Question 1

Is 'He Negotiated a Higher Salary' a Legal Defense in California?

Accepted Answer

Not by itself. Negotiation is not one of the four statutory factors, and an employer relying on it must still tie the outcome to a bona fide factor that is job-related and consistent with business necessity. If men's negotiations are systematically rewarded and women's aren't, the "negotiation" explanation is itself derived from sex — which the statute expressly disallows. Employers use this excuse constantly; it fails more often than they expect.

Question 2

Can Prior Salary Justify Paying You Less?

Accepted Answer

No. Labor Code § 1197.5 states that prior salary shall not justify any disparity in compensation, and Labor Code § 432.3 separately bars employers from asking for your salary history at all. An employer may consider an existing employee's current salary in setting pay only if any resulting gap is independently justified by one of the four lawful factors. If your offer was pegged to what you earned at your last job and a coworker's wasn't, that is evidence for you, not for your employer.

Question 3

What Makes a Seniority or Merit System a Real Defense?

Accepted Answer

The word "system" is doing the work. An employer claiming seniority or merit must show an established, consistently applied structure — written criteria, regular evaluations, documented application — not an after-the-fact rationalization. A "merit system" that produces raises for one group and explanations for another is not a system, and under the statute each factor must be applied reasonably and account for the entire differential it is claimed to explain.

Question 4

What Is the 'Bona Fide Factor Other Than Sex' — and Why Does It Usually Decide the Case?

Accepted Answer

It is the catch-all employers reach for: education, training, experience, certifications, market conditions. But the statute attaches three conditions — the factor must not be based on or derived from a protected-trait differential, must be job-related with respect to the position in question, and must be consistent with business necessity. Even then, you can defeat it by showing an alternative business practice would serve the same business purpose without producing the wage difference. Generic appeals to "the market" rarely survive this test when examined against actual pay data — a dynamic we see constantly in tech compensation cases.

Question 5

Who Has the Burden of Proof in a California Equal Pay Case?

Accepted Answer

Once you establish a pay differential for substantially similar work, the burden of persuasion shifts to the employer — it must prove its defense, not merely suggest one. This is stronger for workers than the federal framework, where the employer's burden is lighter. Practically, it means the employer's records, policies, and pay decisions go under the microscope, and gaps in its documentation work in your favor — which flows straight into what the claim is worth.

Question 6

My boss says the pay difference is because my coworker 'asked for more.' Is that legal?

Accepted Answer

Usually not on its own. Negotiation isn't one of the four lawful factors, and if asking-for-more only works for some groups, the excuse itself becomes evidence of discrimination. Worth a case review.

Question 7

My employer says he has more experience than me. Does that end my claim?

Accepted Answer

No — experience can be a lawful factor, but the employer must prove it is job-related, consistent with business necessity, and explains the entire gap. Two years of extra experience rarely explains a $30,000 difference.

Question 8

Can my employer justify the gap because of the office he works in?

Accepted Answer

California's four factors don't include location as such — unlike Oregon's law, which lists it. A location-based explanation has to survive as a bona fide factor: job-related and consistent with business necessity.

Question 9

What if the lawful factor explains part of the gap but not all of it?

Accepted Answer

Then the defense fails as to the unexplained part. The statute requires the factors relied upon to account for the entire wage differential.

Question 10

Do I have to prove my employer intended to discriminate?

Accepted Answer

No. The Equal Pay Act is not about intent — an unjustified gap violates the statute regardless of motive. Intent matters for a separate FEHA discrimination claim, which is often filed alongside.

How Employers Defend Equal Pay Claims — and Where Those Defenses Break

Understanding Your Equal Pay Case

Meet Our Equal Pay Attorneys

Client Reviews

Our recent wins

Equal Pay Cases: How It Works

Start Your Free Equal Pay Case Review

Winners of #1 Settlements in California

Equal Pay FAQs

Related Content

California equal pay lawyer (main guide)

What counts as substantially similar work

SB 642: the 2026 changes

What your claim is worth