California Isn’t Waiting for the Feds to Resuscitate EEO-1 Reporting

19 October 2020 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Jonathan A. Stimler

The California legislature just took the matter of gender and race/ethnicity pay gaps into its own hands by mandating employer pay information reporting.

This action follows in the wake of the controversial federal pay reporting initiative becoming bogged down in litigation and meeting with substantial expense and privacy-related opposition, leading to the eventual pausing of data collection efforts by the Trump administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  As we previously explained, under the federal initiative, the EEOC was to require all private sector employers with 100 or more employees, and certain other employers, such as those contracting or first-tier subcontracting with the federal government, that annually file an EEO-1 report to provide additional information containing company employment data categorized and reported by race/ethnicity, gender and job category. 

With that federal pay data collection at a standstill, on September 30, 2020, California generated its own reporting requirement by passing Senate Bill No. 973, which provides that private employers with 100 or more employees that are required to file an annual EEO-1 under federal law must submit to the state, on or before March 31, 2021, and each year thereafter, a pay data report covering the prior calendar year that includes the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex.  The data must fall within:

  1. Each of 10 enumerated job categories; and,

     

  2. Each of the “pay bands” of annual earnings used by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, along with the total number of hours worked by each employee counted in each pay band.

The bill also authorizes the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing to investigate and prosecute discriminatory wage rate complaints.

Additionally, the bill also includes several optional mechanisms that employers may wish to use, such as:

  1. Complying by submitting to the state a copy of the employer’s EEO-1 containing the same or substantially similar pay data information for the reporting year; and,

     

  2. Including clarifying remarks regarding information provided in their reports, such as employee seniority or performance figures or other information explaining legitimate and lawful reasons for paying some employees more than others.

California’s legislature explicitly states in Section 4 of SB 973 that this wage data collection program is to further its goal of “achieving equal pay for women and people of color.”

We suspect that other states may pass similar legislation under the banner of the same goal, particularly while the status of federal reporting remains questionable (though if the White House changes parties next month, the federal requirement may be revived).  Therefore, it appears certain that employers across the country must continue to stay tuned to this issue.

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