Apple will still have to deal with a class-action lawsuit alleging pay disparity

Establishing pay at a new job based on a disclosure of salary histories at prior jobs absolutely perpetuates gender (and racial) disparities. It’s a patently unfair negotiation tactic. 

You really shouldn't tell a new potential employer your past 

Here is the original lawsuit story from June 2024:
https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-accused-lawsuit-underpaying-female-workers-california-2024-06-13/

I believe AppleZulu and Mikethemartian have been mislead based on their remarks that Apple is still establishing pay based on disclosure of salary histories, and I say that based on 9-to-5 Mac's article, paragraphs 4 & 5, which state:

Up until the summer of 2017, Apple asked candidates the salary they were paid in their current role, and based its offer on some improvement on this number. The problem with this is that if a female employee was underpaid in her previous role, then Apple would be perpetuating the differential in her new salary.

Apple recognized this problem, and ceased asking the question. Recruiters instead asked about candidate’s salary expectations, and based their offer on this. However, the Californian lawsuit alleges that this too perpetuates salary differentials, because studies show that candidates tend to base this number on some increase from their current salary.

So based on that article, after 2017, Apple is no longer asking about past pay from other employers.  But one big issue in this June 2024 lawsuit actually seems to center on the words I put in bold above — salary expectations.  And yet, most companies in the US, as far as I know, negotiate salaries and ask prospective employees to cite their desired salary range.

In other words, a big part of this class action lawsuit seems to focus the fact that women are asking for lower starting salaries than men are asking for.  

If you ask for a lower number and are hired, and then somebody else (regardless of being male/female) asks for a higher number and too is hired, then you will have a disparity.  Nobody seems interested in calling out the disparity between two men who ask for different salaries, but when women are involved, then the lawyers come knocking.  But the question asked by employers would not seem to be inherently sexist or discriminatory, but instead just a question.  So if the end result of that rather innocent question results in a disparity, should the entire system be changed?  That seems to be the issue here more than anything else, although the lawsuit puts women at the forefront.

Not being a woman, I look at this from a man's point of view.  Do I want to be asked about my salary expectations?  Well, I guess I wouldn't because sometimes you just don't know what a realistic number is.  Ask for a sky high salary, and that could be viewed negatively, making another candidate asking for a lower number more attractive.  My daughter is going through this now as she approaches university graduation this April.

So we must answer this question:  If the lawsuit ultimately stops employers asking prospective hires about their salary expectations, will it end up lowering salaries across the board?  Would it really result in good for all employees if they aren’t asked about salary expectations?

mikethemartian said:

You really shouldn't tell a new potential employer your past prior pay level.

You shouldn’t, but when they ask for it, how many people trying to get the job are going to refuse? Setting aside the possibility that a refusal will lose the job offer, if they do decline to disclose, baked in gender-based assumptions will lead to interpretations that a man is just being a confident, savvy negotiator, so he should be offered more just to get him. A woman will probably be assumed to just be afraid to disclose her low salary history and so the low-ball offer will proceed even without the disclosure. 

jdw said:

Here is the original lawsuit story from June 2024:
https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-accused-lawsuit-underpaying-female-workers-california-2024-06-13/

I believe AppleZulu and Mikethemartian have been mislead based on their remarks that Apple is still establishing pay based on disclosure of salary histories, and I say that based on 9-to-5 Mac's article, paragraphs 4 & 5, which state:

Up until the summer of 2017, Apple asked candidates the salary they were paid in their current role, and based its offer on some improvement on this number. The problem with this is that if a female employee was underpaid in her previous role, then Apple would be perpetuating the differential in her new salary.

Apple recognized this problem, and ceased asking the question. Recruiters instead asked about candidate’s salary expectations, and based their offer on this. However, the Californian lawsuit alleges that this too perpetuates salary differentials, because studies show that candidates tend to base this number on some increase from their current salary.

So based on that article, after 2017, Apple is no longer asking about past pay from other employers.  But one big issue in this June 2024 lawsuit actually seems to center on the words I put in bold above — salary expectations.  And yet, most companies in the US, as far as I know, negotiate salaries and ask prospective employees to cite their desired salary range.

In other words, a big part of this class action lawsuit seems to focus the fact that women are asking for lower starting salaries than men are asking for.  

If you ask for a lower number and are hired, and then somebody else (regardless of being male/female) asks for a higher number and too is hired, then you will have a disparity.  Nobody seems interested in calling out the disparity between two men who ask for different salaries, but when women are involved, then the lawyers come knocking.  But the question asked by employers would not seem to be inherently sexist or discriminatory, but instead just a question.  So if the end result of that rather innocent question results in a disparity, should the entire system be changed?  That seems to be the issue here more than anything else, although the lawsuit puts women at the forefront.

Not being a woman, I look at this from a man's point of view.  Do I want to be asked about my salary expectations?  Well, I guess I wouldn't because sometimes you just don't know what a realistic number is.  Ask for a sky high salary, and that could be viewed negatively, making another candidate asking for a lower number more attractive.  My daughter is going through this now as she approaches university graduation this April.

So we must answer this question:  If the lawsuit ultimately stops employers asking prospective hires about their salary expectations, will it end up lowering salaries across the board?  Would it really result in good for all employees if they aren’t asked about salary expectations?

Honestly, I don't know.  I only know it would be a tad less stressful because you then wouldn’t need to scramble to figure out a number and hope it's a good one and one that gets you hired.

I’m glad that Apple has been doing more to address the issue. This underlines why it’s important to have the data and actively look at the results. Unless they’re a hotshot looking for superstar compensation, the problem is that the job applicant is always at an informational disadvantage in this type of negotiation. 

Asking them to give a number first plays into the employer’s advantage. For a company of any size, they’ve done this many times before, and they knew exactly what their top number is before they had breakfast that morning. An applicant asked for salary expectations is going to start with what they’re making now, wonder how much is too much to ask for, and also wonder how much below their current pay they’d go to get their foot in the door on this new and presumably better opportunity. 

If the company offered first, they’d almost always go a few clicks below midrange for the position, unless it’s entry level. They could also be more consistent with that number, regardless of gender. The applicant would then have a more realistic basis for negotiating. The result would then be more likely to be equitable for otherwise equally talented applicants, regardless of gender.