2019 is not even two months old and already there are significant developments in equal pay legislation. As we explained recently, there is proposed federal legislation that reignites the battle to pass the “Paycheck Fairness Act.” And now states are getting in on the action with a flurry of legislative activity around pay equity issues – particularly among legislatures that saw a change in party control as a result of the November elections. In fact, a number of states have introduced a variety of pay equity proposals, making clear that salary history bans and wage discussion protections are here to stay. Proposed new legislation also looks to refine the bona fide factors that employers may consider in setting pay, as well as remedies available under the pay laws. READ MORE
Nicholas J. Horton
Nick Horton, a Managing Associate in the Sacramento office, is a member of the Complex Litigation and Dispute Resolution group.
Nick practices complex commercial litigation including breach of contract, fraud, and unfair competition law cases in both federal and state courts. Nick's experience also includes False Claims Act matters, collective actions brought under the Fair Labor and Standards Act, and regulatory investigations involving the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Before attending law school, Nick served seven years active duty as an infantry officer in the United States Marine Corps. Nick continues to serve as a Major in the Marine Corps Reserves.
Posts by: Nicholas Horton
A growing number of state and local governments have passed equal pay laws in recent years. These statutes and ordinances have varied in their specific content and have created a patchwork of legal requirements vexing employers who are attempting to comply. Two states have added wrinkles to this patchwork. While many of the obligations have favored employees, Massachusetts and Oregon have attempted to tip the scales to employers by creating “safe harbor” provisions aimed at providing some form of relief for employers who perform voluntary pay audits and correct any adverse findings through “safe harbor” provisions. These provisions, however, raise significant questions that employers must consider before concluding that they are fully protected. READ MORE