by Gudrun Hutchins
In 2017 several members of the AAUW Bennington Branch worked hard to help pass the Vermont Salary History Law that is now embedded in Vermont Statues in Title 21 paragraph 495. Julie Mackaman testified to the Committee during their deliberations of the bill. How well does that law work to prevent a dilemma similar to the one that Aileen Rizo faced?
First of all, the new Vermont Law is gender-neutral. It does not mention the words women, men, racial identity, or handicap. It applies equally to all of those classes, even though it may be most helpful for women.
The Vermont law says that a prospective employer may not ask an applicant for their salary history and may not contact a previous employer to find out the salary history of the applicant. However, if the applicant volunteers the salary history during an interview, the prospective employer may ask the applicant to confirm it. It requires an applicant who is aware of the details of the Vermont salary history law and its application.
The Vermont Law is only helpful for an applicant for a new job. It would not have helped Aileen Rizo who had been hired three years before and now wanted an increase in her salary to make it more equal to the salary of her male counterparts. That is why Rizo’s case was argued under the very old Equal Pay law that was signed by President Kennedy in 1963. A new federal law with updated language is desperately needed and has been passed by the House twice. The Senate has refused to consider it.
The most important application of the Vermont salary history law is for women (or men) who have been out of the workforce for a period of time – to raise children, take care of parents, or for additional education. Using salary history in these situations would be very unfair because the compensation for most positions increases with time. In this case the applicant needs to be very sure that the employer does not obtain previous salary history so it cannot be used to determine the employee’s future salary.
No employment statute covers all possibilities. Due to potential court cases, they need to be very specific. It is very important for applicants to understand what situations federal law and the laws of their state cover so that they can make intelligent use of them.
Earlier Vermont statues require that employers pay all legal fees if the employer has violated any of Vermont’s Fair Employment Statutes. Vermont employers cannot fire an employee for going to court. Employees are permitted to discuss their compensation with their co-workers without reprisal by the employer. Any non-disclosure agreements the employee may have signed when they were hired are invalid and illegal. Gudrun testified for some of these earlier statutes in 2001 and AAUW of Vermont signed on as an amicus curiae for several Vermont court cases involving violations of these statues.