New bill would force pay policy overhaul
May 21, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: In This Week's E-Newsletter, Latest News & Views, Law, Salary negotiations
Ready to overhaul your policies? You may have to, if you want to avoid a lawsuit.
After failing to move forward last year, the Fair Pay Act (not be confused with the already-passed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act) has been reintroduced into both the House and the Senate.
Pay bias is already illegal, so what’s new about the bill? Language is changed to make it easier for employees to sue.
Under the FPA, it would be unlawful to use sex, race, religion, national origin or disability as a reason to pay an employee less than someone else who performs “equivalent” work. “Equivalent” jobs are defined as “jobs that may be dissimilar, but whose requirements are equivalent, when viewed as a composite of skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions.” The goal is to keep pay for jobs dominated by women and minorities at the same level as comparable jobs dominated by men.
The bill also eliminates some of the defenses employers can currently use. Under the current Equal Pay Act, companies stay off the hook if they prove a pay disparity was based on “any factor other than sex.” Under the FPA, though, the factor must also be “job-related with respect to the position in question” and “further a legitimate business purpose.”
For example, companies would still be OK when pay is based on seniority, merit or a measure of the quality or quantity of work. But right now, employers have also had success arguing that some employees are paid more than others because they negotiated for a higher salary or earned more in their previous jobs.
But under the FPA, those reasons likely wouldn’t be considered job-related.

May 29th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Who is going to define which jobs are equivalent in terms of “skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions”? I see this as a nightmare that will cause more problems than FMLA for HR and more litigation for attorneys.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Why are they so determined to ship more jobs overseas?
May 29th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Are pay disparities allowed based on geographic location? We have locations across the country and any disparity in pay is based on location. A manager in California will make more than one in Indiana due to cost of living differences.
I have heard that geographic differences were not going to count toward allowable FPA pay differences for similar positions but that makes no sense. Even the FLSA requires a higher salary in California to be considered an exempt employee.
Does anyone know for certain if geographical differences are considered a job-related reason for a pay differential?
Thanks!
Patricia
Patricia
June 1st, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Patricia,
Good question – I know at universities, for employees with a work visa, the pay is set for the whole 50 states, so yes, in Indiana where cost of living is less they get paid more than U.S. citizens. I don’t know the answer for a regular business. The only reason I am saying anything is so I learn from others that post!