|
|
|
|
|
        |
|
|
 |
LEGISLATIVE / REGULATORY UPDATES Equal Pay Act is Not Violated When There is Disparity in Pay Levels of Two Job Categories, When Each Category Has Both Male and Female Employees In the 1980’s, pursuant to a provision in the County Charter, the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors authorized the County to enter into contracts with lawyers as independent contractors to handle the increasing juvenile court case loads. The County Counsel informed the Board that it would be administratively more efficient, and more cost-effective, to acquire the needed legal services through a single employer-provider, without increasing the number of permanent classified County employees. The Board approved the formation of Auxiliary Legal Services, Inc. (“ALS”) and the County entered into a contract with ALS for the provision of lawyers to work under the direction and control of County Counsel. Under the contract, the people provided by ALS were to be employees solely of ALS and not the County. Hall, an employee of ALS, filed a class action against ALS, the County and County Counsel, alleging gender-based wage discrimination in violation of the state and federal Equal Pay Acts, and the FEHA. She alleged that the three defendants were “joint employers” who shared liability. During the relevant time period, ALS had 71% female employees and 29% male employees, while the County Counsel’s office was 22% female and 78% male. Hall alleged that the female attorneys working for ALS received substantially less pay and benefits than the male attorneys who worked directly for the County Counsel’s office (this was true), and that such pay disparities violated those applicable laws. The County presented evidence establishing that the County Counsel’s lawyers were paid more than the ALS lawyers due to cost savings, not gender. In opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Hall contended that the County Counsel’s control of ALS meant that ALS lawyers were County Counsel’s “common law” employees and, accordingly, entitled to be paid in accordance with civil service compensation rules. The trial court granted summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed. Even assuming that Hall was viewed as an employee of County Counsel’s office, the Equal Pay Act does not require perfect diversity between the comparison classes. When the challenged policy affects both male and female employees equally, there is no violation of the Equal Pay Act. Courts have long recognized that a plaintiff cannot compare one classification composed of males and females with another classification of employees also composed of males and females for the purpose of trying to establish an Equal Pay Act violation. The Equal Pay Act was not intended to address a situation in which an employer pays different wages to two different job classifications, where both job classifications include both men and women. (Hall v. County of Los Angeles, Court of Appeal Case No. B186224, filed February 27, 2007, and published March 6, 2007.)
|
|
|
|
|
 |
