As we noted in a previous post, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan signed the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act of 2016 (“Equal Pay Act”) into law on May 19, 2016 (effective on October 1, 2016). With the passage of this new law, Maryland joins New York and California in the category of states with some of the country’s most expansive equal pay protections. Included below are our updated maps of states with equal pay protections and of states with equal pay protections and states with pending equal pay legislation.
In today’s complex world of employment law, the legislative landscape is changing faster than ever before. Companies can easily veer out of compliance, and into financial and reputational dangers. To guide employers through this maze, Lisa Lupion offers a precise path forward.
She begins by gathering an in-depth understanding of her client’s business and goals, and then evaluating the specific issue at hand, so that whether navigating a counseling issue or a complex litigation, she can understand every possible angle and design the best possible solution.
Lisa regularly litigates a broad range of employment issues in court, administrative agencies, and arbitration. Lisa also helps companies at all stages of development avoid litigation, or prevent a single-plaintiff matter from escalating to a class action. She has successfully handled a number of high-stakes arbitrations and internal investigations. In addition, she offers counseling on discrimination, harassment, equal pay, wage and hour issues, disability accommodations, termination and compensation. Lisa regularly advises clients on a variety of employment-related issues, including human resources policies and procedures, offer letters, severance agreements and employee termination.
Prior to joining Orrick, Lisa served as a law clerk to the Hon. Peter Leisure in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Posts by: Lisa Lupion
From coast to coast, as the calendar turned to 2016, a host of new employment laws became effective. States and local government are imposing broad obligations on employers well above what federal law requires. This patchwork of legal requirements will continue to bedevil employers. As you begin implementing your resolutions for 2016, here’s our take on the major changes that went into effect across the nation last week:
“Sometimes surrender is the best option.” That is how Judge Raymond J. Dearie of the Eastern District of New York begins his opinion in Anjum v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., before denying J.C. Penney’s motion to dismiss a putative Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action based on the company’s offer to pay the claims of four named plaintiffs with offers of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68—a strategy often referred to as “picking off.” Even though the court rejected J.C. Penney’s picking off attempt in this case, the judge’s opinion in Anjum recognizes the validity of this tactic and provides some practical lessons for defense counsel looking to successfully pick off an FLSA collective in the Second Circuit.
Effective February 28, 2013, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) rescinded two 2006 guidance documents concerning how the OFCCP and federal contractors analyze potential pay discrimination. This change came as a response to President Obama’s Equal Pay Task Force, which brought together the federal agencies charged with addressing pay discrimination.
The OFCCP, which is charged with ensuring federal contractors and subcontractors provide equal employment opportunity, concluded that the previous guidance was too rigid and undermining the agency’s efforts to combat discrimination. Several aspects of the now-rescinded guidance fell into disfavor with the OFCCP in its efforts to carry out President Obama’s mandate to step up investigation of systemic compensation discrimination. First, it was required to compare “similarly situated workers,” defined narrowly to include only employees with the same position. Second, it was required to use multiple regression analysis to test for pay disparities, failing to address situations where analysis of a smaller sample size might be more appropriate. Finally, it required anecdotal evidence to establish a systemic compensation violation in addition to statistical evidence. Reasoning that “employment discrimination comes in many forms,” OFCCP found that this specific method of analyzing compensation would not allow OFCCP to detect all forms of pay discrimination. READ MORE