Alerts

New EEOC Equal Pay Reporting Proposal

Alerts / February 8, 2016

On January 29, 2016, the seventh anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced its proposed addition of pay data to currently required EEO-1 reports. The announcement has been the subject of much speculation for employers and attorneys, with many dreading an additional layer of administrative expenses for businesses. Employers should beware, however, because this effort may be a Trojan horse, intended to facilitate the EEOC’s future litigation efforts.

When would the changes take effect? Which employers are covered?

The proposal is expected to be finalized by September 2016. The first reports are projected to be due in fall 2017, and would cover private employers with at least 100 employees. At this point, however, the rule is only a proposal.

What is the purpose of the proposal?

The new reporting requirements are intended to facilitate equal pay by assisting the EEOC “in identifying possible pay discrimination, and assist[ing] employers in promoting equal pay in their workplaces.” This compensation data would be in addition to employment information employers are currently required to submit annually on race and gender. The collective data would then be published, ostensibly to “facilitate voluntary compliance” with equal pay laws.

What pay data would be reported?

The reported data would include employees’ W-2 earnings and hours worked. This data would be submitted in the aggregate, grouped by salary range and job category. The reports would not include employee names, Social Security numbers, or other identifying information. The EEOC is currently seeking input from employers regarding how to report hours worked for salaried employees who do not usually record their working hours.

What are the practical implications for employers?

The implications are legal, practical, and potentially detrimental to reporting entities. Employers will face an additional administrative burden annually in compiling this significant data, and then organizing findings by race and gender. While it is not entirely clear how the EEOC intends to use this data, it will likely strengthen the EEOC’s (and private attorneys’) ability to affirmatively bring suit for perceived pay discrimination. To avoid exposure, employers will have to engage in further data analysis and, possibly, more detailed explanations for pay discrepancies to avoid the appearance of unequal pay. In addition, some employers may feel uneasy about publishing salary or wage information for certain positions.

What does this mean for the EEOC’s enforcement procedures?

These changes strengthen the EEOC’s ability to sue employers without first identifying a plaintiff, and reflect a trend: the EEOC has become increasingly proactive in seeking evidence of discrimination, as opposed to its prior, predominantly passive role in investigating claims brought before it by employees.

What can employers do now?

Employers should act now to carefully analyze, correct, or be prepared to explain the reasons for any potential disparities when the new reporting requirements take effect. To minimize risk of exposure, employers may wish to conduct internal, privileged audits and look for potential issues before the 2017 start date. For example, an employer might create a report (based on its current understanding of the new EEOC requirements) for the past four or five fiscal years to better understand how its reports will appear to the EEOC, and so it can attempt to correct pay disparities or better understand and identify their legitimate causes, such as differences in education, skill, experience, and productivity. Employers should use the time before implementation to minimize negative impact, and ensure that they are able to accurately track and provide required pay data.

Employers should submit written comments on the proposed requirements prior to April 1, 2016, expressing concern about the administrative burden and the potentially inaccurate assessment of an employer’s pay practices based solely on raw numerical averages. Employers should object to reporting requirements that fail to account for other legitimate factors affecting pay discrepancies, such as education, experience, and skill level. Moreover, small employers should voice concern that, due to small numbers in their total workforce or specific positions, data sampling from such a limited pool is not statistically significant. Indeed, Mark Twain’s famous insight may cut to the core of this issue: there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

If you have any questions about this alert, please contact any member of BakerHostetler's Employment Group.

Authorship credit: Ashley M. Schachter and Kevin W. Shaughnessy


Baker & Hostetler LLP publications are intended to inform our clients and other friends of the firm about current legal developments of general interest. They should not be construed as legal advice, and readers should not act upon the information contained in these publications without professional counsel. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you written information about our qualifications and experience.

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
Employment Law Spotlight
New York City Expands Paid Sick Leave Law With Creation Of ‘Safe Time’
November 13, 2017
On Monday, Nov. 6, newly re-elected Mayor Bill de Blasio signed into law “Intro. 1313-A,” a bill that amends and expands the coverage of New York City’s paid sick leave law. The bill renames the sick leave law as the “Earned Safe and Sick...
Read More ->
Employment Class Action Blog
Court Grants Summary Judgment For Employer In Tip Credit Collective Action
November 9, 2017
What? I Need a Valid Claim to Represent a Class?! With scores of collective actions being filed every month and many courts willing to issue conditional certification on even very weak claims, it’s easy to forget that, yes, it’s important...
Read More ->
Employment Class Action Blog
California Court Denies Conditional Certification of “Regular Rate” Overtime Case
November 6, 2017
With waves of cases already having addressed common targets for wage and hour litigation – assistant managers, healthcare workers, loan officers, donning and doffing claims, and the like – cases alleging more arcane claimed violations are...
Read More ->
Employment Class Action Blog
The Next Employment Class Action Lawsuit That Will Blindside You
November 2, 2017
Little-known Illinois statute now a source of class claims against employers Do any of your office systems involve fingerprint scans or facial recognition? If so, and if you have any Illinois business operations, you may soon become a...
Read More ->
Employment Law Spotlight
New California Law Prohibits Asking Job Applicants About Their Salary History
October 22, 2017
A new California law (AB 168) was signed by Governor Jerry Brown on October 12, 2017 that prohibits employers from inquiring about the salary histories of its job applicants. AB 168, which takes effect on January 1, 2018, and applies to...
Read More ->