in the same establishment for equal work on jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions, except where the payment is made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a differential based on any bona fide factor other than sex. (Labor Code Section 1197.5(a); all other section numbers refer to the Labor Code, unless otherwise indicated.) 2)States that any employer who violates the above is liable to the amount of the employee's wages and interest that the employee is deprived in addition to liquidated damages, administered and enforced by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) which may supervise the payment of wages and interest found to be due. (Section 1197.5 (b)-(c).) 3)Requires every employer to maintain records of the wages and wage rates, job classifications, and other terms and conditions of employment of the persons employed for two years. (Section 1197.5 (d).) 4)Authorizes any employee to file a complaint with the DLSE that the wages paid are less than the wages to which the employee is entitled under the law, and the DLSE is required to investigate these complaints, as specified. (Section 1197.5 (e).) 5)Authorizes the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) or the DLSE to commence and prosecute, except as specified, a civil action on behalf of the employee and on behalf of a similarly SB 358 Page 6 affected group of employees to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and costs. (Section 1197.5 (f).) 6)Provides that any employee receiving less than the wage to which he or she is entitled may recover in a civil action the balance of the wages, including interest, and an equal amount as liquidated damages, together with the costs of the suit and reasonable attorney's fees, notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage. (Section 1197.5(g).) 7)Provides that a civil action to recover wages may be commenced no later than two years after the cause of action occurs, except that an action arising out of a willful violation may be commenced no later than three years after the cause of action occurs. (Section 1197.5(h).) 8)Bars an employer from requiring an employee to refrain from disclosing the amount of his or her wages, requiring an employee to sign a waiver or other document that denies the employee the right to disclose the amount of his or her wages or discharge, or formally disciplining, or otherwise discriminating against an employee who discloses the amount of his or her wages. (Section 232.) FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal. COMMENTS: Sponsored by Equal Rights Advocates, SB 358 would strengthen California's Equal Pay Act. Enacted in 1949, the Equal Pay Act requires employers to pay men and women equal wages if they perform equal work in the same establishment. Although the law is gender-neutral on its face, it was intended to correct a long history of wage discrimination against women. The author and sponsor contend that even though the gender wage SB 358 Page 7 gap has lessened in recent years, studies show that women's wages still lag far behind those of men. The author believes that certain outdated terms and loopholes in the Equal Pay Act have rendered the Act ineffective and unenforceable in practice. According to the bill's findings and declarations, California's Equal Pay Act has evolved, albeit incompletely, to mirror the federal Equal Pay Act of 1963 (29 U.S.C. Section 206 (d).) Pending legislation first introduced in 2013 by U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski (S. 84, 113th Congress, 2013-2014 session) seeks to make similar changes in the federal law. This bill, as currently print, draws from the language of the federal bill. In an effort to address some of these inadequacies of the California Equal Pay Act, SB 358 proposes to make a number of procedural and substantive changes, relating to required elements and permitted defenses, and the employee's ability to discover wage disparities and seek appropriate remedies. Specifically, this bill seeks to address the following: Equal Work vs. Substantially Similar Work: The Equal Pay Act currently prohibits an employer from paying an employee at a wage rate that is less than the rate paid to an employee of the opposite sex for "equal work" that requires the same level of skill and is performed under similar conditions. Existing law, that is, seeks to realize the reasonable demand of "equal pay for equal work." The problem, however, is that in the modern, highly differentiated workplaces, the work performed by two employees may never be completely "equal," due to minor variations in work assignments. Thus, an employer subject to a wage discrimination challenge under the Equal Pay Act could argue that the jobs performed by persons of opposite sex were not "equal" in every way. This bill seeks to address this problem by prohibiting employers from paying men and women different wages for "substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar work conditions." This change would require the employee to receive equal pay for performing a job that is SB 358 Page 8 "substantially similar," though perhaps not identical, to a job performed by a higher-paid employee of the opposite sex. The "Same Establishment" Restriction: The Equal Pay Act currently prohibits the employer from paying men and women different wages for equal work only if the comparable employees work in the "same establishment." Therefore, under existing law, if a female manager at a department store discovered that a similarly situated male manager at a branch across town earned higher wages, she could not invoke the Equal Pay Act because she and the male manager did not work at the "same establishment." This bill remedies this disparity by deleting the reference to the "same establishment." It need only be the same employer and involve substantially similar work, regardless of the location of the establishment where they work. The Employer's Burden of Proof: The Equal Pay Act currently permits certain exceptions to the "equal pay for equal work" requirement. For example, an employer may pay one employee more than another employee of the opposite sex, even if the two employees do the same job, as long as the wage difference is based on some factor other than sex, such as seniority, merit, or differences in the quality or quantity of work performed. This bill would clarify that the burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate the existence of one of these other factors. That is, the employee should not have the burden of proving that the difference in wages is based on sex. Although it might be implicit that the burden is on the employer to demonstrate some legitimate reason for the wage disparity, the existing statute is silent on this point. This bill would expressly state that the employer must demonstrate the existence of legitimate factors, other than the sex of the employees, for the disparity in pay. Prohibitions on "Pay Secrecy:" Existing law (Labor Code Section 232) prohibits an employer from conditioning employment on the SB 358 Page 9 demand that an employee refrain from disclosing the amount of his or her wages, or discriminating against an employee for making such a disclosure. Existing law also prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to waive his or her right to disclose wages. This bill would expressly incorporate those provisions into the Equal Pay Act and strengthen the Act by barring the employer from prohibiting an employee from discussing the wages of other employees, inquiring about another employee's wages, or aiding or encouraging any other employee to exercise his or her rights under the Equal Pay Act. Other Changes: In addition to the changes noted above, this bill also extends the period of time for which an employer must maintain an employee's wage and job classification and other work records from two years to three years, and extends the existing enforcement mechanisms for wage discrimination to claims for retaliation. Should the Equal Pay Act be extended to other forms of discrimination? As noted below, the California National Organization of Women (Cal NOW) believes that the Equal Pay Act should be updated and made more inclusive by also prohibiting wage discrimination on the additional bases of gender, race, ethnicity, LBGTQ, or disability status. (Cal NOW notes that while "sex" and "gender" are often used interchangeably, the former refers to biology and the latter to identity, and thus both should be included.) The author, however, has informed the Committee that, at least at this point, the bill is intended to make significant procedural and substantive improvements to the Equal Pay Act - which only prohibits wage discrimination based on sex - not to fundamentally alter the scope of the Equal Pay Act. Possible Clarifying Amendment: This bill is apparently modeled on U.S. Senator Mikulski's proposed federal legislation (S. 84 113th Cong., 2013-2014) and draws much of its language from that SB 358 Page 10 bill, which seeks to amend 29 U.S.C. Section 206 (d)(1) regarding gender-based pay differentials. However, because SB 358 draws upon language in the federal bill, but not its corresponding structure, the bill's language is not as clear as it could be. Therefore, the Committee recommends the following non-substantive amendment to better track both the language of S.84 and the corresponding structure of that legislation. In the opinion of the Committee, this amendment would not affect meaning and would only improve readability (and thus, the enforceability of the law, if the bill were to become law): - Delete the subparagraph (D) on page 4 lines 23-35 and replace it with the following: - (D) A bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training or experience. This factor shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that such a factor is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation, is job-related with respect to the position in question, and is consistent with a business necessity. For purposes of this subparagraph, "business necessity" means an overriding legitimate business purpose such that the factor relied upon effectively fulfills the business purpose it is supposed to serve. This defense shall not apply if the employee demonstrates that an alternative business practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is supported by scores of organizations representing women, labor, business, community service groups, local governments, legal aid societies, and consumer and employment lawyers. Supporters claim that ending the gender wage gap would cut the poverty rate for working single mothers by nearly half, from 28.7 percent to 15 percent. They claim that working women and women of color are especially vulnerable to low wages and wage discrimination. Supporters SB 358 Page 11 believe that SB 358 will strengthen California's existing Equal Pay Act and help to close the gender gap in a number of important ways. First, SB 358 will change outdated terminology by requiring equal pay for "substantially similar work," instead of the much harder to establish "equal work." Second, this bill will clarify that the burden is on employers to demonstrate that wage differentials are based on some factor other than sex. Third, this bill will allow employees overcome the problem of "pay secrecy" by prohibiting employers from taking adverse action against employees who discuss wages with one another, as well as prohibiting employers from retaliating against employees who invoke the Equal Pay Act, or encourage co-workers to do so. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION UNLESS AMENDED: The California National Organization for Women (Cal NOW) writes that while this bill goes a long way towards addressing the substantive inequities of the original Equal Pay Act, these improvements "must be accompanied by a broadening of claimants to include all forms of invidious wage discrimination." Cal NOW asserts: There is no excuse in 2015 for limiting redress for compensation differentials to a select group of women workers. Women of color, who are paid less than white women, should be able to make a claim under California's Equal Pay Act. Men of color, who are paid less than white men, should be able to make a claim under California's Equal Pay Act. Members of the LGBTQ or disabled community paid less than their cis-gender or able bodied counterparts should be able to make a claim under California's Equal Pay Act. Therefore, Cal NOW opposes this bill, unless amended to include protections for wage discrimination based on these additional categories. SB 358 Page 12 REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support California Employment Lawyer's Association (co-sponsor) Equal Rights Advocates (co-sponsor) Legal Aid Society Employment Law Center (co-sponsor) 9to5 California, National Association of Working Women 9to5, National Association of Working Women Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment American Association of University Women American Association of University Women - California Bet Tzedek Legal Services Business & Professional Women of Nevada County SB 358 Page 13 California Chamber of Commerce CalAsian Chamber of Commerce California Child Care Resource and Referral Network California Employer Law Center California Federation of Teachers, AFT, AFL-CIO California Hospital Association California Immigrant Policy Center California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO California Newspaper Publishers Association California Nurses Association California Partnership California Professional Firefighters California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc. SB 358 Page 14 California School Employees Association, AFL-CIO California Women Lawyers California Women's Law Center California Work and Family Coalition Career Ladders Project Center for Popular Democracy Centro Legal de la Raza Child Care Law Center City of West Hollywood Civil Justice Association of California Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC Local 9003 Communications Workers of America, ALF-CIO, District 9 Community Action Fund of Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties SB 358 Page 15 Consumer Attorneys of California Council on American-Islamic Relations, California Chapter County of Santa Cruz, Board of Supervisors Courage Campaign Glendale City Employees Association La Raza Centro Legal Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund Monterrey County Board of Supervisors Mujeres Unidas y Activas National Association of Social Workers, CA Chapter National Council of Jewish Women-CA National Domestic Workers Alliance National Partnership for Women & Families SB 358 Page 16 National Women's Law Center Numerous Individuals Organization of SMUD Employees Parent Voices Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Santa Barbara, Ventura & San Luis Obispo Counties Planned Parenthood Action Fund of the Pacific Southwest Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California Planned Parenthood Northern California Action Fund Raising California Together Redlands Area Democratic Club Restaurant Opportunities Centers United San Bernardino Public Employees Association San Diego County Court Employees Association SB 358 Page 17 San Francisco Unified School District San Luis Obispo County Employees Association TradesWomen Inc. Ultra Violet Western Center on Law and Poverty Women in Non Traditional Employment Roles Women's Foundation of California Women's Law Project Opposition (Unless Amended) California NOW Analysis Prepared by:Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 SB 358 Page 18