Advocates Push Court to Decide Pay Data Lawsuit Against Trump Administration
Recent data show that women make 80 cents on the dollar, compared with male counterparts. For women of color, the gap is larger. Latina women make 53 cents and African-American women make 63 cents on the dollar compared with white men.
October 31, 2018 at 04:44 PM
4 minute read
Equal-pay advocates filed a motion Wednesday pushing a federal judge to decide whether the Trump administration's move last year to scuttle a measure that would have required businesses to report its pay data was illegal.
Attorneys with Democracy Forward, which represent the National Women's Law Center and the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, moved for summary judgment in the lawsuit that aims to reverse the rollback of the reporting requirement on an annual report required by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission aimed at targeting pay discrepancies.
The advocacy groups suggest that the government cowed to business groups that loathed the requirement.
“This data is essential to try to limit pay disparities between women and people of color,” said Robin Thurston, Democracy Forward's senior counsel. “The administration's prolonged stay is hurting people who are making less money than they should.”
The EEOC under the Obama administration cleared a measure that would have required companies to include on an annual report, the EEO1, pay information as well as gender, race and ethnicity breakdown for its workers. This move was aimed at addressing the pay gaps for women and people of color. Recent data show that women make 80 cents on the dollar, compared with male counterparts. For women of color, the gap is larger. Latina women make 53 cents and African-American women make 63 cents on the dollar compared with white men.
Before the new reporting requirements took effect, however, the administration rolled back that provision through the Office of Management and Budget Office in August 2017. The advocates filed the lawsuit against the OMB and the EEOC in November, arguing that the administration did not have the right to scuttle this requirement, and it dismissed a six-year regulatory process the agency took on to craft the new reporting requirements.
U.S. Department of Justice attorneys, representing the government agencies, declined to comment.
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.
Since the lawsuit was filed, the groups have been fighting for standing in the case. The motion filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia aims to address the dispute on the merits to attempt to reinstate the reporting requirement as soon as possible, Thurston said.
Democracy Forward attorneys also point to the role of the Trump administration's Neomi Rao, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs administrator who, according to documents the groups obtained through open records requests, said there was no “practical utility” to collect employee pay data. Rao was reportedly interviewed by President Donald Trump to fill the vacancy left on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit when Brett Kavanaugh moved up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Information requested through Freedom of Information Act requests by the advocates show that industry lobbyists reached out to then-OMB director Mick Mulvaney, Rao and other administration officials from February through August 2017, according to Democracy Forward. The lawsuit is filed against the OMB and the EEOC and names Mulvaney, Rao and EEOC chairwoman Victoria Lipnic as defendants.
“It's a disturbing pattern of the Trump administration to hide behind closed doors with industry lobbyists when halting worker protections,” Thurston said. “In rolling back equal pay requirements, the Trump administration is wrong on the law and wrong in its continued effort to disregard the impact of pay disparities suffered by millions of women, minorities and other working Americans.”
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 All'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute read5th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
5 minute readDOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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