|
4430 REVIEW DENIED Lawyers employed by an organization that contracts to furnish lawyers to a county to work under the control of County Counsel are not common law employees of the county or of County Counsel; in alleging that female attorneys working for the organization were paid less than male attorneys employed by County Counsel for doing approximately the same work, plaintiff used an incorrect comparator, since both the private organization and County Counsel employed a substantial number of male and female attorneys; undisputed evidence that the wage disparity between the private organization and County Counsel was based on an acceptable business reason other than gender -- the cost savings for which the county contracted -- was found sufficient to justify summary judgment for defendants in the action.CitationHALL v COUNTY (Contracted Lawyers) 148 CA4 318 [See: 29 USC 206; LabC 1197.5; Metropolitan v Superior Court 32 C4 491]
|
|
