July 4, 2020

Volume X, Number 186

July 03, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 02, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 01, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

EEOC Not Requiring Pay Data with EEO-1 Submissions for Now, But Uncertainty Remains

On March 4, 2019 Judge Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling that immediately reinstated the EEO-1 pay data reporting requirement.  The government has not yet appealed or sought to stay the ruling, leaving employers unclear about their EEO-1 reports, which are due by May 31, 2019.

On March 18, 2019 the EEOC issued a statement that it would only require the submission of Component 1 data regarding the demographics of employer workforces.  With respect to the Component 2 pay and hours data addressed in the Court’s ruling, the EEOC has stated only that it “is working diligently on next steps in the wake of the court’s order” and “will provide further information as soon as possible.”

After the EEOC issued its statement, the National Women’s Law Center and Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, the plaintiffs in the case challenging the withdrawal of approval for the collection of Component 2 data, filed a motion with the court asserting that the EEOC’s statement was not compliant with the March 4, 2019 decision and requesting an emergency hearing.  At the hearing this morning (March 19, 2019), Judge Chutkan required further briefing from the government and the plaintiffs, which must be filed by April 8, 2019. 

Accordingly, while the EEOC is not requiring the submission of Component 2 data for now, it is unclear whether the Court will find this approach to be compliant with its prior order.  Nor is it clear what action the Court would take if it finds the EEOC’s statement non-compliant.  With EEO-1 submissions due by May 31, 2019 and seemingly little chance of clarity before April 8, 2019, at the earliest, we will continue to follow these developments closely.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in CaliforniaNational Law Review, Volume IX, Number 78


About this Author

Conne Bertram Government Contract Lawyer Polsinelli Law Firm

Connie focuses her practice on whistleblower, trade secrets, government contractors and employee mobility counseling and litigation. She frequently conducts confidential internal investigations involving executive-level employees, including alleged fraud, theft or misuse of company data, trade secrets, sexual harassment and code of conduct violations. She routinely counsels, investigates and litigates restrictive covenant and trade secrets disputes between employers and former employees.

Connie has defended complex whistleblower, trade secrets and restrictive...

Jack Blum Polsinelli Employment Attorney

Jack Blum is an associate in the firm’s Employment Disputes, Litigation, and Arbitration practice, where he represents employers in connection with a wide range of employment law issues. Jack has extensive experience in defending employers against claims by their employees in federal and state courts, as well as before government agencies like the EEOC, Department of Labor, and state human rights commissions. Jack aggressively defends his client’s personnel practices and decisions while not losing sight of their underlying business goals and objectives. Jack represents clients in all aspects of complex employment litigation and has advised and defended employer clients regarding a wide variety of employee claims, including:

• Employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation
• Wage and hour
• Employment contract disputes
• Independent contractor/employee misclassification audits 
• Tort claims arising out of the employment relationship

Jack also has extensive experience representing parties in litigation arising from employee mobility, including claims involving non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality agreements as well as the misappropriation of trade secrets. Significantly, Jack has experience in both prosecuting and defending these claims and is, therefore, able to offer clients a well-rounded assessment of their options and courses of action. Jack also has experience redressing employee data breaches under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Jack also has a background in employment counseling, where he has worked closely with in-house counsel, human resources personnel, and business executives to craft personnel policies that meet the client’s business requirements while complying with applicable laws. Jack has particular experience in assisting clients with issues relating to employee/independent contractor classifications, and regularly advises clients regarding the defensibility of classifications, drafts independent contractor agreements to provide the strongest possible arguments in support of the classification, and defends misclassification claims asserted by employees and government agencies. Jack also walks clients through sensitive personnel actions to reduce the potential for litigation or at least best position the client in the event that litigation is inevitable. Jack draws heavily upon this counseling experience in representing clients in litigation.

During law school, Jack served as a legal intern in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of the Inspector General where he contributed to several high-profile internal investigations, and also interned with the Maryland Attorney General’s Office.