Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP

  • Overview
  • Attorneys
  • Our Work
  • Blog
  • Contact

San Francisco’s Parity in Pay Ordinance

Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin

It is a well-known fact that women are paid less than men for performing the same work.  According to a 2015 study from the United States Census Bureau, in the City of San Francisco, on average women  are paid 84 cents for every dollar paid to men.  For African American women and Latinas the statistics are even worse — African American women make on 60 cents for every dollar paid to men, and Latinas make 55 cents.  Unfortunately, when women bring lawsuits challenging these pay disparities, employers often defend themselves by claiming that the salary differentials are based on the earnings that comparably qualified men and women made at prior jobs.

In an effort to try an close the wage gap, in July 2017, the City of San Francisco has passed a “Parity in Pay Ordinance,” which prohibits employers from asking job applicants about their salary history.  Moreover, the law, which goes into effect in July 2018, prevents previous employers from disclosing an employee’s earnings, unless the salary history is publicly available.  And, while employees may voluntarily disclose their salary history, the Ordinance prohibits employers from making any hiring or salary decisions on the basis of such information.

The effort to pay Parity in Pay Ordinances has been gaining momentum since August 2016, when Massachusetts became the first state to pay such an ordinance.  Similar legislation has been enacted in Delaware, Oregon, New York City and Philadelphia.  If you have read this far, and send me a note, I’ll buy you a drink.  And while Governor Brown vetoed a similar law in 2015, another bill — AB168 — to prohibit inquiries into salary history is currently working its way through the California legislature.  If you believe that employers should be prohibited from asking about salary history, write to Governor Brown and tell him to sign AB168 if he makes it to his desk.

 

 

Related Posts:

  • Special Agent with over 25 years of experience in law enforcement sues California Department of Justice, alleging gender…
  • Fintech Software Executive Files Lawsuit for Gender Discrimination, Denial of Equal Pay And Retaliation Lawsuit Against…
  • Black workers matter, so end forced arbitration
  • Disability Rights for All of Us in the Time of Coronavirus

More Posts

  • Wendy Musell interviewed on pay disparities

    Wendy Musell interviewed on pay disparities

  • LVBH honored with Distinguished Service Award by the Alameda County Bar Association

    LVBH honored with Distinguished Service Award by the Alameda County Bar Association

  • Special Agent with over 25 years of experience in law enforcement sues California Department of Justice, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation at California Bureau of Investigation

    Special Agent with over 25 years of experience in law enforcement sues California Department of Justice, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation at California Bureau of Investigation

  • LVBH proudly announces Leticia Chavez as an associate of the firm

    LVBH proudly announces Leticia Chavez as an associate of the firm

  • Daily Journal turns the spotlight on LVBH

    Daily Journal turns the spotlight on LVBH

  • Hilary Hammell discusses employer vaccine mandates in KPFA Radio interview

    Hilary Hammell discusses employer vaccine mandates in KPFA Radio interview

  • LVBH wins appellate victory for courageous #MeToo survivor

    LVBH wins appellate victory for courageous #MeToo survivor

  • Hilary Hammell quoted in Aljazeera report on Tesla racism trial in San Francisco

    Hilary Hammell quoted in Aljazeera report on Tesla racism trial in San Francisco

  • American Bar Association features Wendy Musell in panel discussion on religious objections to vaccine mandates

    American Bar Association features Wendy Musell in panel discussion on religious objections to vaccine mandates

  • Sharon Vinick discusses corporate demands for projects created by employees after work hours

    Sharon Vinick discusses corporate demands for projects created by employees after work hours

Tags

#metoo award civil rights class action COVID defamation disability discrimination employee rights employment arbitration agreements employment law employment lawyer blog equal pay ethnicity harassment failure to prevent harassment family medical leave firefighter forced arbitration gender discrimination human resources immigrant rights mandatory arbitration medical leave retaliation minimum wage misclassification national origin harassment Oakland Raiders cheerleader lawsuit personnel file public employees race discrimination racial harassment reasonable accommodation retaliation retaliation lawsuit sacramento sexual abuse sexual assault sexual harassment Super Lawyers uc regents University of California wage and hour wage theft whistleblowers working families wrongful termination

LVBH Logo

CONTACT US

510-318-7700
info@levyvinick.com

Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300
Oakland, California 94612

  • Overview
  • Attorneys
  • Our Work
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Press Releases

Copyright © 2022 Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams · website: Amanda McCoy · Log in

Disclaimer

Nothing in this website is intended in any way to form an attorney-client relationship or any other contract. It is designed solely to provide general information about the practice at Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP.

Be mindful of any deadlines you have approaching that relate to your legal situation, and make sure that you meet them. Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP does not assume any responsibility for advice given regarding any aspect of your case until you have a signed legal services agreement engaging the firm’s representation.

Though the firm provides free initial consultations, the firm retains complete discretion in every case to decide whether or not to provide a consultation to any person. Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP makes no guarantees, warranties, or predictions about your case, and past success at the firm does not ensure future results will be the same.

Disclaimer

Nothing in this website is intended in any way to form an attorney-client relationship or any other contract. It is designed solely to provide general information about the practice at Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP.

Be mindful of any deadlines you have approaching that relate to your legal situation, and make sure that you meet them. Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP does not assume any responsibility for advice given regarding any aspect of your case until you have a signed legal services agreement engaging the firm’s representation.

Though the firm provides free initial consultations, the firm retains complete discretion in every case to decide whether or not to provide a consultation to any person. Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP makes no guarantees, warranties, or predictions about your case, and past success at the firm does not ensure future results will be the same. The photos on this website do not reflect actual attorney-client interactions.