EEO-1 “pay data” requirement is on hold: The details

NOTE FROM ROBIN: Last night, I posted briefly that the EEOC’s requirement, starting next March 31, that employers include compensation data in their annual EEO-1 reports had been suspended. We now have more information, and I have drafted a client bulletin that will go out this afternoon. Because the blog subscription and bulletin subscription lists are not identical, I’m reproducing the bulletin here for our blog readers.

EEO-1 “pay data” requirement is on hold

By Robin Shea
Winston-Salem Office

As we have reported previously, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was going to require employers of 100 or more employees (and federal contractors with 50 or more employees) to include compensation data with their annual EEO-1 reports. The EEO-1 filing deadline of September 30, 2017, was moved to March 31, 2018 (with reports to be due on March 31 every subsequent year).

Yesterday, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a branch of the Office of Management and Budget, “stayed” the requirement that employers provide compensation data. According to a memorandum sent yesterday from Neomi Rao, Administrator of the OIRA, to Victoria Lipnic, Acting Chair of the EEOC, the EEOC may continue to use the new form, but only to collect the “traditional” EEO-1 information (the number of employees by race, sex, and ethnicity in each of the 10 EEO-1 categories).

Our prior coverage of the EEO-1 “pay data” requirement

IS YOUR PAY EQUITY UP TO SNUFF? EEOC plans to start collecting pay data, and using it

5 things I don’t like about the EEOC’s “pay survey” proposal

EEOC amends its “pay survey” proposal a teensy bit. I still don’t like it.

EEO-1 reports will require comp information starting 2017-18

EEOC follows through: Comp data will be required in EEO-1 reports

Are you ready for the new EEO-1 Report?

DOL will coordinate VETS 4212 with new EEO-1 reporting requirements (as much as it can)

The EEOC has said today that it will leave the March 31 EEO-1 reporting deadline in place.

The compensation reporting requirement came about during the Obama Administration under then-EEOC Chair Jenny Yang. Ms. Lipnic, now the Acting Chair, generally opposed the requirement. Employer and business groups, while agreeing with the goal of achieving pay equity, generally opposed the rule. Among the most prominent opponents were Congressional Republicans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The Rao Memorandum cites a number of problems with the new form:

1) The EEOC issued data file specifications for employers to use but did not provide notice and an opportunity for public comment.

2) The EEOC’s estimate of the burden to employers of complying with the rule did not take into account the data file specifications, and thus the estimate was inaccurate. (According to an April 2017 letterfrom Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Pat Roberts (R-KS) to the OMB, the EEOC’s estimate of the burden was $54 million in costs and 1.9 million hours. The Chamber’s estimate was more than $400 million in direct costs and more than 8 million hours.)

The Memorandum concluded that the pay data collection requirement “lack[ed] practical utility, [was] unnecessarily burdensome, and [did] not adequately address privacy and confidentiality issues.”

Other concerns, raised by the Alexander-Roberts letter, included data privacy and data security. According to the letter, the form “will collect vast amounts of sensitive employee compensation information from thousands of employers – information which in the hands of bad actors could cause irreparable harm to American workers and employers.”

Ms. Rao was quoted by Bloomberg BNA as saying that the information to be collected would not have assisted in detecting pay discrimination in any event. As an example, she noted that physicians and nurses would be included in the same “professionals” category so that it would be impossible to determine whether lower-compensated women were victims of pay discrimination or simply holding lower-paying nursing positions.

The Rao Memorandum directs the EEOC to do the following:

1) “[S]ubmit a new information collection package for the EEO-1 form to OMB for review.”

2) “[P]ublish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the immediate stay of effectiveness of the wages and hours worked reporting requirements contained in the EEO-1 form . . ..”

3) In the Federal Register notice, “confirm[] that businesses may use the previously approved EEO-1 form in order to comply with their reporting obligations for FY 2017.”

We will provide updates as we get more definitive direction from the government on how to proceed. Again, employers can continue to observe the March 31 deadline, and can use the latest version of the EEO-1 form but can leave the salary information portion blank.

  • Smiling older woman with short gray hair and glasses, wearing a dark gray cardigan over a black top and a beaded necklace, with arms confidently crossed. She has a warm, approachable demeanor and a professional presence against a transparent background.
    Of Counsel & Chief Legal Editor

    Robin also conducts internal investigations and delivers training for HR professionals, managers, and employees on topics such as harassment prevention, disability accommodation, and leave management.

    Robin is editor in chief ...

This is Constangy’s flagship law blog, founded in 2010 by Robin Shea, who is chief legal editor and a regular contributor. This nationally recognized blog also features posts from other Constangy attorneys in the areas of immigration, labor relations, and sports law, keeping HR professionals and employers informed about the latest legal trends.

Search

Get Updates By Email

Subscribe

Archives

Legal Influencer Lexology Badge ABA Web 100 Badge
Jump to Page

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP Cookie Preference Center

Your Privacy

When using this website, Constangy and certain third parties may collect and use cookies or similar technologies to enhance your experience. These technologies may collect information about your device, activity on our website, and preferences. Some cookies are essential to site functionality, while others help us analyze performance and usage trends to improve our content and features.

Please note that if you return to this website from a different browser or device, you may need to reselect your cookie preferences.

For more information about our privacy practices, including your rights and choices, please see our Privacy Policy. 

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

Strictly Necessary Cookies are essential for the website to function, and cannot be turned off. We use this type of cookie for purposes such as security, network management, and accessibility. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but if you do so, some parts of the site will not work. 

Functionality Cookies

Always Active

Functionality Cookies are used to enhance the functionality and personalization of this website. These cookies support features like embedded content (such as video or audio), keyword search highlighting, and remembering your preferences across pages—for example, your cookie choices or form inputs during submission.

Some of these cookies are managed by third-party service providers whose features are embedded on our site. These cookies do not store personal information and are necessary for certain site features to work properly.

Performance Cookies

Performance cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Powered by Firmseek