Inquiries into the background history of an employee have the potential to affect the salary set for an employee in the future. Questions such as, “how much did you make
in your previous job?” have the potential to legally tie up employees and not in a good way. Though the question may lead to the formulation of a salary or not intentionally
meant to do a harm, to some the interview question may sound like bait. This is especially when it comes to women being more “woke” in a post-Trump era. Typically,
women minorities have had a history of earning less, as with other minorities and the pinch is felt during the interview process.
This salary question may come in pre-screening for an interview, during an interview or after the interview process. Several states have measures in place that now preclude
employers from being able to ask employees about prior pay. Does this curtail the gap between race and gender? Employers are generally looking for the standard set by industry
but from a legal perspective, these standards are now viewed as being set with an imbalance and huge discrepancy. That is why the courts have also stepped into place
to interpret what is legal and not when it comes to this process. There are companies that have moved forward and already adapted to the changes in the current legal climate. For that reason, changes have been made to ensure that this type of question is not asked. Hiring policies have been made to reflect in with some of the bigger names that do not wish to even take a legal risk or set a standard that would not be fair.
A Philadelphia law banned questions about pay in a federal district court ruling by ruling that it was an impingement on free speech. A recent ruling was made by a female who
sued her employer for paying her less than her male colleague based on the scale of her prior salary. It was clearly made known to the court that she had received the same step increases as males under the union contract but was hired at a lower rate due to her prior salary. The employer testified to that being the only basis for the difference. Application of the Equal Pay Act could not justify this at all. It was a clear violation as the act prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of sex by paying lower wages “for equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility performed under similar working conditions.”
There are factors other than sex that would change that. Some executives that employ see some appeal in this when it comes to uniformity in pay. This will eventually be reflected in internal policy when it comes to the employment screening process. Let’s face it, some did not even like to probe questions concerning salary history which has the ability to show candidates that relationships do not need to become estranged. This case is indicative of the trend that is happening nationally. A number of states and cities have passed such laws banning prospective employers from asking such questions over the last year. A bill has also been introduced at the federal level. The employer-employee relationship comes out stronger as a result. This has the capability of garnering interest in company culture.
Our Chicago employment discrimination and non-compete agreement attorneys have defended high-level executives and professionals, such as doctors, in a covenant not to compete, trade secret lawsuits and discrimination case. A case in which our firm defended a former Motorola executive was covered in Crain’s Chicago Business. You can view that article by clicking here.
DiTommaso Lubin Austermuehle a firm of Chicago employment and business dispute lawyers handles litigation over non-compete clauses for individuals and businesses of all sizes, including small or closely held businesses for whom competition from an ex-employee can be a serious threat. Our Chicago business lawyers with offices near Lombard and Glen Ellyn have substantial experience in restrictive covenant and breach of contract cases, and we are proud of our record of strong results. We have successfully represented a number of doctors in non-compete, partnership, and other business disputes. We understand the complexities of physician partnership and non-compete agreements.
DiTommaso Lubin Austermuehle a Chicago business litigation law firm represents both plaintiffs and defendants in such cases, and can also help stop litigation before it starts by reviewing contracts to look for covenants and clauses that could create problems later. Our firm has also handled many shareholders and LLC disputes between owners of closely held corporations, and LLCs.
Based in Oakbrook Terrace and downtown Chicago, our Mokena and Joliet Employment rights, non-compete agreement and business dispute lawyers take cases from St. Charles and Elgin and many other cities throughout Illinois, as well as in Indiana, Wisconsin and the entire United States. To learn more or set up a free consultation, please contact one of our Chicago business dispute lawyers through the Internet or call toll-free at 1-877-990-4990 today.
DiTommaso Lubin Austermuehle’s Oak Brook and Elmhurst non-compete agreement litigation attorneys have more than three decades of experience helping clients unravel the complexities of Illinois and out-of-state non-compete and trade secret theft laws. Our Chicago business dispute attorneys also represent individuals, family businesses and enterprises of all sizes in a variety of legal disputes, including disputes among partners, shareholders, and LLC members as well as lawsuits between businesses and consumer rights, auto fraud, and wage claim individual and class action cases. In every case, our goal is to resolve disputes as quickly and successfully as possible, helping business clients protect their investments and get back to business as usual. From offices in Oak Brook, near Barrington and Lake Forest, we serve clients throughout Illinois and the Midwest.