Colorado State Senate Affirms Equal Pay Law…Will it Pass in 2019?

By Stacey A. Bastone and James D. Mackey on

Colorado legislators are only a few steps away from approving the Colorado “Equal Pay for Equal Work Act” (SB 19-085) and making Colorado the latest state to enact enhanced equal pay legislation.

Colorado’s 2019 Equal Pay Law, as originally introduced in January, would likely have been the most aggressive equal pay law in the nation. While the current bill would still be among the most stringent, hearings held on the law in February resulted in a number of employer-friendly amendments. Prominent among these changes was the addition of several defenses now available to employers to explain pay differences between employees such as geographic location, training, education, and travel.

During recent debate in the Colorado Senate, Republicans offered an amendment that would have removed the private right of action and kept enforcement of state equal pay violations with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. The amendment failed (16-19) along party lines, and no substantive changes have been made since the proposed law cleared committees in late-February. The Colorado Senate approved the final bill 20-14, with two Republicans joining 18 Democrats.

It is now a race against time for the bill to pass, as the Colorado Legislature is set to adjourn on May 3. SB 19-085 is scheduled for a hearing in the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee before moving to the House Floor for a final vote. Democrats (all expected to vote in favor of the law) hold a 41-24 advantage in the Colorado House. If the bill moves forward unchanged, it would then head to Governor Jared Polis, who is likely to sign it. However, if the House amends the bill, its fate becomes more questionable as it would have to return for re-passage by the Senate with only a few days left in the legislative session or be re-introduced at the beginning of 2020.

We will continue to monitor and report on this any other developments in equal pay laws.

Judge Orders Hearing in EEO-1 Pay Data Reporting Case

By Laura A. Mitchell on

It appears employers will need to wait a bit longer to learn when they will be required to file their EEO-1 pay data.

In an order filed April 11, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan set a hearing for 2:00 p.m. Eastern on April 16, 2019 for the parties to present their cases regarding the government’s compliance with her order to reinstate the EEO-1 pay data reporting obligation.

Please find the rest of this article on our Affirmative Action & OFCCP Law Advisor blog here.

EEO-1 Pay Data Reporting Update

By Laura A. Mitchell on

In a status update filed April 3, 2019, the government informed the court that EEOC could complete collection of the required EEO-1 Component 2 pay data by September 30, 2019, but only if it utilized a third party data collector to do so.

The update was filed in response to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan’s request that the government provide the court with its plan to comply with her March 4, 2019 ruling that over-turned the stay on the pay data reporting obligation.

Please find the rest of this article on our Affirmative Action & OFCCP Law Advisor.

House of Representatives Passes Paycheck Fairness Act to Strengthen Equal Pay Act

By Cashida N. Okeke on

Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives continue to call for stronger protections to combat wage inequality. By a vote of 242-187, the House recently passed the Paycheck Fairness Act to enhance the federal protections guaranteed under the EPA.

Currently, to defend against an EPA claim, an employer can assert any of four defenses to justify paying men and women differently for the same work. Employers can pay workers at different rates if the wage differential is based on i) seniority, ii) merit, iii) quantity or quality of the employee’s work, or iv) any factor other than sex (sometimes referred to as a “catchall defense”).

The Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 7, amends the applicability of the last exception by requiring wage differentials to be based on a “bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training or experience.” This “bona fide factor defense” would require employers to prove that wage differentials fully account for the “entire differential in compensation,” actually relate to the job and are consistent with business necessity, and are not based on or derived from existing gender-based wage disparities.

H.R. 7 also would afford enhanced anti-retaliation protections for employees who not only file pay discrimination claims, but who discuss their salaries with coworkers or initiate or participate in pay equity investigations and hearings. However, employers are not liable under H.R. 7 if an employee with access to wage information, as part of their essential job functions, discloses such information to other employees, unless the employee disclosed the information as part of a complaint or employer-directed investigation.

H.R. 7 would establish the Secretary of Labor’s National Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace to recognize employers for excellence in pay practices. Employers can also receive assistance in instituting compliance checks and modifying their equal pay practices. Lastly, H.R. 7 creates a grant program that would provide funds to eligible entities to design negotiation skills training programs for women and girls.

Support for the measure was divided largely along party lines. House Republicans criticized the bill as “designed for trial lawyers” and pushed to add language limiting attorney’s fees. Under H.R. 7, violators can be subject to enhanced penalties, such as compensatory and punitive damages.

In light of the political composition of the Senate, this bill is unlikely to gain the support needed to be enacted.

This is not the first time this bill has surfaced. Previous efforts to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act failed in the Senate in 2009 after passing in the House of Representatives.

States also continue to pass new fair pay laws.

Our Jackson Lewis Pay Equity Resource Group will continue to monitor these developments and provide guidance on compliance.

 

 

Maine Lawmakers Celebrate ‘Equal Pay Day’ by Passing Pay History Ban

By James D. Mackey on

On April 2, Equal Pay Day, Maine’s House and Senate passed a bill prohibiting employers from asking about a potential worker’s wage history before making a job offer. L.D. 278 passed the Maine House by a vote of 86-54 after clearing the Maine Senate by a vote of 22-11 earlier in the day.

If Governor Janet Mills, a Democrat, signs the bill into law, it will go into effect immediately, and Maine will become the 14th state in the nation to prohibit employers from making pre-offer inquiries into an applicant’s compensation history.

Prohibitions

The bill would bar an employer from inquiring about compensation history unless it has negotiated and made an offer to the prospective employee that includes all terms of compensation. The employer may not make such inquiries of the prospective employee or of the employee’s current or former employer.

The bill also clarifies that the state’s existing pay transparency law prohibits employers from stopping employees from discussing or disclosing their own or another employee’s wages.

Evidence of Discrimination

Maine specifically identifies an employer’s direct or indirect inquiry into an applicant’s pay history as evidence of unlawful employment discrimination. It is the first state to do so.

Permitted Practices

The bill allows the following:

  • Employers or employment agencies may “seek compensation history of an employee or prospective employee after an offer of employment that includes all terms of compensation that has been negotiated and made to the prospective employee”
  • Employers may confirm a prospective employee’s compensation history if that compensation history was voluntarily disclosed, without prompting

Further, the law is inapplicable to an employer who makes a compensation inquiry based upon any state or federal law that requires disclosure or verification of compensation history.

Next

Governor Janet Mills is expected to sign L.D. 278. Once signed, the law will go into effect immediately. Employers should review and revise their job applications and policies and procedures and consider training personnel about the ban.

EEOC Opens Portal for 2018 EEO-1 Reporting and Must Provide Guidance on Pay Data Reporting by April 3

By Chris Chrisbens on

The U.S. District Court hearing the EEO-1 pay data reporting case has ordered EEOC to inform employers by April 3, 2019, whether they will be required to provide pay and hours worked data for the 2018 EEO-1 reporting cycle. The current deadline for 2018 EEO-1 reporting is May 31, 2019.

As we reported on March 5, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) stay of the EEOC’s pay data collection tool and ordered the OMB’s previous approval of the revised EEO-1 form to be in effect. National Women’s Law Ctr. V. OMB, No. 17-2458 (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2019). In the wake of the court’s decision, employers were left to question the impact of the ruling, including whether the EEOC would require submission of the pay data by the May 31st reporting deadline or extend the deadline. The pay data reporting requirements would impact all employers, including federal contractors, with 100 or more employees.

On March 18, the EEOC opened the online portal for filing EEO-1 report workforce demographic (Component 1) data and issued the following statement regarding the pay data reporting requirement:

As it announced on February 1, the EEOC is opening its EEO-1 online portal to receive 2018 EEO-1 Component 1 data starting March 18, 2019, and ending May 31, 2019. . . . The EEOC is working diligently on next steps in the wake of the court’s order in National Women’s Law Center, et al., v. Office of Management and Budget, et al., Civil Action No. 17-cv-2458 (TSC), which vacated the OMB stay on collection of Component 2 EEO-1 pay data. The EEOC will provide further information as soon as possible.

The portal for submission of the 2018 EEO-1 Component 1 data is linked here.

EEOC’s March 18 statement provided little guidance as to what steps the agency may take in response to the court ruling, leading the plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit to request a court conference to obtain information about how EEOC intended to proceed. Following a conference on March 19th, the court ordered EEOC to inform employers by April 3rd of the agency’s timeline for the pay data collection.

Our Jackson Lewis Pay Equity Resource Group will continue to monitor these developments and provide guidance on compliance.

Equal Pay Day is April 2, 2019. Are You Ready?

By Stephanie E. Lewis and K. Joy Chin on

The Jackson Lewis Pay Equity Resource Group is pleased to announce a special series to help employers prepare for Equal Pay Day. “Rethinking Pay Equity” will take a look at several of the biggest questions facing employers in the ever-evolving #equalpay landscape, including: How can prior salary information perpetuate the persistent pay gap, and how should we measure and address the impact of years-long reliance on such information in the hiring process? What data should we use when reviewing pay? Who should be compared against whom? What do we do if pay analyses reveal a problem? Should the company voluntarily make public disclosures about pay?

Our four-part series will be published over the next few weeks, culminating with a unique webinar presented by Jackson Lewis Pay Equity Resource Group Co-Chairs Joy Chin and Stephanie Lewis on April 2, 2019.

April 2, 2019, is Equal Pay Day. The date, which changes each year, is meant to represent how far into 2019 a woman, on average, must work to earn what a man earned in 2018.

These days, employers face greater challenges around pay than they have for decades. The country has seen a surge in new equal pay legislation and legal theories about pay discrimination, one that is being fueled by the #MeToo movement and growing calls for gender equality. The result is a whole new set of rules, obligations, and best practices around compensation for employers.

Join us in the lead up to Equal Pay Day 2019 with “Rethinking Pay Equity,” a special series of legal alerts aimed at assisting employers by addressing the hottest topics and trends in the world of equal pay. The first alert — “Overcoming the Impact of Prior Salary Information” — is available now.

Also, be sure to register for our important webinar on April 2. Registration is complimentary, but space is limited, so please do not delay.

Illinois House Set to Pass Tough Pay History Ban, Equal Pay Amendments

By James D. Mackey and Monica H. Kheterpal on

Once again, the Illinois Legislature is working to pass more aggressive equal pay laws. HB 834 includes not only a pay history ban, but also additional amendments to strengthen pay equity protections and pay transparency provisions.

Pay History

In 2017, and at the end of 2018, former Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner vetoed attempts to prohibit private employers from requesting applicants’ previous pay history. Having gained control of the governorship and commanding advantages in the Illinois House and Senate in the 2018 election, Democrats appeared poised to add Illinois the growing list of states barring all employers, public and private, from inquiring about an applicant’s salary history.

HB 834 would prohibit all employers, employment agencies, and agents (such as recruiters) from seeking the salary information of any applicant from any current or former employer. Additionally, the bill prevents employers from requiring that an applicant’s prior wage or salary “satisfy minimum or maximum criteria; or to request or require such wage or salary history as a consideration of being considered for employment.” The provision banning an employer from seeking pay history does not apply if the applicant’s salary is publicly available or subject to FOIA requests.

Expanded Comparators and Narrowed Affirmative Defenses

Similar to other state pay equity laws, the amendment would also change the Illinois Equal Pay Act’s requirement that employers pay equally for work that requires “equal” skill, effort, and responsibility and instead allow comparisons to those with “substantially similar” skill, effort, and responsibility.

The amendment also would increase the employer’s burden of proof by requiring that any differences in pay:

  1. Not be based on or derived from a differential in compensation based on sex or another protected characteristic,
  2. Be job-related and consistent with business necessity, and
  3. Accounts for the entire differential in pay.

Pay Transparency

Finally, Illinois would join a growing number of states by codifying protections to employees’ right to discuss “wages, salary, benefits, or other compensation.” Employers would be prohibited from requiring employees to sign any contract or waiver of these rights.

HB 834 picked up 44 co-sponsors on its way through Committee, and House leaders have sent the bill for debate before the full House, where Democrats have a 74-44 advantage. If it passes, the salary history ban will proceed to the Illinois Senate.

Our Pay Equity Resource Group will continue to report on this and other pay equity laws as they develop.

 

Federal Judge Reinstates EEOC Pay Data Collection, Effective Immediately

By Stephanie E. Lewis and K. Joy Chin on

A U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia vacated the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) stay of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) revised EEO-1 form and the September 15, 2017, Federal Register Notice implementing the stay (Staying the Effectiveness of the EEO-1 Pay Data Collection, 82 Fed. Reg. 43362). Nat’l Women’s Law Ctr. et al. v. OMB et al., No. 17-2458 (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2019). The court immediately restored the prior directives of the EEOC and OMB requiring use of a revised EEO-1 form where employers with at least 100 employees have to report detailed information on their employees’ wages and hours, broken down by gender, race, and ethnicity.

The decision arises in a case brought by the National Women’s Law Center and other plaintiffs against OMB and the EEOC in which the plaintiffs challenged OMB’s decision to stay the EEOC’s pay data collection efforts. The expanded pay data collection was initially approved by OMB under the Obama Administration in September 2016. The Trump Administration stayed the pay data collection in August 2017, after concluding the pay reporting requirements would be too burdensome. The plaintiffs argued the pay data collection efforts are central to closing the race and gender wage gaps.

Judge Tanya S. Chutkan held that OMB’s stay of EEOC’s pay data collection was illegal because it did not comply with OMB’s regulations. In particular, the court held that OMB had not shown that a relevant circumstance changed or that there was good cause shown after consultation to support the change in position.

Having found that the OMB’s stay of the EEOC’s pay data collection was inappropriate, Judge Chutkan acknowledged that there was discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy. Judge Chutkan held that vacatur of the OMB stay was appropriate and immediately restored the EEOC’s prior pay data collection requirements. Judge Chutkan dismissed arguments that vacatur and restoration of the prior directive would cause disruption, saying that the argument was unsupported by the record.

The current EEO-1 filing deadline for 2018 is May 31, 2019. We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as they become available. Please contact a member of our Pay Equity Resource Group for further assistance.

On Technicality, U.S. Supreme Court Vacates Ninth Circuit Ruling Barring Reliance on Prior Salaries As Defense In Pay Discrimination Dispute

By Stacey A. Bastone on

Because the judge who authored the ruling died before the decision was issued, the Ninth Circuit erred in counting him as a member of the majority, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Yovino v. Rizo, No. 18-272 (Feb. 25, 2019). On this technicality, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit ruling that prior salary alone or in combination with other factors cannot justify a wage differential between male and female employees under the Equal Pay Act.

The case was brought by a female employee of the Fresno County Office of Education, Aileen Rizo, after she learned she was paid less than male counterparts for the same work. Fresno County asserted the “catch-all” affirmative defense of the federal Equal Pay Act, which provides, in pertinent part, that wage differentials are permissible if “based on any factor other than sex.”

The district court denied summary judgment to the County. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that using prior salary to calculate wages is permissible under the Equal Pay Act if the employer can establish the use of prior salary was reasonable and effectuated a business policy. However, the en banc court reversed the panel decision (link to Rizo v. Yovino, No. 16-15372 (April 9, 2018). It held that prior salary alone is not a “factor other than sex” under the Equal Pay Act. For a full discussion of the prior decision, please see our earlier publication.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt passed away on March 29, 2018, but was listed as the author of the en banc decision issued on April 9, 2018. A footnote indicated that voting had been complete and the decision had been written before Judge Reinhardt’s death. All eleven judges on the Ninth Circuit agreed that the plaintiff’s suit should be revived, and five of the judges agreed with Judge Reinhardt’s rationale, meaning it was deemed to be a majority opinion, constituting precedent for future Ninth Circuit panels. However, without Judge Reinhardt, his opinion would not have majority support.

In overturning the Ninth’s Circuit ruling, the Supreme Court held that Judge Reinhardt was not an active judge when the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in the case and “by statute he was without power to participate in the en banc court’s decision at the time it was rendered.” The Court further held that counting him as a member of the majority “effectively allowed a deceased judge to exercise the judicial power of the United States after his death. But federal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity.”

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings.

Jackson Lewis’ Pay Equity Resource Group will continue to monitor this and other case law developments. Please contact Jackson Lewis with any questions.

LexBlog