US Justice Dept. Appeals Order Reinstating Obama-Era Pay-Data Rule
"The notice of appeal filed today has no effect on the requirement that [employers] submit 2017 and 2018 EEO-1 Component 2 data by September 30, 2019," the Justice Department said in a court filing.
May 03, 2019 at 05:57 PM
4 minute read
Updated at 7 p.m.
The U.S. Justice Department on Friday said it was appealing a Washington trial judge's order that reinstated an Obama-era rule requiring companies with more than 100 employees to report wage information based on race, ethnicity and sex.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan had spurned the Trump administration's efforts to stop the rule, which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adopted as one measure to help the agency police workplace pay inequities. Business advocates have countered that the broader collection of data will be burdensome and that the information could be subject to misinterpretation.
Chutkan, ruling last month, set a Sept. 30 deadline for the EEOC to collect pay-data information for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. The EEOC on Friday said it planned to post a statement to its website informing companies that are required to submit pay data “that the notice of appeal filed today has no effect on the requirement that they submit 2017 and 2018 EEO-1 Component 2 data by September 30, 2019.”
The EEOC has said it was taking steps to comply with the judge's order, which the agency said raised “significant practical challenges.” Chutkan showed no sympathy to the employer community, saying companies—and regulatory agencies—were long on notice that the pause in enforcing the pay-data rule could be overturned.
The Justice Department's appeal notice, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, will push the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Newly confirmed D.C. Circuit judge Neomi Rao, who made her debut Friday on the court, would be recused from hearing the case. Rao, formerly the Trump administration's regulatory czar, played a central role in stopping the Obama-era pay collection rule. The Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, was the named defendant in the suit, brought by the National Women's Law Center in 2017.
In an April 26 client advisory, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius partners W. John Lee in Philadelphia and Sharon Perley Masling in Washington said “employers should start thinking about what processes they need to put in place in order to be ready to report the pay and hours data, as well as the implications of submitting such data.”
They added: “We presume that DOJ will appeal the judge's order and seek a stay of the order. If the appeals court stays the judge's order and reinstates OMB's original stay, then employers would not have to report the data until the appeal was resolved. There are no guarantees, however—either with respect to whether DOJ will file an appeal or whether the appeals court will grant a stay.”
Littler Mendelson shareholder James Paretti Jr. in Washington said in an advisory on Thursday: “There is, of course, the possibility that the government may appeal and/or seek a stay of the court's decision. Absent such action, however, it appears that covered employers may be required to report this compensation data, at least for the periods of time covered by the court's order.”
A team from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe noted in an advisory that there's no certainty any appeal would soon pause enforcement of the pay-data rule. The Orrick lawyers encouraged employers to “visit the EEOC website regularly for update” on an area of the law that is “rapidly evolving.”
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 AllA Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute read'Appropriate Relief'?: Google Offers Remedy Concessions in DOJ Antitrust Fight
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Blake Lively's claims that movie co-star launched smear campaign gets support in publicist's suit
- 2Middle District of Pennsylvania's U.S. Attorney Announces Resignation
- 3Vinson & Elkins: Traditional Energy Practice Meets Energy Transition
- 4After 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
- 5Trailblazing Pennsylvania Judge Sylvia Rambo Dies at 88
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