New Jersey equal pay act

Female Professors Sue Rutgers for Equal Pay Violations

October 21, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

In the wake of several recent equal pay settlements between female university professors and their employers, the newest litigation of this ilk has popped up in New Jersey. A lawsuit filed under the New Jersey Equal Pay law in state court last week by five women professors at Rutgers University alleges that they are paid significantly less than their male counterparts. Three of the five plaintiffs are world-renowned scholars in their fields, having published multiple books, hundreds of articles, given numerous presentations, and won several awards. In fact, two of the plaintiffs have achieved the most prestigious professional designation at Rutgers, and yet all five are still paid tens of thousands of dollars less than male professors with the same or less impressive credentials.

One of the plaintiffs, Professor Deepa Kumar, who teaches journalism and media studies and is one of the country’s leading experts on Islamaphobia, was hired in 2004 at a salary that was the same or higher than four white men and women who were hired contemporaneously. However, today, Professor Kumar makes approximately $25,000 less per year than other professors in her department despite multiple attempts to negotiate pay raises. Another plaintiff, Professor Judith Storch, a distinguished professor of nutritional sciences, recently learned that her salary was on average $46,000 lower than all other distinguished professors in biomedical science.

Remarkably, Rutgers already has in place a system of review by which professors may request wage increases in order to advance the goal of pay equity. The plaintiffs in the current lawsuit claim that system is not working. In 2018, the University’s faculty union commissioned a study that showed pay discrepancies between male and female faculty members. Overall, women faculty were paid 7% less than men. Over time, that gap can add up to a substantial amount of lost income. Professor Kumar estimates that she has lost over $300,000 since her employment with Rutgers began. Another litigant against Rutgers, Professor Nancy Wolff claims she lost $500,000. Putting that loss into terms of gender inequity, Professor Wolff pointed out that half million dollars that should have been paid to her was instead used by her employer to pay her white male counterparts at significantly higher rates than she was being paid.

Princeton University Settles Female Professors Equal Pay Lawsuit for $1.2 million

October 7, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The absence of pay equity between men and women, commonly known as the “gender wage gap” has been a newsworthy yet unresolved manifestation of gender discrimination for decades. Pay inequities exist in virtually all industries and professions and are not limited to gender disparities.

Most recently, one of New Jersey’s premier educational institutions, Princeton University, settled a lengthy dispute over whether it was paying female professors equally to male professors. On average, a full-time professor at Princeton earns over $200,000 per year, but there are variations in pay that Princeton asserts are dependent on department, job performance, and the market-driven economics of filling top spots in academia. But when the U.S. Department of Labor conducted a federal pay discrimination investigation into Princeton’s compensation structure, its findings indicated discriminatory pay practices along gender lines. The Department of Labor’s review of salaries between 2012 and 2014 found that among professors, women were being paid less than men despite holding the same jobs and having the same experience and credentials.

Princeton contested the Department of Labor’s findings for years and still admits no culpability, arguing that the investigation was flawed. It has, however, finally agreed to pay nearly $1.2 million — including $925,000 in back pay and at least $250,000 in future salary adjustments — to female professors, including those who have left the university. Under the Early Resolution Conciliation Agreement between Princeton and the Department of Labor, Princeton will award back pay to the 106 female professors identified by the investigation as having been underpaid between 2012 and 2014 and award future pay raises. Princeton also agreed to analyze faculty salaries at the time of hire and in its annual merit increase process, to make sure there are no future pay gaps between male and female employees. In a statement, a Princeton spokesperson said that the university would engage in hiring initiatives in fields that typically have a low representation of women and encourage women to serve in leadership positions such as deanships. It will also train employees on pay equity.

Evening the Playing Field: US Women’s Soccer Fights For Equal Pay

June 20, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The FIFA Women’s World Cup has captivated the attention of nations around the world, and the United States is no exception. With the group stage coming to a close this week, the U.S. Women’s National Team (“WNT”) has already demonstrated dominance in their first two games, beating Thailand and Chile by a combined score of 16-0. As the WNT’s World Cup successes have increasingly dominated headlines, the team’s recent lawsuit filed against their employer, the U.S. Soccer Federation, Inc. (“USSF”), has attracted increased attention as well. While the team battles to defend their FIFA World Cup title on the pitch, they battle in court to defend their rights, and the rights of women nationwide, to receive equal pay for equal work.

The law has long been that all people in the United States are entitled to equal pay for equal work (regardless of gender, race, or any other protected characteristic), as well as fair employment standards and work conditions. These protections were established with the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and can be traced back to 1868 and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to their Complaint, for decades the WNT has endured grossly unequal pay and inferior working conditions in comparison to the Men’s National Team (“MNT”). This has continued despite the fact that the WNT is demonstrably more successful and produces comparable revenue to the MNT for the USSF, which employs both the WNT and the MNT.

The Complaint filed by the WNT details the pay gap that exists between the two teams. It explains that if a male and female national team player each played 20 exhibition games in one year, the male player would earn an average of $263,320 while the female player would earn a maximum of $99,000. Male players who try out for and earn a place on a World Cup team earn $55,000, while female players only earn $15,000 for the same accomplishment. In 2014, the USSF provided the MNT with performance bonuses totaling $5,375,000 for losing in the Round of 16. By contrast, the WNT only earned $1,725,000 for winning the entire tournament. Despite advancing three rounds further that the MNT, and ultimately winning the entire tournament, WNT players earned less than a third of what the MNT players earned.

Federal Court Refuses to Apply New Jersey Equal Pay Act Retroactively

February 7, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The “Diane B. Allen” New Jersey Equal Pay Act was enacted in April 2018, and made effective as of July 1, 2018. In passing the Equal Pay Act, the legislature did not expressly state that the law would be applied retroactively to claims that arise before July 1, 2018. In September 2018, the first court decision applying the New Jersey Equal Pay Act was decided by the United States District Judge William Martini of the District of New Jersey in Perrotto v. Morgan Advanced Materials, which held that that the New Jersey Equal Pay Act should not be applied retroactively since the legislature did not specifically provide so.

Since its enactment, the New Jersey Equal Pay Act has widely been recognized as providing the strongest protections to workers of any equal pay law in the United States. The New Jersey Equal Pay Act, which amended New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, prohibits discriminatory pay practices for protected classes for performing substantially similar work. The law is not limited to gender-based pay discrimination, but also includes other protected classes such as race, disability and age. Under the law, an illegal employment practice occurs every time an employee is impacted by a discriminatory compensation decision.

The New Jersey Equal Pay Act also provides for broad protections against retaliation for employees who seek redress from discriminatory pay practices. Specifically, it prohibits an employer from taking reprisals against any employee for requesting from, disclosing with, or disclosing to an employee or former employee or a lawyer from whom he or is she seeking legal advice or governmental agency for information regarding the job title, occupational category, and rate of compensation on the basis of a protected trait such as sex, race, disability, age or others.

Orchestra Pay Scales Out of Tune: Boston Symphony Orchestra Sued for Gender Based Wage Discrimination

December 27, 2018 | Smith Eibeler LLC

In July 2018 Elizabeth Rowe, the principal flutist and Walter Piston chair in the Boston Symphony Orchestra (“BSO”), filed a gender discrimination lawsuit alleging that the BSO violated the newly enacted Massachusetts Equal Pay Act. Rowe argues that the BSO was paying her less to perform substantially similar work – when viewed in terms of skill, effort, and responsibility – than it was paying her male counterparts, simply because she was a woman and they were men. Gender is a protected class, under the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act and most other civil rights statutes, and discriminating on the basis of one’s membership in a protected class is against the law.

Rowe framed her argument by pointing to one of her BSO colleagues, the orchestra’s principal oboist John Ferrillo. As another principal in the orchestra, Ferrillo holds a similar position to Rowe, and yet his salary is nearly $65,000 greater than hers. Comparing these two positions is naturally an imperfect exercise, as an oboe and a flute are obviously different instruments. A rough approximation can be made by looking at one piece of objective data: since joining the BSO in 2004, Rowe has performed as a soloist 27 times, while Ferrillo has performed as a soloist just 14 times. Notably, Ferrillo supports Rowe’s efforts to obtain equal pay. At the request of Rowe’s employment attorney, Ferrillo provided a statement of his opinion that Rowe was “every bit [his] match in skill, if not more so.”

Rowe’s case provides a look at the problem of gender discrimination on the individual level, but it is a systemic issue in orchestras, and can be difficult to isolate due to the many factors that impact salary decisions. The BSO has raised some of these factors in defending the discrepancy in Rowe’s pay: the talent pool for certain instruments is deeper and thus they are in lower demand; individual players can be uniquely talented leading to a bidding war over their services; random factors akin to ‘right time, right place’ can come into play. When looking at some nation-wide statistics, however, these explanations become dubious. As the Washington Post reported, an analysis of 78 top-earners from 21 orchestras in the United States shows that: (1) 82% of those top-earners are men; (2) the men in the pool make on average just over $52,000 more than the women; and (3) the top male earner makes $535,789 while the top female earner makes only $410,912.

Pay Inequality in BigLaw Firms

November 6, 2018 | Smith Eibeler LLC

Wage Gap in the Legal Field

The legal field is supposed to be predicated on justice, equality, and law abiding. While the legal industry should set the standard for respecting laws and providing fair treatment for employees and clients, this is not always the case. Reports regarding cases in which law firms neglect to follow federal and state laws or allow discriminatory behavior to occur in the workplace tend to surprise many people. One area that law firms are particularly deficient in is that of pay equality. Studies as well as an abundance of recent court cases have shown that firms, particularly those in the BigLaw classification, consistently neglect to compensate their female employees equally in comparison to their male counterparts.

According to a survey conducted in 2016, male partners on average earned salaries that were 44% higher than those of female partners. The average salary of male partners in 2016 was $949,000, while females earned $656,000. Further, an article in the ABA journal states that women make up only 15% of the total amount of equity partners in law firms nationwide, meaning that 85% of these equity partners are men. This gap is typically not explainable by a difference in education or experience, and has also widened as the number of female equity partners has barely increased in recent years. A report produced by the American Bar Association contends that because compensation drives behavior, fair and equitable payment practices bear incredible importance to the success of a firm. An employee’s compensation influences their sense of self worth and how valuable they feel to their employer and therefore discriminatory pay practices are inherently damaging to both employees and their workplace. As part of an effort to increase transparency and lessen the gap in salaries, the United Kingdom has adopted a law that forces all employers with a certain amount of employees to publicly release the differences in pay between men and women. As many of the large law firms in the United Kingdom also have strong presences in the United States, the data that has been released can be used to infer the extent of these issues in our country as well. DLA Piper, for example, reported that men at the company earn 17.8% more than women on average. Norton Rose reported a similar percentage. Weil Gotshal & Manges, on the other hand, even when they removed those in secretarial roles, reported an average gender pay gap of 24.95%.