On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed into law, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the first bill signed into law by the President paving the way for these lawsuits to require that equal pay be given to women, by way of seeking back pay awards for the difference they were paid and what men were paid for the same work.

 

If you have been discriminated against in your employment in California by receiving less pay for the same work performed by persons of the other gender, even though the statute of limitations has been extended by this Act, you still need to speak with a women’s rights lawyer or an employment attorney as soon as possible.

 

If you are a woman and you’ve been receiving less pay than men are receiving for the same work from the same employer, visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us at any of the numbers easily found on our website.

 

Prior to the Act becoming law, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, women were required to file suit within 180 days after first being paid unfairly, even if the discrimination of being paid less than male workers in the same jobs continued.

 

And if a woman failed to discover that male workers were being paid more for the same work, a woman still could not hold her employer accountable if she didn’t learn of the unfairness and take action within 180 days of first being paid the lesser rate.

 

Under the Fair Pay Act of 2009 signed into law by President Obama, the statute of limitations of 180 days starts with each discriminatory paycheck, rather than when the employer starts to discriminate. So long as a woman in CA files her claim within 180 days of receiving any discriminatory paycheck, not just the first one, she is considered timely in bringing her claim.

 

An important aspect of the Act is that the effective date of the Act is retroactively set at May 28, 2007, which will allow it to apply to all compensation discrimination claims that have been filed on or after that date.

 

Women can sue for back pay awards for up to two years before she files her employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Fair Pay Act of 2009 does not change the two-year back pay limit.

 

The Fair Pay Act is a major victory for women in California who have long been discriminated against in the pay they receive for the same work that men perform and are paid substantially more in many places. It has been determined that women have been earning only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. This Act will likely go a long way in addressing that unfairness, although it will likely require a good many lawsuits to hammer this home to employers who discriminate against women in their pay guidelines.

 

With the signing of this Act into law, initial victories in CA against an employer will likely lead to settlement of other lawsuits for co-employees who have been discriminated against in the same manner by the same employer.

 

Those who would say that the Act will lead to the employment of less women in such positions by employers fearful of such lawsuits simply don’t understand the anti-discrimination laws in this country and the greater risk employers would be taking if they adopted such a discriminatory stance in their hiring practices.

 

Even with the retroactive effect of the Act, employers in California may be slow to increase the salaries and hourly rates of their women employees until lawsuits begin to fly. Employers who have previously gotten away with discriminating against women in CA may only react in more numbers when they begin to feel the full weight of the law themselves or see large judgements against other employers who have discriminated against women.

 

Visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us if you have been discriminated in your pay from an employer in California based on your being a woman, compared with the pay received by men for the same work

 

The votes in favor of the bill in the Senate included every Democratic senator except Senator Edward Kennedy who was absent because of his health, and all four Republican women senators. Every Republican male senator except Arlen Spector voted against it. If that won’t come back to haunt the Republicans in the next election, it is hard to imagine what else they will do to alienate themselves more from the women’s vote.

 

Under the Act, an unlawful practice occurs when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when a person becomes subject to the decision or practice, or when a person is affected by the decision or practice, including each time wages, benefits or other compensation is paid.

Affect who the employer is and who is responsible for one’s wage or salary, holiday pay, employer’s contribution to national insurance, pension rights, and employment protection, the legal distinction made between “employees” and “workers”, and between those and “contractors” ~one’s entitlements depend on whether in the eyes of the law one is an employee, or a worker, subcontractor, self employed contractor –or partly a freelancer.

Because of their different legal definitions an ‘employee’ or a ‘worker’ in the eyes of the law may be in fact a ‘contractor’ or a ’subcontractor’, and vice-versa -and employment through an employment agency may or may not itself fall in different category. Definitions and categories affect entitlements.

Many employees lose out on entitlements, because their legal employment category, or because who the law regards as employer, is different than they think or have been told. When one is paid to do work for another it is important to know how the employment contract is formed, and one’s employment status.

Are you liable for your income tax or must the employer deduct it and attend to it at source, what are your holiday and pension entitlements and whose responsibility are they, are you entitled to employer’s part of your national insurance contribution –who is your employer at the workplace that you work, the business you work on the premises of, or an employment agency, or is it you whose responsibility those are, in the eyes of the law?

These affect liability, vicarious liability and the statutorily implied terms of any contract -as well as various other statutory requirements ~from equal treatment to employment protection under the employment laws -many have sued and lost because the employer was not in law the sued party but another.

Often these also affect ‘pay’ (in law defined as being what is received directly or indirectly in cash or kind for work done) ~an ‘employee’ gets full holiday pay, paid leave -a ‘worker’ does not.

In employment there is sometimes a company pension scheme; as the norm the employer must pay part of one’s national insurance contributions (covering, e.g., unemployment, health-care, state-pension) if one is an ‘employee’; but the entitlement is partial if one is a ‘worker’, and nil if one is in law a ‘contractor’ -one’s employment status matters.

The following helps ascertain one’s employment status in law, and who in law is one’s employer.Is one an ‘employee’ or ’self-employed contractor’? There are three tests that are applied to the question:-

The first is the ‘Control Test’ and is based on this that if the employer controls the job to be done but not how it is done than the person doing the job is an employee; but this test would not be satisfactory, because also to an employee with specialist knowledge, e.g. a company nurse, the employer would not tell how to do the job.

The second, ‘Organisational Integration Test’, seeks to ascertain whether the person paid is an integral part of the business: an anaesthetist was not a self-employed contractor in Cassidy -v- The Ministry of Pensions 1961 ~he was a resident of the hospital -an employee.

But this did not suffice: drivers who were paid for an agreed minimum number of jobs per year and had to wear company uniforms as well as to have the company colours on their lorries and who could not work for the competition without the employer’s permission, but who could choose to do extra work and decided their own routes and used their own lorries and could use at their pleasure substitute drivers, in Ready Mixed Concrete -v- The Ministry of Pensions 1968 were self-employed contractors, not employees.

There is a third, the ‘Multiple Test’ to be applied: ‘one is an employee if.. provides work or service for remuneration.. the business has some degree of control.. without any terms contrary to the employment relationship.’

This is the consideration in the case of those engaged or introduced by employment agencies:-Who is the employer? Is one, as a specific individual, under the direct supervision and control of the business? If so, one is an employee of the client business -where one works…

Does the business where one works pay that agency and that agency itself pay one? If so, one is not an employee of the client business, but may be an employee or worker of that agency itself -agency staff.

Employees normally receive holiday pay, self employed contractors do not ~but what about the ‘worker’-the casual worker who is not in self employment and yet is also not a regular employee?Is one an ‘employee’ or ‘worker’? There is a different ‘worker’ category for casual workers which was created under the Employment Rights Act 1996 s.230 (3) to deal with this question.

If a casual worker is genuinely on an ad hoc basis employed, that casual worker is, in law, an employee while he is employed, and for the period/s of such employment has employment rights -e.g., to receive wages and holiday pay.

A ’subcontractor’ normally would be in the category either of employee or of worker on the same basis, but instead of the business where the sub contractor works, of the self employed contractor who engaged the sub contractor.

If there is a dispute about whether a contractor engaged a subcontractor as a self employed person, then the same three tests above are applied to ascertain the employment status of that subcontractor in relation to that contractor.

If that subcontractor receives a wage and is not self-employed in relation to that contractor, then if the subcontractor works regularly for that contractor he is an employee of that contractor, and if he works casually for that contractor he is a worker of that contractor.

Being a ‘freelance-worker’ is, to all intends and purposes, the same as being a self-employed contractor.

One can lawfully be both: an employee or worker, as well as a freelancer -self employed.

If one who is normally an employee or worker wants also to do some freelance work, then one officially is an employee or worker and one’s entitlements in relation to ones normal status are not affected -but those entitlements do not extend to one’s freelance work and employment.

If one normally self employed wants also to do some work as an employee or worker of a business, then one’s official status as self-employed does not change -but one’s entitlements for work done as an employee or worker are not affected to the extent of one’s such work.

If one is not paid for holidays.. if a pension scheme depends on whether one is a freelancer or not.. if the employer is responsible for one’s colleagues’ taxes or pension contributions but not one’s own.. if one is working for one business but is paid by another… one might need to ascertain one’s employment status -the above are the legal tests.(Laws change –always ascertain current law.)The author has a website at: http://www.geocities.com/eoa_uk

Affect who the employer is and who is responsible for one’s wage or salary, holiday pay, employer’s contribution to national insurance, pension rights, and employment protection, the legal distinction made between “employees” and “workers”, and between those and “contractors” ~one’s entitlements depend on whether in the eyes of the law one is an employee, or a worker, subcontractor, self employed contractor –or partly a freelancer.

Because of their different legal definitions an ‘employee’ or a ‘worker’ in the eyes of the law may be in fact a ‘contractor’ or a ’subcontractor’, and vice-versa -and employment through an employment agency may or may not itself fall in different category. Definitions and categories affect entitlements.

Many employees lose out on entitlements, because their legal employment category, or because who the law regards as employer, is different than they think or have been told. When one is paid to do work for another it is important to know how the employment contract is formed, and one’s employment status.

Are you liable for your income tax or must the employer deduct it and attend to it at source, what are your holiday and pension entitlements and whose responsibility are they, are you entitled to employer’s part of your national insurance contribution –who is your employer at the workplace that you work, the business you work on the premises of, or an employment agency, or is it you whose responsibility those are, in the eyes of the law?

These affect liability, vicarious liability and the statutorily implied terms of any contract -as well as various other statutory requirements ~from equal treatment to employment protection under the employment laws -many have sued and lost because the employer was not in law the sued party but another.

Often these also affect ‘pay’ (in law defined as being what is received directly or indirectly in cash or kind for work done) ~an ‘employee’ gets full holiday pay, paid leave -a ‘worker’ does not.

In employment there is sometimes a company pension scheme; as the norm the employer must pay part of one’s national insurance contributions (covering, e.g., unemployment, health-care, state-pension) if one is an ‘employee’; but the entitlement is partial if one is a ‘worker’, and nil if one is in law a ‘contractor’ -one’s employment status matters.

The following helps ascertain one’s employment status in law, and who in law is one’s employer.Is one an ‘employee’ or ’self-employed contractor’? There are three tests that are applied to the question:-

The first is the ‘Control Test’ and is based on this that if the employer controls the job to be done but not how it is done than the person doing the job is an employee; but this test would not be satisfactory, because also to an employee with specialist knowledge, e.g. a company nurse, the employer would not tell how to do the job.

The second, ‘Organisational Integration Test’, seeks to ascertain whether the person paid is an integral part of the business: an anaesthetist was not a self-employed contractor in Cassidy -v- The Ministry of Pensions 1961 ~he was a resident of the hospital -an employee.

But this did not suffice: drivers who were paid for an agreed minimum number of jobs per year and had to wear company uniforms as well as to have the company colours on their lorries and who could not work for the competition without the employer’s permission, but who could choose to do extra work and decided their own routes and used their own lorries and could use at their pleasure substitute drivers, in Ready Mixed Concrete -v- The Ministry of Pensions 1968 were self-employed contractors, not employees.

There is a third, the ‘Multiple Test’ to be applied: ‘one is an employee if.. provides work or service for remuneration.. the business has some degree of control.. without any terms contrary to the employment relationship.’

This is the consideration in the case of those engaged or introduced by employment agencies:-Who is the employer? Is one, as a specific individual, under the direct supervision and control of the business? If so, one is an employee of the client business -where one works…

Does the business where one works pay that agency and that agency itself pay one? If so, one is not an employee of the client business, but may be an employee or worker of that agency itself -agency staff.

Employees normally receive holiday pay, self employed contractors do not ~but what about the ‘worker’-the casual worker who is not in self employment and yet is also not a regular employee?Is one an ‘employee’ or ‘worker’? There is a different ‘worker’ category for casual workers which was created under the Employment Rights Act 1996 s.230 (3) to deal with this question.

If a casual worker is genuinely on an ad hoc basis employed, that casual worker is, in law, an employee while he is employed, and for the period/s of such employment has employment rights -e.g., to receive wages and holiday pay.

A ’subcontractor’ normally would be in the category either of employee or of worker on the same basis, but instead of the business where the sub contractor works, of the self employed contractor who engaged the sub contractor.

If there is a dispute about whether a contractor engaged a subcontractor as a self employed person, then the same three tests above are applied to ascertain the employment status of that subcontractor in relation to that contractor.

If that subcontractor receives a wage and is not self-employed in relation to that contractor, then if the subcontractor works regularly for that contractor he is an employee of that contractor, and if he works casually for that contractor he is a worker of that contractor.

Being a ‘freelance-worker’ is, to all intends and purposes, the same as being a self-employed contractor.

One can lawfully be both: an employee or worker, as well as a freelancer -self employed.

If one who is normally an employee or worker wants also to do some freelance work, then one officially is an employee or worker and one’s entitlements in relation to ones normal status are not affected -but those entitlements do not extend to one’s freelance work and employment.

If one normally self employed wants also to do some work as an employee or worker of a business, then one’s official status as self-employed does not change -but one’s entitlements for work done as an employee or worker are not affected to the extent of one’s such work.

If one is not paid for holidays.. if a pension scheme depends on whether one is a freelancer or not.. if the employer is responsible for one’s colleagues’ taxes or pension contributions but not one’s own.. if one is working for one business but is paid by another… one might need to ascertain one’s employment status -the above are the legal tests.(Laws change –always ascertain current law.)The author has a website at: http://www.geocities.com/eoa_uk