U.S. Sued Over Alleged Pay Bias at Upper Levels

Two legal aid groups sued the federal government Tuesday in an effort to force it to cease basing upper-level salaries on a formula that allegedly discriminates against women and minorities.

By sometimes setting salaries based on an applicant’s prior pay in private-sector jobs, federal agencies perpetuate a tradition of paying women and minorities less than white men, attorneys from Equal Rights Advocates and the Women’s Legal Defense Fund charged.

The suit singled out the Department of Housing and Urban Development. But Judith Kurtz of Equal Rights Advocates said all federal agencies employ the practice. A victory in the suit against HUD could extend throughout the federal work force, she said.

Kurtz, citing statistics that women earn two-thirds of what white men earn, said that basing salaries on applicants’ prior pay “incorporates marketplace discrimination” into the federal work force.

The suit was filed in Washington on behalf of Jennifer Bell, a black woman, who quit her job as a HUD lawyer last April after seven years and went to work as an assistant city attorney in Oakland.

In the suit, Bell claims she and attorney Paul Renno had nearly identical qualifications when Renno resigned in 1984 to take a job with a private law firm. HUD regional counsel Beverly Agee rehired Renno in 1987, and according to the suit, paid Renno $2,500 more a year than Bell. At the time, Bell made $44,000 a year.

“She (Bell) liked her job, but she felt undervalued,” Kurtz said. “She felt why should she be working extra hours when someone else was doing the same job and was getting more money for it.”

The Office of Personnel Management contends that the policy gives government agencies needed flexibility when competing with private employers for qualified applicants. The policy applies to supervisory and professional positions and is used in only some of those hirings.

“Nobody says I’m not a good lawyer,” Bell said at a press conference. “Then this guy comes in and gets paid more, and the only thing that can account for it is that he was a white male and he looked like he knew what he was doing.”

Bell contended that the policy allowed HUD to pay Renno more than her, even though she was more qualified and had more experience. She is seeking roughly $4,000 in back pay and a judicial determination that the policy violates laws against sexual and racial discrimination.

In 1984, Equal Rights Advocates won a $5-million settlement in a suit over similar issues on behalf of women who worked for Allstate Insurance. The suit brought on behalf of Bell is the first to challenge the system in the federal government.