Erin M. Connell

Partner

San Francisco


Read full biography at www.orrick.com
Erin M. Connell, a San Francisco employment partner and Co-Chair of Orrick's EEO & OFCCP Compliance Group and Pay Equity Task Force, represents employers in high stakes employment litigation and is an expert in equal employment opportunity law, pay equity, and affirmative action (OFCCP) compliance.

Erin’s practice covers all aspects of employment law, as well as complex business litigation outside the employment context. Erin has successfully defended numerous class actions, EEOC systemic discrimination investigations, and complex individual cases involving claims of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and wage-and-hour claims. Erin has particular expertise in the area of pay equity, compensation analyses, and diversity initiatives; and regularly advises clients with respect to OFCCP and other EEO audits.

Erin also is an accomplished trial lawyer. She has tried several cases before juries and in arbitration, and has successfully has obtained numerous defense summary judgment rulings and other favorable resolutions in state and federal court.

Erin's clients include leading technology and Fortune 500 companies, including: Oracle, Facebook, Netflix, Pandora, Pinterest, NVIDIA, NetApp, Splunk, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Seagate Technology.

Erin is currently the management chair of the ABA Equal Employment Opportunity Committee, and frequently speaks on California and national employment law issues.  She has published numerous articles on employment law in publications around the country, including the ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law.  She also provides training on managing within the law and preventing sexual harassment, and conducts internal investigations on employment-related matters.

Posts by: Erin Connell

District Court Orders Employers to Submit Component 2 Data by September 30, 2019

The EEOC has been ordered to collect employers’ EEO-1 Component 2 pay data by September 30, 2019. The D.C. District Court issued the order after finding back in March 2019 that Office of Management and Budget (OMB’s) decision to stay the collection of Component 2 pay data lacked the reasoned explanation required by the Administrative Procedure Act. See our prior blog posts here, here, and here about National Women’s Law Center v. Office of Management and Budget, No. 17-cv-2458 (TSC) (D.D.C.). Since then the court has been critical of the EEOC’s compliance with its order, and held a status conference and a hearing in March and April. READ MORE

EEOC Contemplates September 30th Deadline for Component 2 Pay Data But Warns of Significant Risks of Unreliable Data Comparisons

Despite some initial news stories to the contrary, uncertainty still remains as to whether and when employers will be required to submit Component 2 pay data to the EEOC. See our prior posts here and here. On March 19, 2019, the parties in National Women’s Law Center v. Office of Management and Budget, No. 17-cv-2458 (TSC) (D.D.C.), participated in a status conference at which they discussed precisely when the EEOC planned to collect Component 2 pay data. The court asked the EEOC why it could not require employers to file Component 2 data by either May 31, 2019, the deadline by which employers are required to submit Component 1 data, or September 30, 2019, the expiration date of the authorization to collect Component 2 data under the Paperwork Reduction Act. READ MORE

Revised EEO-1 Form Still Uncertain as EEOC Does Not Appear to Be Accepting Component 2 Pay Data Yet

The status of the revised EEO-1 form remains unclear, see our prior post here.  While the EEOC is currently accepting 2018 EEO-1 Component 1 data, the EEOC does not appear to be accepting Component 2 pay data yet.  Instead, the EEOC has stated that it 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.”  Stay tuned for additional updates.

EEOC’s Revised Pay Data Collection Rule is Back in Force

Uncertainty continues for the EEOC’s attempt to expand the collection of employers’ pay data. Last Monday, the D.C. District Court in National Women’s Law Center v. Office of Management and Budget, No. 17-cv-2458 (TSC) (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2019), reinstated the EEOC’s revised EEO-1 form that increases employers’ obligation to collect and submit pay data. READ MORE

Congressional Dems Reignite 20-year Battle to Pass the “Paycheck Fairness Act.”

For the last two decades, Congressional Democrats have attempted to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. Beginning with the 105th Congress in 1997-98, several legislators have introduced versions of the act, including then-Senator Hillary Clinton in 2005. Following their newly won majority in the House of Representatives, Democratic lawmakers recently re-introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act on January 30, 2019. The proposed bill, H.R. 7, was introduced by Representative Rosa DeLauro (D) and appears to have considerable Congressional support. Notably, cosponsors of H.R. 7 include every Democratic member of the House of Representatives and forty-five Senators. READ MORE

Say It Again: No Common Question Binds a Class Subject to Thousands of Individualized Pay Decisions

Echoing an increasingly familiar refrain, another district court has declined to certify a class of women bringing pay equity claims on the basis that they did not present a common question capable of producing a common answer to “the crucial question why was I disfavored.” Relying largely upon Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the court found certification inappropriate because the putative class members were subject to countless independent decisions involving the judgment and discretion of individual managers. The case also serves as another reminder that courts (including California state courts) will not accept an overly simplistic analysis comparing broad job categories or titles, but will continue to look at actual business practices and job responsibilities to ensure comparators are “similarly situated” so a meaningful pay comparison can be made. READ MORE

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). READ MORE

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

Cert Denied in Potential Harbinger for California Equal Pay Act Class Actions

On August 28, 2018, a judge in Los Angeles County Superior Court issued one of the first decisions – if not the first decision – on a motion to certify a putative class action under the state’s revised Equal Pay Act, Cal. Labor Code § 1197.5 (“EPA”).  See Bridewell-Sledge, et al. v. Blue Cross of California, No. BC477451 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct. Aug. 28, 2018) (Court’s Ruling and Order re: Pls.’ Mot. for Class Certification).  Specifically, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify classes of all female and all African American non-exempt employees of Anthem Blue Cross California and related entities.  The complaint alleged both violations of the EPA, as well as discrimination in promotions and pay in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Cal. Gov. Code §12900 et. seq.).[1]

READ MORE

Employer Alert: California Pay Equity Task Force Issues Guidance on Fair Pay Act

The California Pay Equity Task Force recently published guidance and approved resources for employer compliance with the state’s equal-pay laws. As we continue to track developments in this arena and await further interpretation from the courts, employers should be aware of this comprehensive and illustrative guidance in reviewing their hiring and compensation practices. READ MORE