In 2021, employers had to grapple with a host of new pay transparency requirements across the country, which we previously outlined here. While most of these concern requirements to provide salary range information to applicants to posted jobs, several require disclosure of salary range information to current employees under certain circumstances. Employers who have addressed pay range disclosures in job postings are well-advised to also review their practices with respect to current employees to ensure compliance. READ MORE
While new pay data reporting requirements in California and Illinois have grabbed pay equity headlines, we are seeing a ground swell in another type of pay transparency requirements: mandatory pay disclosures to applicants, current employees, or both.
Pay range disclosure laws go beyond the host of state laws that came online several years ago and establish employees’ rights to request information, disclose, and discuss their own wages. Rather, these laws obligate employers to affirmatively (and sometimes proactively) disclose the pay range for a given position under specific circumstances. Employers in nine jurisdictions and counting are subject to such requirements: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Washington, as well as Ohio cities Toledo and Cincinnati. At present, another nine states have similar bills pending. READ MORE
Employers face increasing demands and pressure to ensure and declare equitable pay for employees, not only from within their own workforces, but also from clients, customers, and government leaders. While states continue passing increasingly progressive pay equity laws, the requirements of such laws may not align with the purpose and intent of federal or state equal pay laws. Employers should be mindful of the risks associated with how state agencies may use pay data collections and be prepared to explain their practices and provide further response, if needed. READ MORE
As COVID-19 vaccination programs gain speed across the country, and employers consider long-term reopening plans, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced that starting April 26, 2021, it will begin the EEO-1 data collections it had delayed for nearly a year due to the pandemic. Recognizing the ongoing impacts of the pandemic, however, it is providing twelve weeks (instead of just 10) to complete submissions. Employers will need to submit two years of data (for 2019 and 2020) by Monday, July 19, 2021. Unlike the last time, employers will not need to submit “Component 2” pay data (as we reported here).
Since 2015, pay gap disclosure has been front and center on the activist shareholder proposal landscape from an employment and workforce perspective. Following closely on the heels of tragic events of last summer and the significant advancement of the Black Lives Matter movement, activist shareholder groups have pivoted away from proposals requiring disclosures of pay gap statistics and are instead focused on other dimensions of internal diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”). These initiatives seek more broad-based disclosure of whether and how companies are managing gender and racial disparities in representation – including, for example, in the boardroom and at senior management levels within an organization. Combined with recent rule changes at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) with respect to required Human Capital Management disclosures, public companies should prepare for how they will respond to proposals seeking different and new disclosures regarding steps they are taking to expand and maintain diversity within their workforces.
Germany is not exactly known to be a pioneer when it comes to equal pay. In Germany, the pay gap remains particularly large and is only closing slowly, according to the Federal Statistical Office. The Federal Labor Court now took a step ahead to strengthen women’s rights in its latest ruling which will enable women to enforce their rights and simplify proceedings in equal-pay cases by putting the burden of proof on employers. READ MORE
California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) has issued new guidance on the pay data reporting law enacted in September (see our coverage here) that established at the state level the equivalent of the EEOC’s discontinued EEO-1 pay data collection form. The law requires that starting March 31, 2021 every California employer with 100 or more employees who files a federal EEO-1 report must annually submit a pay data report to the DFEH.
On November 5, 2020, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) issued a final rule defining the evidentiary standards it will use for proving discrimination claims by federal contractors, revising the process for notifying contractors of potential violations, and outlining an option for contractors to participate in an “expedited” dispute resolution process. It will take effect on December 10, 2020. Notably, the rule deviates significantly from the version initially proposed by OFCCP on December 30, 2019, which relied far more heavily on statistics and came under intense scrutiny from the contractor community, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to OFCCP, the requirements laid out in the final rule will increase transparency and create clear parameters for contractor compliance with equal employment opportunity laws. READ MORE
On September 23, 2020 the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted amendments to 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-8 (“Rule 14a-8”), raising the bar for shareholders seeking to force votes on proposals. The rule comes on the heels of persistent and repeat shareholder proposals in various areas including, notably, pay gap data reporting.
On September 30, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newson signed SB 973, making California the first state to require employers to submit employee pay data by race and gender. As we previously reported, SB 973 is modeled after the now discontinued federal EEO-1 pay data collection form, which was harshly criticized for its heavy burden on employers and lack of utility in assessing for pay equity or pay discrimination (see prior Equal Pay Pulse blogs here, here, here, and here).