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 NYC Law Requires Two-Step Background Checks and Expands List of Pre-Adverse Action Factors
July 26, 2021
The New York City Fair Chance Act (FCA) amendments expand protections for individuals with a criminal record and impose new obligations on employers that conduct background checks. The changes take effect July 29, 2021. The amendments...
Read More ->
Employment Class Action Blog
Arbitration Agreement with Conflicting Provision in Two Languages Saved by FAA Default Rule
July 22, 2021
The California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District recently added clarity to a somewhat puzzling trial court decision that had sent an employment dispute to nonbinding arbitration. See Western Bagel Co. Inc. v. Superior Court...
Read More ->
Employment Law Spotlight
Pennsylvania Employers Beware: The State’s Highest Court Expands the Bounds of Compensable Time
July 22, 2021
In a 5-2 decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that employers in the state must now pay employees for time spent on their premises when waiting for – and undergoing – required security searches. The court explained that this period...
Read More ->
Employment Law Spotlight
Update on the NY HERO Act: What the NY COVID-19 Worker Protection Law Means for Employers
By Justin A. Guilfoyle
July 20, 2021
On May 5, 2021, Governor Cuomo signed the New York Health and Essential Rights Act (NY HERO Act) into law. As discussed in an earlier BakerHostetler post, this law mandates extensive new workplace health and safety protections in response...
Read More ->
Employment Class Action Blog
Has the 11th Circuit Clarified the Transportation Worker Exemption of the FAA or Just Created a Circuit Split?
By John B. Lewis
July 19, 2021
In a published June 22 opinion, the Eleventh Circuit laid out a clear test for the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) Section 1 exemption. It answered the reoccurring question “Who is a transportation worker?” See Hamrick v. Partsfleet, LLC...
Read More ->