Judge Chastises EEOC While Setting September Deadline for Collecting Enhanced Pay Data
In issuing her order from the bench Thursday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan lambasted the government for illegally attempting to unwind the Obama-era rule and for misleading the court into believing it could start collecting data immediately if the plaintiffs prevailed.
April 25, 2019 at 12:16 PM
3 minute read
A federal district judge in Washington, D.C., has given the Trump administration until Sept. 30 to start collecting a broader scope of pay data from large U.S. businesses.
In issuing her order from the bench Thursday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan lambasted the government for illegally attempting to unwind the Obama-era rule and for misleading the court into believing it could start collecting data immediately if the plaintiffs prevailed. The rule expands the scope of compensation data businesses are already required to report to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to include information on gender, race and ethnicity.
Chutkan said the plaintiffs and the court agreed to a stay in the case under a “misconception” from the government that it could quickly collect the dated. Chutkan berated the government for later saying it would need until 2021 to start collecting the data, noting that even the government's own lawyer had doubts.
“This is troubling. Even the EEOC's lawyers believe the EEOC is not credible,” Chutkan said, at one point noting the government did not have clean hands in the case.
Chutkan also criticized the government for not notifying employers they would have to start reporting the data, and for not filing a notice in the Federal Register. She also set deadlines for the government to do both.
The National Women's Law Center and the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement sued the Office of Management and Budget in November 2017 after the agency put the new pay-data rule on hold. The rule was supposed to have gone into effect by the annual filing deadline in March 2018.
Business advocates have opposed the implementation of the rule, saying it would lead to administrative hassles and unfairly expose companies to liability based on allegedly misinterpreted data. The rule applies to companies with more than 100 employees and is intended to combat workplace inequity.
Advocates for employees argued the Trump administration didn't act lawfully in attempting to stop the regulation. The plaintiffs alleged the government and OMB buckled to pressure from business interest groups that have complained about the rule being a potential burden and the collection of data being open to misinterpretation.
Chutkan reinstated the rule last month after finding the Trump administration did not take the proper steps to rescind the regulation. Chutkan said the Trump administration's conclusions were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
The acting chairwoman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Victoria Lipnic, said in a recent court filing that the agency would need to adjust it's deadline to Sept. 30 due to the “practical challenges” of collecting the compensation data.
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.
Neomi Rao, then the Trump administration's regulatory czar, played a lead role in freezing the Obama-era rule. She currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and would recuse from any potential appeal of Chutkan's ruling.
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'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readWill Khan Resign? FTC Chair Isn't Saying Whether She'll Stick Around After Giving Up Gavel
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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