Case Summary
**Case Summary: Aileen Rizo v. Jim Yovino (Docket Number: 6240461)**
**Court**: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
**Date Decided**: The case was decided on April 9, 2020.
**Background**:
Aileen Rizo, a math consultant for the Fresno County Office of Education, was hired at a salary based on her previous salary history. Rizo learned that a male colleague was being paid significantly more for performing the same job. She filed a lawsuit against her employer, Jim Yovino, claiming a violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) which prohibits gender-based wage disparities between employees performing similar work.
**Legal Issues**:
The primary legal issue in this case revolved around the permissibility of using prior salary history as a factor in determining compensation. Rizo argued that basing salaries on previous earnings perpetuates historical gender pay discrimination.
**Rulings**:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Rizo, determining that prior salary cannot be used as a legitimate factor justifying pay discrepancies under the EPA. The court emphasized that relying on prior salary perpetuates systemic discrimination and does not promote equality in the workplace.
**Significance**:
This case is significant as it sets a precedent in the Ninth Circuit regarding the interpretation of the Equal Pay Act, reinforcing the principle that employers must not rely on past salary history to determine pay. It encourages fairness in compensation practices and aims to reduce the wage gap between genders by promoting equal pay for equal work.
**Conclusion**:
The Aileen Rizo v. Jim Yovino case highlights ongoing challenges related to equal pay in the workplace and affirms the legal standards that seek to eliminate discriminatory practices in salary determination. The ruling serves as a reminder for employers to adopt fair and equitable compensation policies that do not rely on historically biased salary figures.