Necia Hobbes is a member of the firm’s employment law group at Orrick’s Global Operations & Innovation Center in Wheeling, West Virginia. She has a broad range of experience litigating in federal, state and administrative courts.
Necia’s employment law practice focuses on federal court discrimination litigation, as well as complex litigation and class actions, including pay equity claims, wage and hour disputes, and OFCCP administrative claims. She handles cases from inception through to appellate briefing and strategy, and assists companies with a variety of compliance-related challenges including internal investigations, pay equity analyses, and government investigations and audits.
Prior to joining Orrick, Necia handled all aspects of general litigation cases at another global law firm including acting as lead counsel in approximately 50 cases in federal, state and administrative courts.
Additionally, Ms. Hobbes served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable D. Michael Fisher of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and obtained a graduate degree from Carnegie Mellon University’s H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy & Management. She previously consulted with the Office of High School Reform for the Pittsburgh Public Schools, served as a Coro Fellow in Public Affairs with the Coro Center for Civil Leadership in Pittsburgh, PA, and worked as a project manager and writer at a market research firm.
Ms. Hobbes is dedicated to pro bono and community service, and has volunteered advising non-profit organizations through employment law challenges related to COVID-19, developing resources on international anti-trafficking laws, and litigating immigration cases assisting refugee children fleeing violence in Central America, civil cases helping prisoners pursue their constitutional rights, and state court petitions for transgender legal name changes. She has volunteered in the past with women’s rights and immigration advocacy organizations, and teaching English in Kathmandu, Nepal.
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
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).
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 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).
In the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement and a nationwide push towards greater equality, transparency and accountability, the California legislature this week passed a bill (SB 973) that would establish at the state level the equivalent of the EEOC’s discontinued EEO-1 pay data collection form. If signed by Governor Newsom, SB 973 would require 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 California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) that discloses: (1) the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex in each of ten broad job categories, and (2) the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex whose annual earnings (defined as W-2 income) fall within each of the pay bands used by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Occupational Employment Statistics survey. Employers with multiple establishments must submit a consolidated report, as well as a report for each establishment. READ MORE
OFCCP has announced the issuance of three new directives intended “to increase accountability and efficiency” and “to maximize the effectiveness of compliance assistance resources.” READ MORE
Today, the EEOC formally confirmed that it will not renew its request for authorization to collect employer’s pay data under Component 2 of the EEO-1 moving forward. The notice is consistent with its announcement last September, marking the end of a four-year saga over whether the pay data collection would go ahead (as we reported here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Notably, the notice does not explain how the EEOC intends to use the pay data it already has collected, although it makes reference to using it in Title VII proceedings. It does, however, confirm the EEOC’s intentions regarding sharing the EEO-1 pay data, including that the EEOC does not intend to share it with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”), but under certain circumstances may share it with state and local fair employment practices agencies (“FEPAs”). The notice also provides guidance regarding a potential pay data collection by the EEOC in the future, including that the EEOC intends to “develop a plan for using pay data before initiating any data collection.” READ MORE
The past month has brought notable pay equity developments to the Mid-Atlantic, including pending legislation in Maryland, and a Third Circuit decision that might have far-reaching effects beyond the Philadelphia salary history ban that it upheld. READ MORE
The Second Circuit ruled this month in Lenzi v. Systemax, Inc. that “Title VII does not require a showing of unequal pay for equal work.” Drawing a line between the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) and Title VII, the court held that “all Title VII requires a plaintiff to prove is that her employer ‘discriminate[d] against [her] with respect to [her] compensation . . . because of [her] . . . sex.’”
Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan ruled that the EEOC may not discontinue its pay data collection efforts on November 11, 2019, but rather, must continue its collection efforts until it has collected from at least 98.3% of eligible reporters and must make all efforts to do so by January 31, 2020. The ruling is the latest in a lengthy saga regarding whether EEO-1 Component 2 pay data (data on employees’ W-2 earnings and hours worked across broad job categories, and broken down by ethnicity, race, and sex) would be collected—a saga that began with the Office of Management and Budget staying collection efforts, and culminated last Spring when Judge Chutkan ruled the decision to stay the collection lacked the reasoned explanation required by the Administrative Procedure Act (see overview here). After vacating the stay, Judge Chutkan initially set the deadline for data collection for May 31, 2019, but later extended it to September 30, 2019. READ MORE