California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Industrial Welfare v. Homemakers, Inc., of Los Angeles

Background

A California law required covered employers to pay an overtime premium only to female employees. Homemakers, a company that employs men and women, sued in federal court asking the state rule be declared inconsistent with federal law that forbids sex-based job discrimination. The District Court agreed the state overtime premium conflicted with federal law and declined the state’s invitation to instead require the employer to give the same premium to men.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the female-only overtime requirement clashes with the federal ban on sex discrimination in employment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the California rule conflicts with federal anti-discrimination law and is unenforceable. A different appeals court had reached the opposite result in a separate case, upholding a similar state law and saying any unfairness should be cured by giving the benefit to men. The parties also debated Equal Pay Act and federal agency (EEOC) guidance, but the lower courts questioned whether agency rules could rewrite state law.

Real world impact

The Supreme Court declined to review the case, so the Ninth Circuit’s ruling stands for that region but the legal disagreement between circuits remains. Employers and workers in different states face inconsistent rules about who must receive overtime premiums. Because the decision came by a denial of review rather than a full Supreme Court ruling, the question could be revisited later and the uncertainty may continue.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by Justice Blackmun, dissented from the denial, arguing the Court should have granted review to resolve the important circuit split and help reconcile federal anti-discrimination laws with state ‘‘protective’’ labor rules.