Last month a Wake County jury awarded a large verdict of $3.75 million to a former State Highway Patrolman who proved that his termination from the force was in punishment or retaliation over whistleblower activity. The plaintiff and former trooper, Reginald Newberne, alleged that he was fired after he had truthfully reported information about possible excess use of force by other officers in connection with a DWI stop. After a week long trial, the jury agreed that Newberne was unlawfully terminated in retaliation for breaking a "code of silence" that prohibited officers from reporting misconduct by their peers.
The size of the verdict is a stark reminder of the dangerous nature of whistleblower or retaliation claims. Juries are often times very troubled when it is proven that an employer punishes an employee for exposing its unlawful activity. We often here the adage that "the cover-up is worse than the crime." Whistleblower cases, such as this one, tend to similarly demonstrate the danger of an employer's decision to punish employees who attempt to disrupt a cover-up by reporting misconduct.
If you have questions about whistleblower protections, please see our previous discussion of recent whistleblower developments or feel free to call attorney Brian Alligood, an experienced North Carolina employment law attorney, at (336) 907-3902 for counsel.
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Equal Pay for Equal Work -- It's ALREADY the Law (and has been for 50+ years)
Sometimes in the heat of a political campaign year slogans and promises take root that seem to forget reality. One that has become quite popular in recent years is the suggestion that legal reform is needed in order to ensure women equal pay for equal work. Because the premise seems so fundamentally fair and noble, the media has adopted this rallying cry as well.
The only problem is that we have had a federal law requiring this very thing for over fifty years. Called, logically enough, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, it has been the subject of a previous post here. Here are some of the remarks made by President Kennedy upon signing the legislation:
So why the confusion? And why aren't all women paid the exact same as male counterparts? Because the EPA does not eliminate the employer's ability to consider distinguishing credentials, skills, job performance, or other bona fide business considerations is setting a given employee's pay. Employers can still pay more for more advanced degrees, more valuable experience, greater business contacts, or other legitimately distinguishing credentials. Similarly, employers can still pay lower performing employees less. As such, if an employee has poor attendance, is chronically late to work, is prone to poor work product, the employer can, and arguably should, pay less than better performing peers. But if a woman is paid less than a man for the same work and in the absence of any bona fide business reason, she can sue the employer for the difference in pay and attorney's fees. In fact, in the case of a willful violation, the underpaid employee can collect liquidated damages as well.
Furthermore, an employer's mere offering of a purported justification for lower pay does not set the employer free. The employee can still offer evidence to show that the justification is a pretext, or phony excuse, for the disparity.
In short, and at the risk of diluting a good campaign rallying cry, equal pay for equal work is already the law of the land.
The only problem is that we have had a federal law requiring this very thing for over fifty years. Called, logically enough, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, it has been the subject of a previous post here. Here are some of the remarks made by President Kennedy upon signing the legislation:
I AM delighted today to approve the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibits arbitrary discrimination against women in the payment of wages. This act represents many years of effort by labor, management, and several private organizations unassociated with labor or management, to call attention to the unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages than male employees for the same job.In short, it has long been the law in all fifty states that an employer cannot discriminate on the basis of gender in setting pay rates. Not only does the EPA forbid this, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does as well.
So why the confusion? And why aren't all women paid the exact same as male counterparts? Because the EPA does not eliminate the employer's ability to consider distinguishing credentials, skills, job performance, or other bona fide business considerations is setting a given employee's pay. Employers can still pay more for more advanced degrees, more valuable experience, greater business contacts, or other legitimately distinguishing credentials. Similarly, employers can still pay lower performing employees less. As such, if an employee has poor attendance, is chronically late to work, is prone to poor work product, the employer can, and arguably should, pay less than better performing peers. But if a woman is paid less than a man for the same work and in the absence of any bona fide business reason, she can sue the employer for the difference in pay and attorney's fees. In fact, in the case of a willful violation, the underpaid employee can collect liquidated damages as well.
Furthermore, an employer's mere offering of a purported justification for lower pay does not set the employer free. The employee can still offer evidence to show that the justification is a pretext, or phony excuse, for the disparity.
In short, and at the risk of diluting a good campaign rallying cry, equal pay for equal work is already the law of the land.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)