Rizo v. Yovino
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
887 F.3d 453 (2018)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Aileen Rizo (plaintiff) was hired as a math consultant by the Fresno County Office of Education (Fresno) (defendant). Prior to her employment with Fresno, Rizo had been a math teacher in Arizona. Fresno determined Rizo’s salary in accordance with its 10-level salary scale, known as Standard Operating Procedure 1440 (SOP 1440). Under SOP 1440, a new hire’s salary was determined by adding five percent to the new hire’s prior salary. Several years later, Rizo learned that male math consultants hired around or after the time Rizo was hired were paid higher salaries for the same work. Rizo sued Fresno through Jim Yovino (defendant), the superintendent of schools, for violating the Equal Pay Act (EPA), arguing that SOP 1440 constituted sex-based pay discrimination because prior salary was the determinative factor in setting a new employee’s salary. Fresno countered and moved for summary judgment, arguing that prior salary was a permissible factor to use in setting a new employee’s initial salary because it was not sex-based. The district court denied Fresno’s motion for summary judgment, holding that SOP 1440 violated the EPA because basing a new employee’s pay rate on the employee’s prior salary perpetuated sex-based wage disparities. Fresno appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Reinhardt, J.)
Concurrence (Callahan, J.)
Concurrence (McKeown, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 795,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.