Daniel J. Corbett

Emp Law Career Associate

Wheeling, W.V. (GOC)


Read full biography at www.orrick.com

Daniel Corbett is a member of the employment law group at Orrick’s Global Operations Center in Wheeling, West Virginia.  Dan provides high-value employment litigation and counseling services to global leaders in a variety of sectors, including retail, tech, and financial services.

Dan has deep experience in a number of areas, including wage-and-hour class actions, trade secrets and unfair competition, discrimination and harassment claims, and whistleblower matters.  He brings three years of intellectual property (IP) experience to Orrick, having practiced in the areas of copyright and trademark law prior to joining Orrick in the employment group.  Dan co-founded Orrick's Trade Secrets Watch blog, and he continues to serve on the editorial board.  The blog quickly established itself as a leading voice in the trade secrets area and has enjoyed a positive profile on Page 1 of The Recorder and discussion in media such as Corporate Counsel, Bloomberg, and Law360.

For the third straight year, Orrick’s Employment Law and Litigation group was recently named Labor & Employment Department of the Year in California by The Recorder, the premier source for legal news, in recognition of their significant wins on behalf of leading multinational companies on today’s most complex and challenging employment law matters.

Prior to joining Orrick, Dan worked at Elliott & Davis in Pittsburgh, where his practice focused on trademark and copyright law. He has worked as a grant writing consultant for nonprofit organizations and as an intern with a public policy think-tank in Washington, D.C.  Dan studied journalism in college, where he worked for a local newspaper and a public radio station.

Dan is an avid runner and completed five marathons in five consecutive years before (temporarily) hanging up his running shoes after he and his wife welcomed their second child.  He currently gets most of his exercise chasing after toddlers.


Posts by: Daniel Corbett

Oregon Announces Final Rules for Equal Pay Law Set to Take Effect January 1, 2019

As we reported last month, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) issued proposed regulations interpreting the provisions of the new Oregon Equal Pay Act of 2017, which will become effective January 1, 2019.

On November 19, 2018, after receiving a number of comments on proposed rules BOLI filed final rules with the Secretary of State. Stakeholders that provided input on the potential impact of the rules as originally proposed ranged from large law firms and industry groups to small business owners and farmers, as well as multiple higher education institutions (including Oregon State University, Portland State University, the University of Oregon, and the Oregon Community College Association).

Some of the noteworthy changes between the proposed and final rules are that the final rules:

  • Added the language “regardless of job description or job title” in the definition of “work of comparable character,” thus emphasizing that job title or written job description alone cannot establish that any two employees are (or aren’t) “substantially similar.” OAR 839-008-0000(17).
  • Clarified in OAR 839-008-0005(2) what it means to “screen job applications based on current or past compensation.” In particular, the final rules narrow the scope of this language to make clear that the prohibition of “screen[ing]” in ORS 652.220(1)(c) bars only the consideration of current or past compensation to determine “a job applicant’s eligibility or suitability for employment.”  By contrast, the draft rules had proposed that prohibited “screen[ing]” would include any use “to group, sort, or select [employees] at any stage of the hiring process,” or to assess “[a] current employee’s eligibility for an internal transfer, move or hire to a new position with the same employer.”  This narrowing makes clear that the limits of the new prohibition on using prior pay to “screen.”
  • Added “creativity” and “precision” as examples of the type of “skill” considerations to be evaluated in determining whether any two employees do, in fact, perform “work of a comparable character.” OAR 839-008-0010(1)(b).
  • Eliminated language in proposed rule OAR 839-008-0010(2) that would have stated that “[m]inor differences in knowledge, skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions will not prevent jobs from being comparable.” This change is consistent with comments submitted by a host of employers—including NFIB Oregon (a non-profit advocacy group for small businesses), the Oregon Farm Bureau, and Oregon Business & Industry—who expressed concern that the “minor differences” language could create confusion and be read to conflict with the statutory standard of “substantially similar.”
  • Revised OAR 839-008-0010(2) to make clear that “[e]valuations of work of comparable character need only consider comparisons of Oregon employees.”
  • Eliminated the proposed “Equal-Pay Analyses Surveys” rule.

A number of concerns expressed by commentators went unaddressed in the final rules, however.  Several commenters requested, but BOLI has not yet provided, a “pay calculation” tool akin to that provided by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office.  In addition, commentators noted that the new law includes as “protected classes” several groups on which employers may not routinely collect demographic information (e.g., sexual orientation or marital status), which make it impossible for employers to proactively monitor pay differentials across these groups which the law purports to prohibit.  And a number of others asked the rules to clarify the law regarding pay differentials that may exist between employees in collective bargaining units and those outside those units, yet the final rules do not speak to the issue.

By and large, though, Oregon employers should be heartened by these changes.  They eliminate some of the more problematic provisions of the rules as originally proposed and underscore the fact-specific analysis of work performed needed to determine whether employees in fact perform “work of comparable character” within the meaning of the new law.

Orrick will continue to monitor additional developments in interpreting and applying the new law as it takes effect, and to advise employers in Oregon on compliance strategies in light of the new law.

In Oregon, Employers Await Guidance as New Equal Pay Law’s January 1, 2019 Effective Date Looms

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) has issued proposed regulations interpreting the provisions of the new Oregon Equal Pay Act of 2017, which will become effective January 1, 2019.  Although the prohibition against “seek[ing]” salary history from applicants already is in effect, many of the law’s most significant provisions go into effect on January 1.  READ MORE

EEOC Announces Final Rule on Equal Pay Disclosures

Yesterday, the EEOC announced that it had finalized a regulation that will increase disclosure requirements regarding employee compensation for thousands of businesses. The new rule, which we’ve blogged about previously, requires all businesses with 100 or more workers to submit pay data by gender, race and ethnicity on their EEO-1 forms. Specifically, employers will now need to provide:

READ MORE

Equal Pay and Equity Status: Recent Wave of Litigation Brings Gender Gap at Major Law Firms to the Forefront

In an emerging trend, law firms have found themselves the targets of recent lawsuits alleging gender discrimination against female partners.  Most recently, Kerrie Campbell, a litigation partner at Chadbourne & Parke’s Washington, D.C. office filed a $100 million proposed class action lawsuit on behalf of all female partners at the firm.  She alleges that Chadbourne’s male-dominated culture leads to unequal compensation for women.  The lawsuit, filed on August 31, 2016, in federal district court in New York, seeks relief under Title VII, the Federal Equal Pay Act, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.

READ MORE

Take Your Pick: E.D.N.Y. Decision Offers Guidance for Plaintiffs and Defendants Alike on How to Handle “Picking Off” Attempts in FLSA Collective Actions

“Sometimes surrender is the best option.” That is how Judge Raymond J. Dearie of the Eastern District of New York begins his opinion in Anjum v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., before denying J.C. Penney’s motion to dismiss a putative Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action based on the company’s offer to pay the claims of four named plaintiffs with offers of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68—a strategy often referred to as “picking off.” Even though the court rejected J.C. Penney’s picking off attempt in this case, the judge’s opinion in Anjum recognizes the validity of this tactic and provides some practical lessons for defense counsel looking to successfully pick off an FLSA collective in the Second Circuit.

READ MORE