DOJ files sex discrimination case against Wisconsin agency
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys filed a lawsuit in federal court on January 26 alleging that the Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs (WDMA) refused to pay a woman applying for a supervisor position as much as male candidates.
The lawsuit alleges that a woman applied for a supervisory position within a WDMA division in 2016 after earning stellar reviews in another state position over the previous five years.
A tale of two offers
The salary range for the supervisor position was listed as $79,040 to $91,250 in the job posting. The WDMA’s leader at the time offered the female applicant the job at a $78,000 annual salary, according to the lawsuit. Not only was the salary offer below the range advertised, it was about 11 percent less than the outgoing male supervisor made.
Eventually the offer was raised to $79,049, the lower end of the salary range. That was still about $8,174 less than what the outgoing male supervisor made, according to the lawsuit, and the applicant turned down the job.
The agency tries again
WDMA posted the job again and the woman was still interested but, according to the lawsuit, the leader refused to consider her again even though the job posting said the agency would consider all applicants from the first round.
The job was offered to three different men in succession, promising to pay the first two $87,000. Both turned down the offers. The third man accepted the position for $85,000.
The lawsuit alleges that the WDMA discriminated against the female applicant based on her sex, arguing she was more qualified than the man who got the job. That man held a lower-level position than the woman had held when she applied, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit also alleges that the male applicant lacked other relevant experience that the female applicant had.
The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of back pay and damages to compensate for pain and suffering.
Sex discrimination is unlawful
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), protects individuals against employment discrimination based on sex. More specifically, it is unlawful to discriminate against applicants because of their sex in regard to hiring.
Though this case was filed by the DOJ, sex discrimination is a common charge made to EEOC, and has produced considerable litigation for employers.
It may seem obvious that employers should treat members of different sexes equitably when setting pay. One common practice, however, may seem equitable when it really puts employers in danger of discriminating based on sex: Using an individual’s salary history to establish pay.
Avoid asking for salary history
Basing a salary offer on a job candidate’s salary history puts a company at risk of discrimination. While it is not clear if the offer made to the female applicant in the WDMA case was based on salary history, such a consideration is common.
Employers should be aware that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) advised federal agencies not to rely on salary history because doing so could perpetuate pay discrimination, particularly pay discrimination based on sex.
Some states have laws making it illegal for employers to obtain salary history information. Even where asking for the information is not prohibited, however, problems can emerge. If an applicant who is hired can later show they are not being paid equitably, the fact that a company based a salary determination on what the individual was previously paid could become a factor in a discrimination lawsuit.
For that reason, when determining pay, employers may want to rely on factors like market salary data and the company’s compensation philosophies rather than applicants’ salary histories.
Key to remember: Treat applicants equitably when setting pay and avoid asking applicants for salary history. Rather, ask their desired salary range. Offers of compensation should never be affected by an applicant’s sex.