California Labor &
Employment Law Blog

Trump Administration Blocks EEO-1 Pay Data Reporting Requirement
Aug. 30 2017

Trump Administration Blocks EEO-1 Pay Data Reporting Requirement

Topics:

Larger employers (100+ employees) have long been required to file annual Employer Information Reports (known as EEO-1 reports) with the federal government, disclosing the number of their employees by job category, race, sex, and ethnicity.  Last year, the EEOC sought to substantially expand the information required to be disclosed to include pay data and hours worked data.  The stated purpose of requiring this information was to aid the EEOC in identifying discriminatory pay practices.  The expanded, revised EEO-1 report was due to be submitted by March 31, 2018.  Not anymore.  Yesterday, the Office of Management and Budget announced that it was issuing an immediate stay of the revised EEO-1 form.  In doing so, the Office explained, “Among other things, OMB is concerned that some aspects of the revised collection of information lack practical utility, are unnecessarily burdensome, and do not adequately address privacy and confidentiality issues.”   Thus, for now, employers are relieved of the obligation of complying with the pay data reporting requirements called for by last year’s revised EEO-1 report form.  Covered employers are still required to file EEO-1 reports using the old forms, however.

Additionally, California employers should be aware of pending legislation, AB 1209, that would require employers with more than 500 employees in California to collect (beginning July 2019) and report to the Secretary of State (beginning July 2020) the following information concerning gender pay differentials:   

(A) The difference between the mean salary of male exempt employees and female exempt employees, by each job classification or title.
(B) The difference between the median salary of male exempt employees and female exempt employees, by each job classification or title.
(C) The difference between the mean compensation of male board members and female board members.
(D) The difference between the median compensation of male board members and female board members.
(E) The number of employees used for the determination of subparagraphs (A) and (B).

The Secretary of State’s Office would then be required to publish this information on a website available to the public.  This bill passed the assembly and is pending before the state Senate.  We will keep you posted on this bill as the last day for the Legislature to pass bills (September 15) approaches.

About CDF

For over 20 years, CDF has distinguished itself as one of the top employment, labor and immigration firms in California, representing employers in single-plaintiff and class action lawsuits and advising employers on related legal compliance and risk avoidance. We cover the state, with five locations from Sacramento to San Diego.

> visit primary site

About the Editor

Robin Largent has a regular presence in California state and federal courts and has been lead defense counsel and appellate counsel for large and small California employers in litigation (and arbitration) ranging from individual discrimination and harassment claims to complex wage and hour representative and class actions. She also leads the firm’s appellate practice, having substantial experience and success handling appeals, writ petitions, and amicus briefs in both state and federal court on issues such as class certification (particularly in the wage and hour arena), manageability and due process concerns associated with class action trials, exempt/non-exempt misclassification issues, meal and rest break compliance, trade secret/unfair competition matters, and the scope of federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.
> Contact   > Full Bio   Call 916.361.0991


Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP © 2018

About CDFWhat We DoContact UsAttorney AdvertisingDisclaimer