Judge Scolds US Lawyers Over Delay in Pay-Data Compliance
“I am not in the business of running the EEOC nor do I want to set an unrealistic deadline. I can, but I don't think you want me to do that,” U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said at a court hearing in Washington.
March 19, 2019 at 05:04 PM
5 minute read
A Washington federal judge on Tuesday scolded government attorneys for the delay in implementing a court order that reinstated Obama-era rules requiring employers to provide new workforce compensation data on annual reports.
At a hearing, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan told U.S. Justice Department lawyers and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that they must provide her a timeline on their plans to comply with her March 4 order.
Chutkan's ruling this month forces employers with more than 100 workers to provide a breakdown of compensation data based on gender, race and ethnicity. Business advocates had resisted the new pay-data collection rule as burdensome and potentially open to misinterpretation.
The deadline for submitting the new pay information is May 31, but the Justice Department and EEOC have not said whether they plan to appeal Chutkan's order. The EEOC on Monday opened a portal in which employers can submit annual reports, called the EEO-1, but the agency did not provide a mechanism for submitting the new pay information.
The EEOC has indicated it was “working diligently on next steps in the wake of the court's order” and said it would provide “further information as soon as possible.”
“The longer you wait, the longer it will take for employers to comply,” Chutkan said at Tuesday's hearing in Washington's federal district court. “The briefing in this case was expedited because of the time constraints.” She added: “You have had two weeks. You're still saying, 'Let's wait and see.' Why? That doesn't make sense to me.”
The Trump administration, cheered by the business community, scuttled the Obama-era pay-data rule last year, and the move led to a lawsuit by the National Women's Law Center and Democracy Forward Foundation.
Chutkan called the effort to stop implementation of the rule, led by Neomi Rao, who was recently confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, an unlawful administrative action. Rao formerly led the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Chutkan's ruling has created uncertainty for employers, even if the judge noted that companies “were on notice that the stay could be withdrawn at any time.”
Klair Fitzpatrick, a Morgan, Lewis & Bockius employment partner in Philadelphia, said in a recent interview that clients were preparing to comply with the changes, even though they believe they impose “burdensome requirements and have the potential to be misused.”
On the flip side, Jenny Yang, a former Obama-era EEOC commissioner, said recently that “pay data collection is long overdue.”
Chutkan set Tuesday's hearing quickly after the plaintiffs raised questions about the EEOC's compliance with the judge's order. The plaintiffs said government lawyers had shown an “inability or unwillingness to provide any information about their plans” to comply with Chutkan's reinstatement of the Obama-era rules.
Further delay in implementing the new pay-data rule “risks logistical difficulties and gaps in employer compliance,” the plaintiffs said in a court filing.
Justice Department attorney Tamra Moore told the judge that employers were only prepared to provide the data typically required every year and the agency was preparing its systems to ensure it could take in and process the new information. Chutkan said the government should have been better prepared in the event it lost in court.
Moore said it was possible the EEOC would not require employers to submit the new information by May 31. Chutkan said she did not want to order a specific deadline and allow the agency to set its schedule, but she ordered the government to provide her a more concrete plan about its next steps.
“I want to hear more than you are 'working diligently,'” Chutkan said. “I realize there are issues and employers find this burdensome but they need guidance.”
Chutkan added: “I am not in the business of running the EEOC nor do I want to set an unrealistic deadline. I can, but I don't think you want me to do that.”
The government has until April 3 to provide Chutkan with information about how it plans to comply with her order.
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 AllTrump Picks Personal Criminal Defense Lawyers for Solicitor General, Deputy Attorney General
'Health Care Behemoth'?: DOJ Seeks Injunction Blocking $3.3B UnitedHealth Merger Proposal
3 minute readFreshfields Hires DOJ Official, Squire Taps Paul Hastings Atty for US Antitrust Head
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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