Trump Administration Unlawfully Blocked Pay Data Rule, New Suit Alleges
“If it wasn't clear before, it's crystal clear now: women—and the families relying on women's paychecks—are at the bottom of the Trump administration's agenda,” said Emily Martin, general counsel to the National Women's Law Center. “By stopping the equal pay data collection, this administration has shown that its loyalties lie with corporate employers who want to hide pay discrimination under the rug. We will not allow this to go unchallenged.”
November 15, 2017 at 03:40 PM
5 minute read
The Trump administration illegally blocked an Obama-era rule that would have required employers to provide more employee-pay data as part of an effort to tackle the wage gap, advocacy groups contend in a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday that seeks to reinstate the measure.
The National Women's Law Center and Labor Council for Latin American Advancement sued the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and various government officials. President Donald Trump officials in August scuttled a measure that would have required employers with 100 or more employees to report pay for their workers by race, gender and ethnicity.
The change to the annual EEO-1 report, which is used by the commission and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to enforce discrimination laws, would have gone into effect in March.
Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Equal Employment Advisory Council, opposed the requirements, claiming that the revised rule would lead to administrative hassles and unfairly open them to liability. The Trump administration's budget office asked the EEOC to revisit the pay data collection but offered no timeline or specifics.
Advocacy groups have warned OMB director Mick Mulvaney and other officials that the new data reporting requirements could be “critically important” to help identify compensation discrimination. Several groups, including the National Women's Law Center, filed public records requests seeking information on how Trump officials came to their decision to block the reporting rule.
Officials from the budget office and the EEOC did not immediately respond to request for comment Wednesday.
The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia claims that budget officials eliminated the rule—the result of a six-year administrative process—with no explanation and no opportunity for public comment. The groups argued that the administration's move has left 60,000 employers covered by the rule with the power “to shield race and gender pay gaps from scrutiny.”
“If it wasn't clear before, it's crystal clear now: women—and the families relying on women's paychecks—are at the bottom of the Trump administration's agenda,” said Emily Martin, general counsel to the National Women's Law Center, which filed the suit with a team from the Democracy Forward Foundation. “By stopping the equal pay data collection, this administration has shown that its loyalties lie with corporate employers who want to hide pay discrimination under the rug. We will not allow this to go unchallenged.”
The lawsuit noted statistics that women working full time are typically paid 80 cents for every dollar their male counterparts make. The gap is even larger for women of color. Black women typically make 63 cents, Native American women only 57 cents and Latinas only 54 cents for every dollar compared to a white man for comparable work, according to the groups. The complaint said the wage gap is consistent in nearly every occupation.
The suit claimed that recent survey data indicates 60 percent of workers in the private sector are discouraged or prohibited from discussing pay.
“Yet, a dearth of comparative salary and wage information may contribute to the persistence of race and gender pay gaps, and limit attempts to remedy them,” according to the lawsuit. The complaint continues: “As a result, employees face significant obstacles in gathering the information that would indicate they have experienced pay discrimination, which undermines their ability to challenge such discrimination. And given the absence of legal obligations to identify wage gaps and report employee pay data, employers lack incentives to undertake their own analysis that could proactively correct pay disparities.”
The lawsuit is posted below:
Read more:
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'The Tobacco Industry of This Decade': Slew of Class Actions Accuse DraftKings of Creating Addicts
5 minute read4th Circuit Revives Racial Harassment Lawsuit Against North Carolina School District
3 minute readKhan Defends FTC Tenure, Does Not Address Post-Inauguration Plans
‘Old Home Week’: Justice Breyer Hears Challenge to Cruise Ship Ordinance in 1st Circuit
Trending Stories
- 1Sullivan & Cromwell Signals 5-Day RTO Expectation as Law Firms Remain Split on Optimal Attendance
- 2CLOSED: These Georgia Courts Won't Open Jan. 10
- 3Volkswagen Hit With Consumer Class Action Alleging Defective SUV Engines
- 4‘Be Comfortable With the Uncomfortable’
- 5Here's What Corporate Litigators Expect Delaware Courts to Address in 2025
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