Suspending Obama-Era Pay Data Rule Was Lawful, DOJ Tells Court
The U.S. Justice Department contends the advocacy groups who sued over the suspension of the pay-collection rule do not have standing to bring the claims and that there is no statutory provision mandating the disclosure of the requested data.
February 14, 2018 at 11:28 AM
4 minute read
Federal budget officers are defending their authority to suspend an Obama-era pay data collection rule that would require more U.S. companies to make greater disclosures about employee compensation.
Employee rights advocates last year sued Trump administration officials after they stayed the rule, which was aimed at addressing the gender wage gap. The lawsuit, filed last year in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, targets the Office of Budget Management and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The complaint alleged that Trump officials thwarted implementation of the rule without public comment and at the behest of special interest groups. Trump officials, responding this week to the suit, argued that their decision falls within agency authority.
Companies with more than 100 employees would have been required to report to the EEOC pay data by race, ethnicity and gender on a required EEO-1 form. Democracy Forward and the National Women's Law Center, the plaintiffs in the case, are urging a judge to reinstate the requirement.
The Trump budget office stopped the rule through the Paperwork Reduction Act, which gives the Office of Budget Management the power to determine whether a burden was imposed by the collection of information and to oversee collection of information.
The response, filed by the U.S. Justice Department, argued the advocacy groups do not have standing to bring the claims and that there is no statutory provision mandating the disclosure of pay data.
“The challenged action to review and stay maintains the status quo because the EEOC has never collected—let alone published—the pay data of which plaintiffs now claim to be deprived,” the Justice Department said in court papers. “Nor can plaintiffs show that their inability to obtain pay data is caused by OMB where, as here, the EEOC is under no statutory obligation to disclose the data even if collected, and indeed, as plaintiffs acknowledge, has discretion over whether to disclose the same.”
The advocacy groups say the new collection of pay data is crucial to addressing the pay gap, which estimates women make 80 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts. This difference is even more drastic for women of color, with Latina and African-American women making $0.54 and $0.63 cents on the dollar compared to white men. The collection would have affected 60,886 employers, or about 63 million workers.
Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, pushed back against the requirement, calling it burdensome and arguing it would provide an inaccurate snapshot of the workforce, potentially opening up companies to liability. The Chamber last year called for budget director Mick Mulvaney to revisit the rule.
The EEOC itself is poised for change. President Donald Trump's picks—Janet Dhillon, former Burlington Stores general counsel, and West Point professor Daniel Gade—have not yet been approved by the U.S. Senate.
Victoria Lipnic, the acting chair, suggested last year that, under a Republican majority, the commission may not continue to push for pay data collection efforts. She said she did not vote for the original EEO-1 rule change.
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
© 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 AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readAmir Ali, MacArthur Justice Center Director, Confirmed to DC District Court
From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readConservative Boutiques That Backed Trump Reap Their Rewards
Trending Stories
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