Everybody Should Know What a Job Pays

Everybody Should Know What a Job Pays

By V. James DeSimone

On September 27, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 1162, which will require nearly 200,000 California companies with 15 or more employees to disclose pay ranges starting next year. What does it mean for job seekers? Besides providing them with critical information before they pursue a job opportunity, it gives potential employees some assurance that they will not face pay discrimination because of their age, race, ethnicity, gender or other characteristic. When pay ranges are disclosed, it informs job seekers where to focus their efforts and provides confidence that they will be paid as much as any other applicant for that same job. 

Even though the Equal Pay Act became U.S. law more than 50 years ago, pay disparities have been an ongoing blight on the American workplace. Pay disclosure laws could finally eliminate this blight. Such laws provide a host of important benefits, helping employers think through the value of the jobs they post while providing realistic expectations to those in the job market. Ultimately, requiring transparency of pay ranges could finally bring pay equity to the workplace where prior efforts have failed. It has been a long time coming. 

It’s a well-known fact that women earn a lot less than men. For the year 2021 it was about 83% of what their male colleagues made, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As alarming as that sounds, it’s nothing compared to how Black and Latino women have fared. The 2022 Equal Pay Day for Black women was September 21, meaning they had to work an extra 263 days to earn what White men earned in 2021.

The causes and reasons for pay disparities have been studied and documented at length. In some companies, women have been undervalued, relegated to subservient roles, and denied status in the workplace. Oftentimes, pay disparities are due to overt discrimination. And laws mandating equal pay – on the books in every state, as well as at the national level – will keep failing to close the gap as long as attitudes are unchanged and legal remedies are anemic. 

But greater pay transparency could be the cure to address some of these failures. It isn’t rocket science, and it doesn’t require complicated economic calculations. If every company were to simply post the pay range for the jobs they sought to fill, the gap would actually begin to narrow. Laws to this effect have already been implemented, and data shows that the gender gap can move in the direction of closure as a result. According to the National Women’s Law Center, “Revealing a position’s salary range is an important negotiation prompt and provides some brake on pay discrimination in initial offers.”

Colorado adopted the first such law in 2021, requiring employers to include pay ranges in job postings. Early research shows that the law actually boosted labor force participation by 1.5%. In other words, Colorado employers had an easier time filling jobs because applicants felt better about applying for positions where the pay range was disclosed. This is no surprise given that 98% of all workers believe that employers should disclose salary information in job listings and more than half would refuse to even apply for a job if the salary range is not disclosed, according to a recent survey

With a growing number of states enacting pay range disclosure laws, the results should be significant. In its letter supporting SB 1162, California’s pay range disclosure law, CELA and other advocacy groups stated as follows: “Research shows that when job applicants are clearly informed about the context for negotiations, including the salary range, women are more willing to negotiate, more successful in negotiating, and the gender wage gap narrows.”

All workers could be impacted by these laws. For multistate employers, we can expect to see pay ranges posted for all positions, regardless of where the worker resides. In addition, under SB 1162 employers will not only have to disclose pay ranges for new hires, but also for current employees who request the pay range for their own position. Armed with more pay information for the same or similar roles, this new law could provide current employees with a legitimate basis for negotiating higher pay for themselves.

Ultimately, these pay transparency laws should be a game-changer for closing wage gaps within companies. This is good for workers and good for employers – when employees know they are being treated fairly, morale and productivity rises, which are key factors in retaining employees who do a good job.

About V. James DeSimone

Civil rights attorney V. James DeSimone, of V. James DeSimone Law of Marina del Rey, has dedicated his 36-year law career to providing vigorous and ethical representation to achieve justice for those whose civil and constitutional rights are violated. His team represents individuals and families in employment, police misconduct, school abuse, and personal injury cases. You can find out more about their work at www.vjamesdesimonelaw.com

COVID-19 and the Right to a Safe Workplace

COVID-19 and the Right to a Safe Workplace

This past week, nurses at UCLA’s Santa Monica Hospital protested publicly for not receiving adequate personal protective equipment (PPE). Similar protests have been popping up all around the country as front-line workers demand that employers take appropriate measures to keep them healthy and safe. Already, too many workers have needlessly and tragically lost their lives in the line of duty.  While the COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique and significant challenges for employers to provide their employees with a safe workplace, they need to be doing more.

Common sense and compassion for people providing vital services should lead to companies doing everything they can to provide necessary protections for the safety of their employees during this unprecedented time. If the moral imperative is not enough, employers should know they have a legal obligation to do so. 

California Labor Code Section 6401 states: “Every employer shall furnish and use safety devices and safeguards, … which are reasonably adequate to render such employment and place of employment safe and healthful.  Every employer shall do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, safety, and health of employees.”

Given what we know about the new coronavirus, providing masks, gloves, soap, and sanitizing products should be mandatory for employers whose employees have to come into contact with the public. Yet there are countless stories of front-line workers being denied these necessary precautions. In a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by The Washington Post, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration reported there were over 3,000 coronavirus-related complaints filed from January through early April. That number does not even include all of the complaints filed with state agencies, like California’s Cal/OSHA, which is similarly inundated with employee complaints.

Besides health and safety equipment and protocols, what about employees, many in vulnerable positions based on health considerations and the virus threat, who request to work remotely? 

Here, state law also offers some protection. If an employee has a disability that would make that employee more vulnerable to the virus and requests an accommodation to work at home, refusal to do so could violate California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA).  Similarly, if an employee lives with someone who has a disability that makes them more vulnerable to the virus, the employee should request an accommodation to work at home in order to minimize the risk to the person they live with. Refusal to grant the request could violate the FEHA because an employee who is “associated with” a person with a disability also has accommodation rights. 

Importantly, an employer must also reimburse an employee for any expenses incurred by the employee to obtain necessary safety equipment or to otherwise keep themselves safe (yes, that protective equipment made from store bought swim goggles and trash bags is reimbursable). Even lodging costs may be reimbursable under state law if an employee is forced to self-isolate away from home because they live with someone who has the virus or is vulnerable to the virus.

If an employee requests safety equipment, safer working conditions or safety accommodations, including working at home, and the employer retaliates by terminating the employee, suspending them, or imposing another hardship, the employee may have legal recourse. Threats, intimidation or coercion to require any employee to take unreasonable safety risks, including the threat of termination, can constitute a violation of Civil Code § 52.1, which prohibits persons from interfering, or attempting to interfere, by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or California. California Labor Code §§ 6310 and 6311 make it unlawful to retaliate because of safety or health complaints and protect employees who refuse to perform hazardous job duties. Health and Safety Code § 1278.5 also specifically prohibits retaliation against health care whistle-blowers. 

The legal consequences of those protective measures make it even more imperative that companies adhere to their obligation to provide safe workplaces.  For those employers that do not take that obligation seriously or, worse, retaliate against their employees, California law provides robust protection. If workers continue to face unsafe working conditions or retaliatory conduct, they should exercise their legal rights and consult with an employment lawyer.   

In this new reality, we understand businesses are facing immense pressure, but they must remember – workers’ lives are at stake. Now is the time for businesses to rise up to the challenge and do everything reasonably necessary to protect their employees. 

About V. James DeSimone

Civil rights attorney V. James DeSimone, of V. James DeSimone Law of Marina del Rey, has dedicated his 36-year law career to providing vigorous and ethical representation to achieve justice for those whose civil and constitutional rights are violated. His team represents individuals and families in employment, police misconduct, school abuse, and personal injury cases. You can find out more about their work at www.vjamesdesimonelaw.com

100% healed policies = 100% discrimination 3

By V. James DeSimone

For an employee who depends on her job, having to take a disability leave for medical treatment is a frightening prospect.  Picture Cynthia, a 29 year old employee of a major restaurant chain, who suffers from severe and intermittent pain in her hips while walking as the result of a condition stemming from childbirth.  Despite her pain, she performs her job as a server and event coordinator in an exemplary and enthusiastic manner.

After eight years on the job, however, the pain becomes so great that she schedules  surgery on both hips.   Unfortunately, she experiences complications, but Cynthia perseveres through subsequent surgeries and a painful rehabilitation, determined to get well enough to return to work and her normal life.

At each step of the way, she keeps her employer updated on her status, confident that she will be able to do her job with minimal restrictions.  Finally, after an extended medical leave of absence from work, she is ready to go back to the job she loves and on which she depends.

But there is a stumbling block.  She is ready to come back to work and suggests a less physically demanding retail position. However, the Human Resources Director informs her, “don’t come back until you are 100% better,” and Cynthia is never going to be “100% healed.”  She will always have limitations that will require some accommodation from her employer in order to perform her job.

However, she is not deterred.  In anticipation of returning to work, Cynthia schedules a meeting with her supervisors to discuss the modifications she will need, but they cancel it. Then, out of the blue, she receives a letter from the company terminating her employment.  The reason:  job abandonment — failure to return from leave.

Cynthia’s experience is not unique. Employee advocates report that termination after a disability leave or a request for accommodation are two of the most frequent reasons why an employee will contact a lawyer.   According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), one of the “hottest areas of EEOC litigation right now involves the agency’s efforts to root out inflexible leave policies – particularly those that supposedly eliminate an employer’s legal obligation to explore and make reasonable accommodations for employees returning from medical leaves of absence.”

The California Commission on Health and Safety and Worker Compensation has published a “Helping Injured Employees Return to Work,” a handbook of practical guidance for businesses.    It provides as examples of inappropriate policies:

  • Requiring that injured employees be released to full duty without restrictions or be healed 100 percent before returning.
  • Always terminating an employee if he or she is unable to return to full duty after a specific, fixed period.
  • Delaying discussion of job accommodations until the employee’s condition is permanent and stationary.

Almost all courts that have examined these so-called “100% healed” policies have concluded that they are an outright violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.   When an employee is out on disability leave, companies must communicate with the employee, preferably in person, in what is called the good faith interactive process.  All attempts to reasonably accommodate the employee to allow him or her to perform the essential functions of the job should be made.

The rules for reasonable accommodations protect all of us.  After all, we never know when one of us or a loved one may become sick or injured and require some form of leave or accommodation.  It’s a shame that it sometimes takes a lawsuit to hold companies accountable when they break the rules.  But what’s clear is this — when it comes to “100% healed” policies, employers should take heed that the justice system is going to hold them 100% liable.

About V. James DeSimone

Civil rights attorney V. James DeSimone, of V. James DeSimone Law of Marina del Rey, has dedicated his 36-year law career to providing vigorous and ethical representation to achieve justice for those whose civil and constitutional rights are violated. His team represents individuals and families in employment, police misconduct, school abuse, and personal injury cases. You can find out more about their work at www.vjamesdesimonelaw.com