EEOC Balks at Quick Revival of Pay-Data Rule
"The EEOC will need to modify or adjust the deadlines for employers to collect retroactively 2018 Component 2 pay data," the Justice Department told a Washington federal district judge.
April 03, 2019 at 08:29 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge's reinstatement of an Obama-era workforce pay-data disclosure rule will pose “significant practical challenges” for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and require the adjustment of deadlines imposed on employers, the U.S. Justice Department said Wednesday in a new court filing.
The Justice Department was responding to a court order issued by Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who reinstated the pay-data rule last month after concluding the Trump administration unlawfully scuttled it. The rule was crafted as a measure for the government to investigate and combat workplace inequality.
Business advocates have argued the new data-collection rule, which requires large employers to provide pay information based on gender, race and ethnicity, is onerous and could be misinterpreted without greater context. Neomi Rao, then the Trump administration's regulatory czar, played a lead role in freezing the Obama-era rule.
The acting chairwoman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Victoria Lipnic, has concluded the agency must “adjust the collection deadline to September 30, 2019, in order to accommodate the significant practical challenges for the EEOC to collect” the compensation data from employers, the Justice Department said in its court filing Wednesday.
The government told Chutkan it would rely on an outside data and analytics contractor—at a cost of $3 million—to perform the collection of data that employers are now required to report to the EEOC.
The agency's chief data officer, Samuel Haffer, raised his concerns to the court in a declaration that was attached to Wednesday's filing. “The proposed timeline for undertaking and closing a collection of Component 2 data by September 30, 2019, raises significant issues with data validity and data reliability,” said Haffer, named the agency's data officer in November 2017.
Haffer “warns that there is a serious risk that the expedited data collection process may yield poor quality data because of the limited quality control and quality assurance measures that would be implemented due to the expedited timeline,” the Justice Department said in its court filing.
The National Payroll Reporting Consortium on March 29 said in a letter to the EEOC and Justice Department that “employers and service providers generally did not develop the data collection mechanisms and did not collect and store the necessary data … to comply with such a report for 2018.”
Chutkan last month, rebuking the government, said employers were long on notice that reinstatement of the Obama-era rule was a possibility. The judge said the revised pay data collection “had been in place for almost a year by the time it was stayed.” Companies, the judge said, “were on notice that the stay could be withdrawn at any time.”
A former Obama-era EEOC commissioner, Jenny Yang, told the National Law Journal in March: “Pay data collection is long overdue.”
The Justice Department did not give any indication Wednesday whether the EEOC would seek to appeal Chutkan's order. That appeal would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where Rao now sits. She would be recused in any appeal there.
Read the Justice Department's new court filing below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Orders Rudy Giuliani to Court Amid Allegations He's Hiding Assets Under Receivership
'A Regressive Institution': SDNY Judge Rakoff Delivers Pointed Remarks on SCOTUS in Recent Appearance
2 minute read- Strong Demand Fuels Growth for Big Four Labor and Employment Firms
- Report: Half of World's Largest Companies Fail Pay Equality Test
- 'Someone Has to Speak Up': Lawyers Suing Jones Day Say Career Risk Is Worth It
- Which U.K. Law Firms Had The Worst Gender Pay Gap Numbers?
- EEOC Balks at Quick Revival of Pay-Data Rule
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250