On June 15, 2017, J.P. Morgan Chase employee Derek Rotondo filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging that the company’s parental leave policy discriminates against males by relying on a sex-based stereotype that mothers are the primary caretakers of children, thereby denying fathers paid parental leave on the same terms as mothers. The EEOC charge, filed on a class-wide basis, seeks relief on behalf of himself and all fathers who were or will be subject to J.P. Morgan’s parental leave policy.
On April 18, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order stating that “it shall be the policy of the executive branch to buy American and hire American.” Here’s what you need know:
Buy American: In an effort to promote American manufacturing and domestic purchasing, federal agencies are tasked with improving enforcement of what the Executive Order collectively refers to as “Buy American Laws.” This assortment of laws consists of all existing statutes, regulations, rules and executive orders relating to federal procurement or federal grants that require or provide a preference for goods, products or materials produced in the United States, including iron, steel, and manufactured goods.
Under the Executive Order, federal agencies are directed to:
Earlier this year, Philadelphia became the first city to pass a law prohibiting employers from inquiring about a job applicant’s wage history and restricting their ability to consider wage history in setting new employee compensation. The pay equity ordinance was enacted to halt the perpetuation of gender discrimination in compensation practices.
As has been widely reported, the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit on April 6, 2017 to challenge the ordinance, which was scheduled to go into effect on May 23, 2017. The Chamber also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the Court to enjoin the enforcement of the ordinance while its lawsuit is pending, on the grounds that the ordinance violates businesses’ free speech rights under the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague. The City of Philadelphia’s apparent first response has been to question whether the Chamber of Commerce even has standing to bring a lawsuit challenging the ordinance.
For approximately fifty years, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has collected workforce data about race, gender, ethnicity and job category from all businesses with 100 or more employees, using the EEO-1 report. In an effort to combat pay discrimination, last year the EEOC announced that it finalized regulations expanding the information collected in the annual EEO-1 report to include pay data.
The revised EEO-1 form requires employers to collect aggregate W-2 earnings and report the number of employees in each of the twelve pay bands (spanning from $19,239 and under to $208,000 and over) for the ten EEO-1 job categories (Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers; First/Mid Level Officials and Managers; Professionals; Technicians; Sales Workers; Administrative Support Workers; Craft Workers; Operatives; Laborers and Helpers; Service Workers) and classified by race, sex and ethnicity. The revised EEO-1 form has been largely criticized by employers claiming that the collection of W-2 earnings, without any context to explain legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for pay disparities (e.g., education, training, experience, tenure, merit, etc.) will unnecessarily open the door to increased scrutiny and investigations. To make matters worse, the EEOC has not been very forthcoming about how the information would be analyzed and used, other than as a “screening tool” to identify pay discrimination.
On September 29, 2016, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a Final Rule implementing Executive Order 13706, which requires federal contractors and subcontractors performing work on or in connection with certain contracts to provide employees with up to 56 hours (7 days) of paid sick leave per year beginning on January 1, 2017. However, because this rule became final relatively recently, the Final Rule implementing EO 13706 could be rescinded by exercise of the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 801-808), which is not subject to filibuster.
Applicability of the Final Rule
The Final Rule applies to certain new contracts and replacement contracts for expiring contracts with the federal government requiring performance in whole or in part within the United States that result from solicitations issued on or after January 1, 2017 (or that are awarded outside the solicitation process on or after January 1, 2017).
Maryland joins California, New York and Massachusetts by passing legislation aimed at combating wage disparity based on gender. (For a discussion on California, New York and Massachusetts’s Equal Pay Laws, click on our previous posts.)
Expanding Equal Pay for Equal Work
The new law, which goes into effect October 1, 2016, amends Maryland’s existing Equal Pay for Equal Work Act by expanding the prohibition on wage discrimination based on “sex” to also include “gender identity.” The protection against pay discrimination for work performed in the same establishment and of comparable character or on the same operation encompasses more than just unequal payment of wages. The new law also bars discrimination for “providing less favorable employment opportunities,” which includes: (1) assigning or directing an employee into a less favorable career track or position; (2) failing to provide information about promotions or advancement opportunities in the full range of career tracks offered by the employer; or (3) limiting or depriving an employee of employment opportunities that would otherwise be available but for the employee’s sex or gender identity.