Court slap for gender $ gap

A FEDERAL APPEALS court ruled Monday that employers cannot use previous salary history as an excuse to pay women less for doing the same work as men, a giant step that could help close the wage gap between the sexes.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco sided with a California math consultant who argued that using prior compensation to set a worker’s pay perpetuates gender disparities and stands in conflict with the law.

“The Equal Pay Act stands for a principle as simple as it is just: Men and women should receive equal pay for equal work regardless of sex,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the opinion released Monday.

“The question before us is also simple: Can an employer justify a wage differential between male and female employees by relying on prior salary? Based on the text, history and purpose of the Equal Pay Act, the answer is clear: No.”

The decision overturned a ruling last year that had been criticized by equal pay advocates.

At issue was a case involving math consultant Aileen Rizo, who learned while lunching with her colleagues that the men hired after her and doing the same job were making more money.

One new hire, a man with less experience and education, was making $13,000 a year more than she did.

The Fresno County consultant was hired in 2009 by a school district that paid her $63,000 a year after adding 5% to her previous salary as a middle school math teacher in Arizona.

Reinhardt — considered among the most liberal members of the 9th Circuit — died last month after writing the opinion. The decision by the 11-judge panel was unanimous.

Fresno County Superintendent Jim Yovino said the school district would appeal the ruling and insisted the district policy did not discriminate against women.

Women made about 80 cents for every dollar men earned in 2015, according to U.S. government data.