Category Archives: legal issues

Employee Handbooks Under Scrutiny

OK, pop quiz: What’s the difference between these two employee-handbook policies?

  1. “Be respectful to the company, other employees, customers, partners, and competitors.”
  2. “Each employee is expected to work in a cooperative manner with management/supervision, co-workers, customers and vendors.”

One, according to the National Labor Relations Board, is legal. The other is not. (I’ll tell you which was which in a minute.)

Don’t fret if you have trouble seeing the difference. That’s why we have lawyers. And that’s why there’s plenty of work for them as the ThinkstockPhotos-517631808NLRB cracks down on employee-handbook language — including provisions that once were standard — that it says is too broad.

In a series of rulings the agency has told companies to revise policies that infringe on rights of workers — unionized or not — to talk to each other about the company in person or through social media.

“Employers are really waking up to this,” says Lauri F. Rasnick, a member of the firm at Epstein Becker Green of New York. “For a long time, nonunionized employers didn’t give a lot of thought to NLRB decisions.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce contends the effort is part of an anti-employer crusade. In a highly critical December report titled “Theater of the Absurd: The NLRB Takes on the Employee Handbook,” the trade group argues that the agency “has undertaken a campaign to outlaw heretofore uncontroversial rules found in employee handbooks and in employers’ social media policies.”

Worse, according to the chamber: the NLRB’s guidance to employers often is contradictory, creating “a morass of confusion that leaves employers wondering just how they are to exercise effective control over their workplaces.”

Rasnick agrees. “I do think that’s part of the challenge for employers,” she says, noting that NLRB decisions aren’t always consistent. And they are continuing to evolve, with confidentiality provisions attracting more scrutiny in recent rulings, she says.

The latest headline came this month after an administrative law judge ruled that Quicken Loans and five related companies had illegal rules in its employee handbook, which it calls “The Big Book.” (Despite the Quicken name, the companies are not owned by software company Intuit; they’re led by Dan Gilbert, majority owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers.)

To the untutored eye, many of the rules seem pretty standard stuff. An example: “Think before you Tweet. Or post, comment or pin. What you share can live forever. If it doesn’t belong on the front page of The New York Times, don’t put it online.”

The problem with this rule, wrote judge David I. Goldman in his April 7 ruling:  Although the policy doesn’t tell workers they can’t bad-mouth the company online, “an employee considering this suggestion would reasonably feel chilled by this rule from expressing negative (but protected) information” about the employer.

The companies are appealing the decision to the full board. But there’s little indication that the NLRB is letting up on the effort.

Back to our pop quiz. Of those two employee-handbook policies, the first (“be respectful”) is illegal, according to the NLRB’s general counsel. The second (“work in a cooperative manner”) is OK.

The problem is in telling workers they must be “respectful” to management, as well as customers and others, wrote Richard F. Griffin Jr. in a memo last year. An employee might reasonably see that as a ban on complaining about the company, he wrote.

The second example is legal, Griffin wrote. “Employees would reasonably understand that it is stating the employer’s legitimate expectation that employees work together in an atmosphere of civility.”

Twitter It!

The DOL’s New Fiduciary Rule

The new fiduciary rule issued yesterday by the Dept. of Labor, which is designed to address conflicts of interest among financial advisers, will require HR departments to review their arrangements with vendors that provide retirement-plan services, say experts.

“The definition of ‘fiduciary’ is being expanded, and HR will need to determine if they have vendors that will now fall under this category,” says Robert Kaplan, associate attorney in Ballard Spahr’s employee benefits and executive compensation group.

The rule is designed to protect the best interests of retirement-plan participants and sponsors by applying the “fiduciary standard” to all those who provide investment advice in order to prevent conflicts-of-interest, which the White House Council of Economic Advisers says costs retirement savers $17 billion a year.

In many cases, vendors that provide services for employer-sponsored retirement plans that hadn’t been fiduciaries before the new rule – such as broker-dealers, mutual-fund representatives, etc. – will be considered fiduciaries once the new rule takes effect (it goes into final effect on April 1, 2018, with a “transition period” starting April 1, 2017). HR will need to carefully evaluate all advisers that provide services to their organization’s retirement plans to determine whether they’ll now be considered fiduciaries, says Kaplan.

For example, many 401(k) record-keepers offer “reach out” campaigns targeted at plan participants (including former employees who still have accounts in the company plan) who may be considering whether to rollover funds from a 401(k) plan into an individual retirement account. Today these services only need to meet a “suitability” standard, says Kaplan; under the new rule, they must meet the fiduciary standard.

Much of the compliance duties for the new rule will be handled by vendors and record keepers, says Kaplan. However, in a few instances HR may encounter vendors that refuse to recognize that they will now be considered fiduciaries – in such cases, HR will need to terminate the relationship, he says.

“There are some less-than-reputable vendors that don’t want to be held to the fiduciary standard, and they will probably be driven out of the business,” says Kaplan.

Twitter It!

Key Lessons from the Tyson Decision

ThinkstockPhotos-485982240I’m sure many of you have now read or heard about the Supreme Court’s Tyson vs. Bouaphakeo decision on Tuesday upholding a Court of Appeals decision in the Eighth Circuit,  which sides with Tyson workers at an Iowa pork-processing plant.

The employees’ main grievance was that they did not receive mandated overtime pay for time spent “donning and doffing” protective equipment.

In its attempt to reverse the judgment, lawyers representing Tyson took aim at the case’s class-action status, making two arguments. First, they argued the class should not have been certified because the method used to prove injury assumed each employee spent the same time donning and doffing protective gear. Second, they argued that certification was improper because the damages awarded to the class could be distributed to individuals who did not work any uncompensated overtime.

In delivering the majority opinion (6-2), however, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that …

“A representative or statistical sample, like all evidence, is a means to establish or defend against liability. Its permissibility turns not on the form a proceeding takes—be it a class or individual action—but on the degree to which the evidence is reliable in proving or disproving the elements of the relevant cause of action.”

In this instance, Kennedy said, the court’s holding is in accord with the 2011 Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision, which supported the blocking of a class-action against the retailer.

Yesterday, I asked Patrick Bannon, a partner in the Boston office of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, to share his assessment of the Tyson decision.

It’s pretty narrow, as SCOTUS decisions go, he said, because it’s largely based on the fact that it accepted a study by an expert hired by the plaintiff as valid evidence, but it didn’t really look at the particulars of the study. “They assumed,” he said, “that it was valid because the defendant hadn’t challenged the study. In a case in which an employer challenges a study with shaky statistics and not good evidence, the outcome could have been quite different.

“If there’s a cautionary tale here for employment attorneys,” Bannon said, it’s be careful of plaintiff lawyers bearing statistics.

Asked if HR leaders should be doing anything differently in light of the decision, Bannon noted that it does raise the question as to whether employers should be tracking donning and doffing time, even if it’s time employees don’t need to be paid for. “That’s a question HR folks should at least be thinking about,” he said. “It’s not always right for every workplace to try to measure tasks that you don’t think are really work, but if it turns out that it really is work and you were wrong about it, then you start down the road that Tyson Foods was on.

“If you’re an employer with a lot of employees who are all doing a repetitive task every day—and if there’s a way to measure what they’re doing that’s not too intrusive or confusing—then I’d be thinking about it,” he said.

Other employment attorneys noted that the case took on additional importance because of its connection to the Wal-Mart ruling, in which the Court rejected the use of statistical evidence to provide a pattern of discrimination.

Seth Rafkin, a partner in the New York and San Diego offices of Cooley LLP, pointed out that …

“The key threshold at issue in the Tyson and Wal-Mart cases was whether the positions and work experiences of class members were sufficiently similar such that the statistical evidence based on [a] sample of class members could reasonably be relied on as representative of the experience of other class members. In the Wal-Mart case, the Court found that the positions and experience of class members was so diverse that the statistical evidence could not be relied on as representative of the class’ experience. In contrast, the class in the Tyson case all worked at the same facility, performed similar work and were subject to the same policy.”

Twitter It!

Internal Investigations are Getting Longer

Patience may be a virtue, but HR leaders shouldn’t expect their employees to necessarily see it that way when it comes to the increasing number of days it’s taking employers to complete internal investigations.

ThinkstockPhotos-470406181As some of you may recall, my colleague — Kristen Frasch — posted details on Friday from NAVEX Global’s 2015 Europe, Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific State of Compliance Programmes Benchmark Report. In it, NAVEX reported that, on a global scale, boards are not getting regular compliance reports from their ethics and compliance officers.

Well, here’s an even newer report from NAVEX that sheds light on the time it’s taking these days to respond to open internal-investigation cases.

In its 2016 Ethics and Compliance Hotline Benchmark report, NAVEX reveals that the timeline for internal investigations is continuing to lengthen. More precisely, companies took a median of 46 calendar days to close such cases, up from 39 days in 2014 and 32 days in 2011.

HR, diversity and workplace-respect cases, in particular, jumped to 47 calendar days, up from 37 days in 2014. (These cases represented 71 percent of the 867,551 reports — at 2,311 client organizations — in NAVEX’s database.)

Needless to say, this doesn’t bode well for employers that want to keep employee morale high and limit how often employees take their complaints outside their organizations. Who needs the EEOC knocking on your door, right?

Asked what’s driving these longer timelines, Carrie Penman, chief compliance officer and senior vice president of advisory services for NAVEX Global, pointed to several factors.

In a poll conducted during a client webinar held by NAVEX last week, Penman said, roughly 46 percent of the respondents cited a lack of resources as the primary reason. “Resources are simply not keeping pace with the volume,” Penman pointed out. Case complexity turned out to be the second-most-mentioned driver in the poll.

Penman said some of the respondents specifically mentioned the global nature of many of the cases and the more frequent involvement of legal counsels as important drivers. (She said roughly 1,000 individuals participated in the webinar, with about six in 10 taking part in the polling.)

So what should HR leaders be doing about this lengthening time frame?

Penman hopes many will use these findings to hammer home the need for additional resources. As far as her clients are concerned, she said, she advises them to “record all of the issues they are working on in a central database so they can get a holistic picture of what’s going on in their organizations” and can, in turn, make a stronger case for more support.

Among other disturbing findings in the more recent NAVEX report: Workers are apparently skipping an internal remedy and taking retaliation claims outside their organizations. Despite the noticeable rise in retaliation claims being taken up by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in recent years, they continue to represent less than 1 percent of all reports in NAVEX’s database.

“People are simply not giving their organizations a chance to address their concerns and are instead taking them outside … ,” Penman said.

Twitter It!

Oregon’s ‘Historic’ Minimum-Wage Increase

In the ongoing saga of state-enacted minimum-wage increases in the United States (here are our HREOnline analyses and our HRE Daily posts on the subject), it seems we’ve reached a new plateau.

A gavel and a name plate with the engraving Minimum WageAccording to this release from Littler, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown recently signed the first geographically-tiered minimum-wage hike in the country. Her Senate Bill 1532 also gives Oregon the nation’s current highest political statewide minimum wage.

Basically, the state’s current minimum wage is $9.25; however, beginning July 1, 2016, it will rise steadily each year through at least June 30, 2023. How much the rate will increase will depend on where an employer is located within the state.

In other words, this approach allowed the drafter of the plan to account for a higher cost of living in the Portland metro area, for instance, and a lower cost of living in rural parts of the state.

—————————————————-

Here is the actual table, with some explanation and footnotes showing the rundown of the plan:

Effective Date of Rate Increase Base Rate Exception:  Rate within Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary2 Exception:  Rate within Nonurban Counties3
July 1, 2016 $9.75 $9.75 $9.50
July 1, 2017 $10.25 $11.25 $10.00
July 1, 2018 $10.75 $12.00 $10.50
July 1, 2019 $11.25 $12.50 $11.00
July 1, 2020 $12.00 $13.25 $11.50
July 1, 2021 $12.75 $14.00 $12.00
July 1, 2022 $13.50 $14.75 $12.50

After June 30, 2023, the base rate will be adjusted for inflation, with the Portland rate set $1.25 above the base and the nonurban county rate set $1.00 below the base.

Employers should review their payroll practices and, as with any minimum wage increase, implement any required changes to comply with each of the upcoming rate adjustments starting later this year.

1 Some cities have recently raised the minimum wage higher than the projected rates established by Oregon’s new law.

2 An area encompassing the City of Portland and much of the greater tri-county area (Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties) that is managed and periodically expanded by Metro, the Portland area regional government.

3 Baker, Coos, Crook, Curry, Douglas, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, and Wheeler counties.

——————————————————

Interestingly, this piece by Kristen Hannum of the Catholic News Service suggests certain lawmakers relied on their religious faith to inform their votes. As Democratic state Rep. Rob Nosse, of Portland, told the Catholic Sentinel, the archdiocesan newspaper, “Absolutely my faith informs how I voted on this and how I think about it.”

Other religious groups in the state apparently don’t even think the new wage does enough. Jeanne Haster, executive director of the Jesuit Volunteer Corps Northwest, thought the legislation could have gone further, but she appreciates the compromises made to pass the bill. “It’s a practical approach,” she tells Hannum.

One she doesn’t even follow.

According to the story, Haster says her Jesuit Volunteer Corps Northwest sets its employees’ salaries according to Portland’s estimated living wage, which was pegged at $13.56 an hour in the summer of 2015. As she suggests, the Portland, Ore., poverty problem that Oregon legislators were at least willing to consider and act on, is huge:

“We try to pay a living wage rather than a minimum wage because Portland has become such a difficult city to afford to live in. I don’t know how people who make minimum wage live. I think we need to be paying people so they can escape living in poverty.”

It’ll be interesting to see if other states follow Oregon’s lead in trying to address this problem regionally and geographically. That would certainly turn this “plateau” into a whole new chapter.

Twitter It!

Should Yelp Have Fired Employee?

There may be a few HR lessons to be learned from the recent media firestorm that’s engulfed Yelp since it fired former employee Talia Ben-Ora after she wrote an open letter to Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman complaining about her low pay.

Ben-Ora, who worked in customer support at Yelp’s Eat24 food-delivery service, said in her letter that the pay she and her co-workers earned simply wasn’t enough to survive in the San Francisco Bay Area, one of the most expensive regions in the United States. “So here I am, 25-years old, balancing all sorts of debt and trying to pave a life for myself that doesn’t involve crying in the bathtub every week,” she wrote. “Every single one of my co-workers is struggling …. they’re taking side jobs, they’re living at home.”

Shortly after posting the letter on Medium.com, Ben-Ora was fired. She later wrote on Twitter that she was fired because she violated Yelp’s employee code of conduct.

For his part, Stoppelman has denied, via Twitter, that Ben-Ora was fired because of the letter and said he was not personally involved in her termination. He also acknowledged the high cost of living in San Francisco.

When an employee posts an angry diatribe against the company on social media, HR and the CEO need to “take a deep breath,” says employment attorney Erin Dougherty Foley of Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago.

“If the conduct was egregious or in some way violated the company’s code of conduct (or other policy), then the company would likely have a defensible reason for making the termination decision,” she says.

In Yelp’s case, there very well may have been other factors involved in the company’s decision to fire Ben-Ora, says Foley. “I get a sense that there’s a back story there.”

However, employers also need to be aware of the risks of firing an employee (particularly with respect to public opinion) in such a public context, even if their reasons for doing so are perfectly valid, says Foley. “Companies should not feel handcuffed by employees engaging in conduct on social media, they just need to ensure that they are considering the conduct both in the context of the risk that it poses to the company (i.e., is another employee being harassed or bullied as a result) or whether the employee is engaging in ‘protected concerted activity’ or just blowing off steam.”

The “concerted protected activity” part can be a bit tricky, as the National Labor Relations Board has ruled in a number of cases that employees were engaging in protected activity when they took to social media to complain about wages and working conditions. “We don’t yet have a lot of clear or consistent direction from the courts or the NLRB on what is, and isn’t, protected activity,” she says.

One of the most important lessons here is that HR needs to ensure that “a robust open-door policy is in place for employees to raise these types of concerns without going to social media,” says Foley. “A real value-added for HR is being the ear to the ground, hearing and addressing these types of concerns before they go to the Internet,” she says. “A culture that fosters this sort of openness will serve the company well in the long run.”

 

Twitter It!

Uncovering a Six-Year Ditch in Spain

If an employee doesn’t show up to work for six years and no one notices, was the employee really that essential in the first place?

City officials in Cadiz, Spain are left to ponder this existential riddle after determining that Joaquin Garcia—a 69-year-old civil servant who was thought to be supervising the construction of a water treatment plant—was AWOL from his job for more than half a decade before being found out.

As if that wasn’t wacky enough, the way in which this serial slacker’s ruse was eventually discovered is almost too good to be true.

As USA Today reports, the water company thought that Garcia’s position was within the purview of the Cadiz city council, while city officials were under the impression that Garcia reported to leadership at the water company.

Amid this confusion, it seems his extreme absenteeism somehow went almost completely undetected, and apparently didn’t faze those at the water company who happened to notice that Garcia hadn’t been to work in a really, really long time. One manager, for example, even admitted to “not having seen Garcia for years, despite having an office across from him,” according to the paper.

Still, seeing Garcia’s workspace sit unoccupied for years on end evidently didn’t alarm this co-worker (or any of Garcia’s other colleagues?) enough to raise any concerns.

No, the jig was only up when deputy mayor Jorge Blas arrived to present Garcia with an award for—of all things—his 20 years of “loyal and dedicated service” to the city in 2010.

Garcia, of course, was nowhere to be found.

“[I wondered], is he still there? Has he retired? Has he died? But the payroll showed he was still receiving a salary,” Blas recently told media outlets. “I called him up and asked him, ‘What did you do yesterday? The month before, the month before that? He didn’t know what to say.”

An investigation was launched in short order, revealing that Garcia hadn’t been to his office in at least six years and had done “absolutely no work” between 2007 and 2010, according to USA Today. Legal action was taken against him in 2010. The case only concluded last week, with Garcia being fined approximately $30,000.

Garcia, who retired in 2011, has written to the city’s mayor asking that the fine be waived, and has requested a review of the judgment, according to BBC News. Garcia also maintains that he didn’t simply stop coming to work, but was assigned to a post “where there was no work to do” after being bullied on the job for his socialist political leanings, the BBC reports.

Whatever precipitated Garcia’s … let’s call it an extended, unsanctioned vacation, the details uncovered by the subsequent investigation are almost inconceivable. It’s hard to imagine most companies allowing an employee—in this case, a supervisor!—to slip so far between the cracks that he or she could be virtually invisible for any period of time, let alone six years. But, if this far-flung story holds any lessons for the typical HR executive, maybe it’s as a cautionary (if highly improbable) tale that shows just what can happen when reporting structures are unclear and communication is lacking.

Twitter It!

Sieving Through the EEOC’s Data

Yesterday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released its breakdown of workplace-discrimination charges that the agency received in fiscal year 2015 (Oct. 1, 2014, through Sept. 30, 2015)—and, to no one’s surprise, retaliation charges topped the list, representing 44.5 percent of all charges.

ThinkstockPhotos-177129299What is somewhat notable about the number of retaliation charges, however, is the fact that it climbed 5 percent from a year earlier. (Only disability charges, ranked third on the list after race, climbed more, at 6 percent.)

Thomas B. Lewis, a shareholder with Stevens & Lee law firm in Lawrenceville, N.J., is among the ranks of those not surprised by the number of retaliation claims being filed.

“In my view,” Lewis says, “retaliation is the most subjective charge that can be filed, because employees have different definitions of what retaliation means. Oftentimes, if employees haven’t been given a raise or given a promotion, they’re going to believe they’re being retaliated against… . It all comes down to what the employee believes is happening.”

Lewis adds that the 5 percent jump from the year before is significant. “There are retaliation claims out there in which employees believe they are being retaliated against just by the way the manager looks at them.”

Of the charges on the EEOC’s list, he adds, retaliation claims are extremely difficult to prove, both for the company and the employee.

We also probably shouldn’t overlook the fact that 10 percentage points separate retaliation claims from the next nearest category of charges: race. That’s a pretty noticeable gap between No. 1 and No. 2.

In its release, the EEOC reports that it resolved 92,641 charges in fiscal year 2015, and secured more than $525 million for victims of discrimination through voluntary resolutions and litigation. However, as might be expected, most of the charges were resolved through mediation.

The agency, in fact, filed 142 merits lawsuits last year. Sure, that was an increase of nine from a year earlier, but still represents only a small portion of the 89,385 claims filed. “For a national organization covering all 50 states and trying to protect the rights of employees from all forms of discrimination,” Lewis said, “it’s [noteworthy] that so few discrimination claims actually resulted in the EEOC taking a position and advocating that position on behalf of employees.”

In case you’re wondering, the majority of the lawsuits filed alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Of course, if you’re an employer, it’s hard to find comfort in the number of claims being filed these days, especially the increase in retaliation claims. But for anyone who finds himself or herself on the receiving end of one or more claims, Lewis’ advice is to do your best to try to resolve them amicably. And if you can’t? Then try to resolve them through mediation, an approach, Lewis says, the EEOC will often push for.

Twitter It!

The Ramifications of Stacked Rankings

It’s fair to say that employee-ranking systems are controversial and pretty unpopular. But illegal?

A former Yahoo! Inc. employee contends the Sunnyvale, Calif.-based technology company’s quarterly performance reviews violate state and federal laws, and claims as much in a lawsuit filed Monday in San Jose, Calif.

The reviews, which rate every Yahoo! employee on a scale of 1 to 5, have been one of Marissa Mayer’s “signature policies” since taking over as CEO in 2012, according to the New York Times.

Earlier this week, the Times summed up the suit filed by Gregory Anderson, in which he challenges Yahoo!’s performance review system as “discriminatory and a violation of federal and California laws governing mass layoffs,” according to the paper.

Anderson, an editor who supervised a handful of Yahoo! sites before his November 2014 firing, charges that the company’s senior managers “routinely manipulated the rating system to fire hundreds of people without just cause to achieve the company’s financial goals,” notes the Times.

Such cuts, Anderson claims, amounted to “illegal mass layoffs.”

As the paper points out, California law mandates that employers making layoffs that involve more than 50 employees, and take place within 30 days at a single location, must provide workers 60 days advance notice. On the federal level, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act obliges employers to offer advance notice for a layoff of 500 or more employees.

According to the Times, Yahoo! never provided such notices when it let go of 1,100 employees between late 2014 and early 2015, “ostensibly for performance reasons.” The company is now faced with the prospect of paying each affected employee $500 a day in addition to back pay and benefits for each day of advance notice it failed to provide, the Times reports.

For its part, Yahoo! maintains that its rating system is sound. In a statement, the company says its performance review process “also allows for high performers to engage in increasingly larger opportunities at our company, as well as for low performers to be transitioned out.” In regard to Anderson’s legal complaint, the company says his specific allegations are groundless, and claims that Anderson unsuccessfully sought a $5 million settlement before filing the suit.

It could be a while before this case winds its way through the legal system. And we’ll certainly be following it here. (In fact, come back to HREOnline early next week for a more in-depth analysis of Anderson’s claims, including some expert insight into the nuances of the lawsuit and its chances of succeeding.)

In the meantime, the stacked rankings that have been a hallmark of Mayer’s tenure at Yahoo! will likely remain a polarizing concept. Although the stacked ranking system has never had a shortage of detractors, a claim that such rankings are actually illegal seems unique. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

Twitter It!

EEOC Wants Pay Data From Employers

Under a new proposal from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, all employers with more than 100 workers will be required to furnish pay data to the federal government as part of their Employer Information Report (EEO-1), beginning with the September 2017 report. The objective, says the EEOC, is to make it easier for the government to spot potential cases of pay discrimination and to assist employers in promoting equal pay in their workplaces.

The proposal will be announced today in conjunction with a White House ceremony commemorating the seventh anniversary of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

“More than 50 years after pay discrimination became illegal it remains a persistent problem for too many Americans,” said EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang in a statement. “Collecting pay data is a significant step forward in addressing discriminatory pay practices.”

“We can’t know what we don’t know,” said Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez. “We can’t deliver on the promise of equal pay unless we have the best, most comprehensive information about what people earn.”

The collected pay data will help employers evaluate their own pay practices to prevent pay discrimination in their workplaces while giving the Labor Dept. “a more powerful tool” to do its enforcement work, said Perez.

The EEOC proposal is in response to a task force set up by President Obama, which recommended new data-collection requirements to combat pay discrimination in the workplace.

Twitter It!