EEOC’s Revised Proposal to Collect Pay Data Keeps Focus on Pay Discrimination Agenda

18 July 2016 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Carmen N. Decot (Couden)

As we reported previously, enforcement of equal pay laws and remedying of pay disparities continue to be top priorities for the U.S.Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and U.S. Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). The EEOC again highlighted this ongoing focus this past week when it announced revisions to its February 2016 proposal to collect pay and hours-worked data as part of the annual EEO-1 reporting process. In announcing the revised proposal, EEOC Chair Jenny Yang emphasized the agency’s view that pay discrimination remains a “persistent problem” for many workers and reiterated the government’s belief that “[c]ollecting pay data is a significant step forward in addressing discriminatory pay practices.” According to the Q&As accompanying the EEOC’s EEO-1 reporting changes, the EEOC and OFCCP will use the pay data collected via the annual EEO-1 reports to “focus agency investigations,” evaluate complaints regarding pay discrimination, and identify statistical pay disparities warranting further review.

To the likely chagrin of many, and despite having received numerous comments from employer advocates regarding the significant burden the new EEO-1 reporting requirements would impose, as well as the fact that the summary data collected is not likely to be helpful in actually identifying pay discrimination if and when it is occurring, the EEOC’s revised proposal is very similar to its original February 2016 proposal. Employers with 100 or more employees will still be required to report W-2 wages for 10 EEO-1 job classifications and according to 12 different pay bands. Additionally, employers will still be required to report on the number of hours worked by both exempt and nonexempt employees. Finally, the 10 EEO-1 job categories and the 12 proposed pay bands for reporting remain unchanged.

However, the EEOC’s revised proposal does change the EEO-1 filing deadline and the workforce snapshot period to be used for EEO-1 reporting. Instead of the current July through September snapshot period and September 30 deadline, the EEOC’s revised proposal changes the EEO-1 filing deadline to March 31 of each year and modifies the workforce snapshot period to a pay period between October 1 and December 31 of the reporting year. Employers will, therefore, be required to submit their current EEO-1 reports (without pay and hours data) for 2016 by September 30, 2016, and then will have until March 31, 2018, to submit their EEO-1 reports (with pay and hours data) for 2017. This change is designed to provide employers with additional time to prepare for the new reporting requirements and will enable employers to use year-end W-2 earnings (Box 1 of the W-2 form) for purposes of EEO-1 reporting. Additionally, the revised rule provides some clarification regarding the method of reporting hours of work for exempt employees.

The revised pay data collection proposal will be subject to a new 30-day comment period, which ends on August 15, 2016. The EEOC is planning to issue its final EEO-1 form revisions by September 30, 2016.

Given the EEOC’s and OFCCP’s continuing focus on pay disparities and the additional data they will soon have at their disposal, a review of current pay systems and a comprehensive pay equity analysis should be a top priority for employers. Any such review should be completed with the assistance of counsel (in order to invoke the protection of the attorney-client privilege) and should, at minimum, analyze whether there are gender, race, or ethnicity-based disparities in compensation. In order to determine fully whether such disparities exist, employers will need to review individualized employee data and should take into account factors that may explain differences in pay, including, but not limited to, job duties, location, education, prior experience, date of hire, time in job, performance, and other relevant factors. If disparities are identified that cannot be explained by legitimate, nondiscriminatory business factors, employers should work with counsel to eliminate any disparities going forward and should evaluate whether additional measures, such as modifications to policies or adjustments to individual pay, are warranted.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Hatch Comments on DNC-Related Construction Projects in Milwaukee
14 June 2019
Milwaukee Business Journal
Bernard Quoted on Debt-Relief Settlement with ITT Tech Lender
14 June 2019
Wall Street Journal
Dodd and Daughter Profiled in Wisconsin Golf
13 June 2019
Wisconsin Golf
Brinckerhoff Comments on SCOTUS Ruling in Patent Case
11 June 2019
Intellectual Property Magazine
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ
Foley's Government Contracts Annual Update
16 October 2019
Liviona, MI