equal pay

President Trump Says “Not So Fast” — The Future of Overtime, Fiduciary, and Pay Reporting Rules Remains Uncertain Under the Trump Administration

On January 20, 2017, shortly after Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States, his Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, issued an Executive Memorandum mandating a 60-day freeze on published federal regulations that have yet to take effect to allow Trump’s appointees time to review the regulations. Although such action is fairly standard during a change of administration, the impact could be significant if certain regulations set to take effect in 2017 are delayed or ultimately replaced.  Regulations potentially affected by the 60-day freeze include the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) overtime and fiduciary rules, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) EEO-1 pay reporting requirements.

DOL Overtime Rule

In May 2016, the DOL announced significant changes to the overtime rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). As we’ve previously blogged about here, the overtime rules mandated that, beginning December 1, 2016, the salary requirement for exempt employees would increase by nearly double – from $23,660 to $47,476 per year.  Under these new rules, employees who earn less than $47,476 would no longer meet the overtime exemption from the FLSA, and would be entitled to overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

The new overtime rules made headlines late last year when a federal district court in Texas issued a preliminary injunction enjoining its implementation.  The decision was issued on November 22, 2016, just days before the new rules were set to take effect.

Between the ongoing litigation over the legality of the overtime rules and the recent 60-day regulatory freeze, the future of the overtime rules remains uncertain. Other than publicly advocating a small-business exemption, Trump has remained non-committal about the overtime rules and has not signaled whether he will ask the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to drop its defense of the matter.  Notably, the DOJ has sought a stay in the ligation while the new administration reconsiders its position.  As a practical matter, this places employers in a difficult position.  Many employers already implemented changes to comply with the new overtime rules in anticipation of the December 1, 2016 effective date, by increasing salaries, reducing workforces, cutting benefits, and changing employees’ schedules.  In addition, the language in the Executive Memorandum could also muddy the waters.  The Executive Memorandum provides for postponing, for 60 days, published regulations that “have not taken effect.”  Employee advocates have argued that, as the effective date for the overtime regulations was December 1, 2016, the Executive Memorandum does not apply.  This hyper-technical reading would likely be rejected by a court.  And, the argument has no practical effect as the rule is enjoined.

DOL Fiduciary Rule

The Executive Memorandum, however, will not stop the fiduciary rule train. It became effective on June 7, 2016.  The fiduciary rule, which is scheduled to be phased in starting April 10, 2017 through January 1, 2018, expands the definition of “investment advice fiduciary” under ERISA to include persons who provide investment advice or recommendations for a fee or other compensation with respect to retirement accounts.  Under the new rule, investment advice includes recommendations regarding the advisability of buying or selling securities or other investment property and recommendations as to the management of securities or other investment property.

Being a fiduciary requires financial professionals to put their clients’ best interests above their own. As a result, financial professionals who earn commissions are required, under the new rule, to provide clients with a Best Interest Contract Exemption disclosing potential conflicts of interest, fees or charges to be paid by the investor, and compensation the fiduciary expects to receive in connection with recommended investments.  The impact of the new rule on the financial services industry is significant due to the potential for lost commissions and the additional expense of complying with the heightened fiduciary standard.

Financial professionals are left to hoping that the new administration will roll back the rule. However, barring extraordinary action by Congress, there may be little that Trump can do on his own as the rule was promulgated through notice and comment rulemaking.  Further, rolling back the rule does not appear to be a high priority. Trump has not taken a position publicly on the fiduciary rule.  However, he generally supports broad roll backs of regulations and, Anthony Scaramucci, one of his key advisors, has publicly promised to repeal the fiduciary rule.  Those in the financial services industry who have already taken steps to comply with the new rules in anticipation of the April 10, 2017 implementation date should continue their efforts until they receive a clear signal from the administration or Congress.

EEOC Revised EEO-1 Form

On September 29, 2016, the EEOC announced approval of a revised EEO-1 form to collect pay data from employers with 100 or more employees beginning with the 2017 report to be submitted by March 31, 2018.   It is unclear what effect, if any, the 60-day regulatory freeze will have on the pay reporting requirements because, technically, the information collection procedures for the form did not have an effective date.  However, as Trump has already appointed a new EEOC Chair, Victoria Lipnic, signs point to a rollback.

The revised EEO-1 form requires certain employers to submit summary pay data, including the total number of full and part-time employees employed during the year in each of twelve pay bands listed for each job category on the EEO-1. Pay data is based on employees’ W-2 forms.  The revised EEO-1 form does not require employers to report individual pay or salaries.  Additionally, employers required to submit an EEO-1 form must report the number of hours worked during the year by employees in each pay band.  According to the EEOC, the purpose of collecting pay data from employers is to allow the EEOC to better assess allegations of pay discrimination, but many fear that providing pay data without context will fuel costly, meritless class action lawsuits.

Many predict that the future of the EEOC’s pay reporting rule is vulnerable under the Trump administration, while others believe that Ivanka Trump’s statements in support of equal pay may not indicate a complete pullback of the pay equity focus. Regardless of whether the 60-day freeze affects the pay reporting requirements, the issue of pay equity will be at the forefront of legal issues facing employers in 2017.  This blog will continue to provide updates as new developments occur.

The “New York Promise Agenda” Promises to Increase Employee Protections

On January 9, 2017, New York State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo proposed a package of reforms to promote his vision of social justice within the state. The wide ranging set of proposals included two Executive Orders focused on eliminating the gender and race wage gap, which is one of the core stated goals of the New York Promise Agenda. READ MORE

California Legislators Aim to Make Prior Salaries a Thing of the Past

A few months ago, the California State Assembly introduced AB 1676, a bill that not only would have prohibited employers from asking job applicants about their compensation history, but also would have required employers to provide pay scale information upon reasonable request. A nearly identical bill passed through the Assembly and Senate before it was vetoed by the Governor toward the end of last year. In his veto statement, the Governor expressed concern that such a measure “broadly prohibits employers from obtaining relevant information with little evidence that [it] would assure more equitable wages.”

As we previously reported, the Fair Pay Act (the “FPA,” Labor Code § 1197.5) requires “equal pay for substantially similar work” based on the employee’s skill, effort and responsibility, and similar working conditions. To the extent a disparity exists between employees of the opposite sex, it must be reasonably based on one or more the factors enumerated within the statute.

Perhaps hoping to avoid repeating history, proponents of AB 1676 have taken a new approach. In place of the provision prohibiting inquiries about prior salary history is new language that amends the FPA to state that “[p]rior salary shall not, by itself, justify any disparity in compensation.”

READ MORE

Using Temp Agencies in Germany: New Restrictions for Companies

On June 1, 2016, the draft law regarding the reform of the German Act on the Supply of Temporary Employees (Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgesetz – AÜG) has been adopted by the Federal Cabinet. The German Bundestag will address the draft law after the summer break. However, material changes to the draft are not expected to be made during the parliamentary process. If the time schedule will be observed, the reform will come into force as planned on January 1, 2017.

The new law will bring material changes for both, employment agencies and their customers, the host businesses.

READ MORE

Employers Left Hanging Again:  Coates v. Farmers Reaches Settlement & Still No Answers on Interpreting California’s Fair Pay Act

Plaintiff Lynne Coates filed a class action lawsuit against Farmers on April 29, 2015 alleging gender discrimination claims under Title VII and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, including violations of the federal and California equal pay acts and California’s Private Attorneys General Act. In this post on Orrick’s Equal Pay Pulse blog, Orrick attorneys Erin Connell, Allison Riechert Giese and Megan Lawson examine Coates v. Farmers and what it means for employers as well as future equal pay claims in California.

Maryland’s Amendment Would Expand Equal Pay to Include “Gender Identity,” Strengthen Protections Along Other More Familiar Lines

As we noted in last week’s coverage of Equal Pay Day’s twentieth anniversary, the issue of equal pay has been drawing increasing attention from regulators, legislators and plaintiffs’ attorneys nationwide.  Of particular note, a report issued in January 2016 by the National Women’s Law Center highlighted the unprecedented level of new equal pay legislation at the state level. Leading this wave of activity, both New York’s Achieve Pay Equity law and California’s Fair Pay Act law have in place the broadest protections for employees seeking to bring gender-based equal pay claims.  Additionally, a number of other states have adopted piecemeal legislation addressing equal pay, such as prohibiting employer retaliation based on employee discussions of wages (Connecticut, New Hampshire, Oregon), holding state contractors responsible for certifying their equal pay compliance (Delaware, Minnesota, Oregon), increasing civil penalties for equal pay violations (Illinois), or requiring employers to maintain wage records in anticipation of potential state government inquiries (North Dakota).

READ MORE

Equal Pay Day 2016:  Where Are We 20 Years Later?

Today marks the twentieth anniversary of “Equal Pay Day,” which the National Committee on Pay Equity launched as a public awareness event in 1996 to symbolize how far into the year women must work to earn what men earned in the previous year.  In more than 50 years since enactment of the federal Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), women have made significant progress in the workplace and now make up roughly half of the American workforce.  However, women working full time still earn, on average, 79 cents for every dollar earned by men, and this number has barely moved in over a decade.  That said, it is still not clear that employer bias is to blame for the gap that remains.  Indeed, the pay gap measures only the difference in average earnings between all men and all women; it is not a proxy for pay bias—i.e., the failure to pay women equal pay for equal work.  Eliminating pay bias is important, but focusing heavily on perceived employer bias obscures a much more complex web of factors contributing to the problem of pay differences between men and women.

READ MORE

California DLSE Posts FAQs on New Fair Pay Law but Leaves Tough Questions Unanswered

Three months after the California Fair Pay Act took effect on January 1, 2016, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) has issued answers to FAQs about the new law, which by all counts is the most employee-friendly equal pay law in the nation.  But for California employers who anxiously have been awaiting official guidance on the Act’s many new terms and standards, the FAQs provide little satisfaction.  Rather, they focus more on informing employees on how to bring a claim.  Nor has the DLSE otherwise spoken publicly about how it plans to enforce the new law; instead, the agency appears to be taking its time and exercising caution as it potentially sets the stage for the rest of the nation.

READ MORE

Orrick to Provide Testimony on EEOC’s Proposed Revisions to the EEO-1 Report

On March 16, 2016 the EEOC will be holding hearings on its proposal  to expand the EEO-1 report to require employers to provide pay data. Orrick’s Gary Siniscalco was asked to address the hearing to provide employer views on this issue. Watch our Blog for ongoing developments on this issue and  new developments in the equal pay area as they continue to unfold. The text of Gary’s testimony before the EEOC will be as follows:

READ MORE

DOL and EEOC to Make 2016 A Challenging Year for Employers

Members of the Fair Labor Standards Legislation Committee of the American Bar Association’s Section of Labor and Employment Law recently met.  The meeting includes employer and employee advocates, as well as government officials.  The meeting often highlights not only the present status of regulations, policy and pending litigation but also provides a window into coming trends that may be important for employers.  We highlight a few takeaways.

READ MORE