A Court Has Ordered That Employers Must Report 2017 and 2018 Pay Data to the EEOC by September 30, 2019

May 7, 2019

Reading Time : 3 min

Under the EEOC’s longstanding collection practices, private employers with 100 or more employees (and certain federal contractors) have been required to submit annual EEO-1 reports with workforce data on the gender, ethnicity and race of employees in 10 specified job categories. In 2016, under President Obama, the EEOC and Department of Labor announced their intent to revise the EEO-1 form. The revised EEO-1 has two parts: Component 1, which is the current EEO-1 that collects the gender, ethnicity and  race demographics in the 10 specified job categories; and a new Component 2, which will collect pay data and hours worked in 12 pay bands, broken down by gender, ethnicity and race in the same 10 specified job categories as Component 1. Pay information is to be based upon W-2 earnings (Box 1). Actual hours worked must be reported for nonexempt employees, and for exempt employees, employers have the option of using a proxy of 40 hours per week for full-time exempt employees and 20 hours per week for part-time exempt employees, multiplied by the number of weeks the individuals were employed during the reporting year.

The new EEO-1 Component 2 reporting requirements are aimed at identifying potential pay disparities between male and female employees, and among employees of different races and ethnicities, making it easier for the EEOC to pursue investigations into systemic compensation discrimination. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued its approval of the revised EEO-1 form in September 2016, and the new pay data collection obligations were set to begin in 2018. As discussed in our recent Bloomberg Law article, available here, in August 2017, under the Trump administration, the OMB decided to initiate a review and stay of the implementation of pay data collection under Component 2.

In November 2017, several advocacy groups filed suit, arguing that the OMB’s decision to freeze implementation of pay data collection was without basis in law. After months of litigation, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the advocacy groups, vacated the stay and reinstated the collection of Component 2 data. Judge Chutkan ordered the EEOC to collect Component 2 data for 2018 by September 30, 2019, and gave the agency the option to either collect 2017 pay data by September 30, 2019, or instead collect 2019 pay data during the 2020 EEO-1 reporting period. The EEOC has opted to collect 2017 pay data, in addition to pay data for 2018. The May 31, 2019, deadline to report Component 1 data for 2018 remains unchanged.

On May 3, 2019, the Department of Justice filed a notice that it is appealing Judge Chutkan’s order. Absent a stay issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, however, employers will have to submit Component 2 data for calendar years 2017 and 2018 by the September 30, 2019, deadline and should prepare accordingly.

The EEOC expects to begin collecting Component 2 data by mid-July 2019, and will be providing additional guidance over the coming months on how the data should be collected and reported. Employers should continue checking the EEOC’s website for updates. The EEOC has also said it anticipates launching a helpdesk sometime in the next three weeks to assist employers with questions about the collection of Component 2 pay and hours worked data.

While awaiting further guidance from the EEOC, employers should consider assessing how the required Component 2 data will be collected and reported by the September 30, 2019, deadline. For example, employers should identify where the data is stored and evaluate whether they are equipped to handle the Component 2 report internally or will need to collaborate with an outside vendor to generate and file the report.

Employers also should consider what their pay data might look like to the EEOC and other enforcement agencies, and be prepared to explain the data in the event that they are targeted for an investigation. A pay equity audit with the guidance of counsel will help employers group employees who are similarly situated in terms of compensation, identify any potential pay disparities, determine whether those disparities can be explained by legitimate nondiscriminatory factors and remedy unexplained pay differences where they exist.

Finally, employers should continue submitting Component 1 data for 2018 by the May 31, 2019, deadline, unless granted an extension. The EEOC recently shortened the extension period to report Component 1 data from 30 days to two weeks, so the extension deadline, if granted, is now June 14, 2019. Employers can submit Component 1 data here.

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.