This summer marked the first anniversary of the effective date of New Jersey's Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act (NJ Equal Pay Act), which amended the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees in compensation practices based on all the protected categories under the NJLAD. Unlike the federal Equal Pay Act and other states' laws that only prohibit pay discrimination based on gender, the NJ Equal Pay Act has broad application to all the protected categories under the NJLAD, which include race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, civil union status, affectional or sexual orientation, sex, gender identity or expression, disability, and pregnancy.
Notwithstanding the broad coverage and protections under the NJ Equal Pay Act, the law permits employers to differentiate pay among similarly situated employees under limited circumstances, such as a result of seniority or merit-based systems. The NJ Equal Pay Act also allows employers to differentiate pay among peers if they can demonstrate the following:
Notably, the NJ Equal Pay Act also prohibits employers from differentiating employee compensation based solely on geography. The act expressly states that the comparison of wage rates must be "based on wage rates in all of an employer's operations or facilities." With this legal landscape, on July 25, New Jersey amended the NJLAD, prohibiting private employers from asking prospective employees about their salary history before making an offer of employment, which is effective January 1, 2020.
Similar equal pay laws have been enacted in other states, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York. Unlike the all-encompassing NJ Equal Pay Act, the laws in Massachusetts and Connecticut target the issue of pay equality based on gender. Although it is not as expansive as the NJ Equal Pay Act, the New York Equal Pay for All Act will prohibit differential pay based on a protected class.
Employers should consider performing an equal pay audit to ensure they are complying with applicable pay equity laws. First, employers should determine the scope of the audit, considering questions such as the following:
While at first blush employers may be inclined to have an internal group perform a pay audit, there are substantial risks in this approach. For instance, any results in connection with the pay audit may be discoverable in future litigation. On the other hand, hiring outside counsel to render legal advice in connection with the pay audit may protect the employer under attorney-client privilege.
Second, once the scope is determined, the data must be gathered. Data may include:
Employers should also consider the number of years of data to review. For example, reviewing data for a single year may not provide enough information for the employer to evaluate risk. Rather, reviewing at least two to three years' data may be necessary.
Third, organize the data into groups of similarly-situated employees. Analyze the data and determine whether there are any patterns or commonalities among the individuals in the group, including membership in protected categories. It is crucial to look beyond the surface to ensure that implicit or explicit biases are not the basis for any differences in compensation. As stated above, the NJ Equal Pay Act defines the limited circumstances when compensation may vary for similarly situated work.
Finally, if pay inequity exists without legal justification, employers will need to assess their next steps. Depending on the number of affected individuals, employers may decide to address pay disparities individually or issue communications to address compensation differences for a larger group.
In summary, the number of states with equal pay laws in effect has steadily increased in recent years, and more laws on this issue are likely to come. Employers are encouraged to proactively examine pay disparities to minimize risk.
Would you like to receive our Employment and Labor Quarterly Update? Sign up here.
Day Pitney Employment and Labor practice chair Heather Weine Brochin was featured in FIERCE Healthcare's article "FTC Votes 3-2 on Final Rule to Ban Noncompete Agreements, But Legal Challenges Expected."
Day Pitney Employment and Labor practice chair Heather Weine Brochin was featured in Variety's article "FTC Issues Ban on Noncompete Agreements – But Experts Say Rule Will Face Legal Challenges."
Day Pitney Employment Attorneys James Leva, Howard Fetner and Lindsey Viscomi authored the alert "Employee's Medical Marijuana Termination Claim Goes Up in Smoke," that was published by the Connecticut Business & Industry Association (CBIA).
Day Pitney Alert
Heather Weine Brochin was a guest on the Travel Tuesdays series, which explores the 'need to know' items for doing business in various jurisdictions around the world, on the Employment Law Alliance's podcast Employment Matters.
Day Pitney Alert
Day Pitney Associate Daniel Pierre's award from the Association of Black Law Students at Rutgers School of Law – Newark at its 33rd Annual Jazz for Justice Gala was featured in the New Jersey Law Journal's On the Move and After Hours column.
Francine Esposito headlined a Labor Law episode of the Employment Law Alliance's podcast Employment Matters.
Day Pitney Associate Daniel Pierre's award from the Association of Black Law Students at Rutgers School of Law – Newark at its 33rd Annual Jazz for Justice Gala was featured in the Diverse Lawyers Network's newsletter.
Copyright © 2024 Day Pitney LLP, all rights reserved.