Skip to main content

Supreme Court: Deceased Ninth Circuit Judge's Participation in Equal Pay Act Decision Was Improper


Yovino v. Rizo - United States Supreme Court


Facts:  Aileen Rizzo ("Rizzo") was employed by the Fresno County Office of Education.  From 1998 to 2015, new employees' salaries were set using their prior salaries.  Under what became known as "Standard Operating Procedure 1440", 5% was added to each new employee's prior salary and based on that figure, placed the employee on a corresponding "step" of the salary schedule.  The policy did not favor either sex.  However, Rizzo noticed that her pay was lower than her colleagues and subsequently filed a suit against the superintendent of the schools and alleged that the county was violating the Equal Pay Act of 1963.  Yovino argued the disparity arose based entirely on the policy's consideration of prior salary; that prior salary is a "factor other than sex", and that any wage disparity based on that factor was therefore permissible under the Equal Pay Act.

On interlocutory appeal, a three judge Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel held that under Kouba v. Allstate Insurance Co., prior salary is a "factor other than sex", and employers therefore may consider it in setting wages provided it is a reasonable means of effectuating some business policy.  Rizzo sought and received an en banc review.  The en banc Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision, 6 to 4, and held that an employee's prior salary does not constitute a "factor other than sex" upon which a wage differential may be based.  However, one of the majority votes (and the author of the opinion), Judge Stephen Reinhardt, passed away 11 days before the en banc decision was issued.  Yovino filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court, contesting the Ninth Circuit's ruling.

Holding:  In a short opinion, the United States Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision in which it considered whether the Ninth Circuit's opinion was valid, given Judge Reinhardt's passing.  The Court pointed out that the Ninth Circuit did not expressly explain why it found that it could count Judge Reinhardt's opinion as "[t]he majority opinion" even though it was not endorsed by a majority of the living judges at the time of issuance.

The Supreme Court recognized that it was not aware of any rule or decision of the Ninth Circuit that rendered judges' votes and opinions immutable at some point in time prior to the public issuance of the opinion.  In fact, it is generally understood that a judge may change their position up to the very moment when a decision is released.  When the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion, Judge Reinhardt was neither an active judge nor a senior judge.  Consequently, by statute, he was without power to participate in the en banc decision at the time it was rendered (irrespective of the fact that he had authored the opinion prior to his passing.)  As a result, as "federal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity", the Ninth Circuit's en banc opinion was improper.

Judgment:  The United State's Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's opinion on the grounds that allowing a judge, that was no longer alive, to participate in the Court of Appeal's decision, any opinion that included that Judge's "vote" was improper.

The Takeaway:  This case caught my eye, given that the Ninth Circuit was addressing a relatively important matter:  Whether an employer's consideration of an employee's prior salary is a "factor other than sex", such that consideration of this factor did not have an employer run afoul of the Equal Pay Act.  However, the Supreme Court's decision here did not address that topic, but perhaps the Court considered a more important matter:  Whether a deceased judge may participate in a court's ruling.  Now bear in mind, in this case, the deceased Judge had already "voted" and had actually written the decision for the Ninth Circuit.  However, as the Supreme Court pointed out, given that judges can change their mind up to the point a decision is actually published, the fact that the Ninth Circuit Judge passed away 11 days before the opinion was published was ultimately the deciding factor.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Per Curiam

Date:  February 25, 2019

Opinion:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-272_4hdj.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more