Close
Updated:

Federal court won’t enjoin Philly’s proposed salary-history rule, tosses the entire lawsuit.

by

The uncertain future of a Philadelphia law that would preclude employers from asking job applicants and employees about their salary history has local companies about as calm and at ease as the Teen Titans doing the pee-pee dance.

Let’s recap…

  • December 2016 – City Council proposes the salary history question ban (more on that here)
  • January 2017 – Mayor Kenney signs the bill. It is scheduled to take effect on May 23, 2017 (more on that here)
  • April 2017 – The Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce sues in federal court to block the law (more on that here)
  • April 2017 – In solidarity with the Chamber, some kids and I stage a protest by commandeering the Beanstalk Bounce at Storybook Land (more on that here)
  • April 2017 – Judge Goldberg stays the new law pending adjudication of the Chamber’s motion for a preliminary injunction (more on that here)

And yesterday, Judge Goldberg denied said injunction request because the Chamber lacked standing. Here’s a short explanation from the 10-page opinion, which I’ve tightened up a bit so that you can better understand it:

The Chamber must identify a member who will suffer specific harm as a result of the Ordinance. The Chamber’s broad allegations about its members simply do not… Nor has the Chamber attached any affidavit to the Complaint detailing how any specific member would suffer harm in the Complaint. Thus, the Chamber has failed to demonstrate through specific facts that one or more of its members will be directly affected by the Ordinance, and Itherefore cannot determine whether the Chamber’s members would have standing to bring this suit. Because the Chamber has not met its burden to show that at least one of its members would have standing to bring this suit, I will grant the City’s motion and dismiss the Complaint without prejudice.

So, the City wins the battle. But, maybe not the war. You see, although the Court denied the injunction and tossed the case, it provided the Chamber with a roadmap on how to re-file and have the Court decide the injunction on the merits later on. I would expect for that re-filing to happen faster than Marge Simpson can fill up Mr. Burns’ sweet ride with petroleum distillate and revulcanize those tires. What’s he rollin’ on? 30s?

In the meantime: