In a recent groundbreaking development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of Eisenhauer v. Culinary Institute of America, No. 21-2919-CV, has dictated that employers are not required to indicate that a “factor other than sex” defense is job-related according to the federal Equal Pay Act (EPA). This ruling presents a noticeable shift, overturning a longstanding interpretation of the EPA and potentially influencing the future course of equal pay litigation. Read source article here.
Previously, the EPA was understood to mandate employers to demonstrate that any defense of “a factor other than sex” had relevance to the job in question. With this new interpretation, the Second Circuit has abruptly reversed this understanding. As a result, employers no longer have the burden of proving job-relevance in equal pay defense cases. This could significantly alter the dynamics of such litigation.
Although the Second Circuit’s decision certainly simplifies the EPA’s “factor other than sex” defense for employers, it does not ultimately address the act’s other requirements, such as demonstrating that the factor in question is a “bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience” and that it is “not based on or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation”.
However, the onus of proof concerning job relation, now removed, will likely have substantial effects on equal pay litigation. Despite this, it is worthy to note that the ruling only applies within the Second Circuit, and other circuits or the Supreme Court might choose to interpret the EPA differently in the future. As the interpretation of law evolves, both employers and legal professionals need to stay informed of these shifts.