US Justice Dept. Appeals Order Reinstating Obama-Era Pay-Data Rule
"The notice of appeal filed today has no effect on the requirement that [employers] submit 2017 and 2018 EEO-1 Component 2 data by September 30, 2019," the Justice Department said in a court filing.
May 03, 2019 at 05:57 PM
4 minute read
Updated at 7 p.m.
The U.S. Justice Department on Friday said it was appealing a Washington trial judge's order that reinstated an Obama-era rule requiring companies with more than 100 employees to report wage information based on race, ethnicity and sex.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan had spurned the Trump administration's efforts to stop the rule, which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adopted as one measure to help the agency police workplace pay inequities. Business advocates have countered that the broader collection of data will be burdensome and that the information could be subject to misinterpretation.
Chutkan, ruling last month, set a Sept. 30 deadline for the EEOC to collect pay-data information for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. The EEOC on Friday said it planned to post a statement to its website informing companies that are required to submit pay data “that the notice of appeal filed today has no effect on the requirement that they submit 2017 and 2018 EEO-1 Component 2 data by September 30, 2019.”
The EEOC has said it was taking steps to comply with the judge's order, which the agency said raised “significant practical challenges.” Chutkan showed no sympathy to the employer community, saying companies—and regulatory agencies—were long on notice that the pause in enforcing the pay-data rule could be overturned.
The Justice Department's appeal notice, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, will push the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Newly confirmed D.C. Circuit judge Neomi Rao, who made her debut Friday on the court, would be recused from hearing the case. Rao, formerly the Trump administration's regulatory czar, played a central role in stopping the Obama-era pay collection rule. The Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, was the named defendant in the suit, brought by the National Women's Law Center in 2017.
In an April 26 client advisory, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius partners W. John Lee in Philadelphia and Sharon Perley Masling in Washington said “employers should start thinking about what processes they need to put in place in order to be ready to report the pay and hours data, as well as the implications of submitting such data.”
They added: “We presume that DOJ will appeal the judge's order and seek a stay of the order. If the appeals court stays the judge's order and reinstates OMB's original stay, then employers would not have to report the data until the appeal was resolved. There are no guarantees, however—either with respect to whether DOJ will file an appeal or whether the appeals court will grant a stay.”
Littler Mendelson shareholder James Paretti Jr. in Washington said in an advisory on Thursday: “There is, of course, the possibility that the government may appeal and/or seek a stay of the court's decision. Absent such action, however, it appears that covered employers may be required to report this compensation data, at least for the periods of time covered by the court's order.”
A team from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe noted in an advisory that there's no certainty any appeal would soon pause enforcement of the pay-data rule. The Orrick lawyers encouraged employers to “visit the EEOC website regularly for update” on an area of the law that is “rapidly evolving.”
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 AllWhich 1-Judge Division Districts Have Adopted Anti-Forum Shopping Guidance?
Bitnomial Exchange Preemptively Sues SEC Over Alleged Enforcement Conflict With CFTC
4 minute read'Effective Remedy'?: DOJ Unveils Corrective Action Plan in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Fox Rothschild partner Glenn S. Grindlinger has entered an appearance for Garage Management Company in a pending lawsuit over alleged wage-and-hour violations. The case was filed Aug. 31 in New York Southern District Court by the Abdul Hassan Law Group on behalf of a manual worker who contends that he was not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, is 1:24-cv-06610, Bailey v. Garage Management Company LLC.
Who Got The Work
Veronica M. Keithley of Stoel Rives has entered an appearance for Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC in a pending environmental lawsuit. The suit, filed Aug. 12 in Washington Western District Court by Kampmeier & Knutsen on behalf of Communities for a Healthy Bay, seeks to declare that the defendant has violated the Clean Water Act by releasing stormwater discharges on Puget Sound and Commencement Bay. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is 3:24-cv-05662, Communities for a Healthy Bay v. Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC.
Who Got The Work
Caroline Pignatelli of Cooley has entered an appearance for law firm Cooley, partner Matt Hallinan, retired partner Michael Tu and a pair of Cooley associates in a pending fraud lawsuit related to the firm's representation of startup company Carbon IQ and founder Benjamin Cantey. The case, filed Sept. 26 in New Jersey District Court by the DalCortivo Law Offices on behalf of Gould Ventures and member Jason Gould, contends that the defendants deliberately or recklessly concealed critical information from the plaintiffs regarding fraud allegations against Cantey. Gould claims that he would not have accepted a position on Carbon IQ's board of directors or made a 2022 investment in the company if the fraud allegations had been disclosed. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch, is 3:24-cv-09485, Gould Ventures, LLC et al v. Cooley, LLP et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have stepped in to represent PDD Holdings, the operator of online marketplaces Pinduoduo and Temu, in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Sept. 30 in New York Eastern District Court by Labaton Keller Sucharow and VanOverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, contends that the defendants concealed information that rendered the growth of PDD unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD’s business, including merchant policies that made it unprofitable for vendors to do business on PDD platforms; malware issues on PDD applications; and PDD’s failure to implement effective compliance systems. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-06881, Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund v. Pdd Holdings Inc. et al.
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