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.”
![](https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2018/09/Tanya-S.-Chutkan-Article-201809101928.jpg)
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:
Read more:
DC Judge Scolds US Lawyers Over Delay in Pay-Data Compliance
Ex-Sidley Associate, Alito Clerk Named Acting Head of Trump Regulatory Portal
Judge's Pay-Data Ruling, a Trump Rebuke, Puts New Squeeze on Employers
Federal Judge Hits Trump Agency for 'Illegal' Move to Stop New Pay-Data Rule
Neomi Rao, Overcoming Character Questions, Is Confirmed to DC Circuit
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
© 2025 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 All![Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/delbizcourt/contrib/content/uploads/sites/399/2023/05/securities-litigation-767x633.jpg)
Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
3 minute read![Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2024/05/US-Department-of-Justice-Building-2022-006-767x633-8.jpg)
Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
3 minute read![Investor Sues in New York to Block $175M Bitcoin Merger Investor Sues in New York to Block $175M Bitcoin Merger](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/f0/03/89d810cb48599bcaa9582fe55e0e/side-view-of-supreme-court-at-60-center-street-new-york-767x633.jpg)
![Landlord Must Pay Prevailing Tenants' $21K Attorney Fees in Commercial Lease Dispute, Appellate Court Rules Landlord Must Pay Prevailing Tenants' $21K Attorney Fees in Commercial Lease Dispute, Appellate Court Rules](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2024/07/lease-agreement-767x633.jpg)
Landlord Must Pay Prevailing Tenants' $21K Attorney Fees in Commercial Lease Dispute, Appellate Court Rules
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How Alzheimer’s and Other Cognitive Diseases Affect Guardianship, POAs and Estate Planning
- 2How Lower Courts Are Interpreting Justices' Decision in 'Muldrow v. City of St. Louis'
- 3Phantom Income/Retained Earnings and the Potential for Inflated Support
- 4Should a Financially Dependent Child Who Rejects One Parent Still Be Emancipated?
- 5Advising Clients on Special Needs Trusts
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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