Contact Us
Categories
- SCOTUS
- FTC
- Emotional Support Animals
- Service Animals
- Employee Agreement
- Remote Work
- Federal Trade Commission
- LGBTQ
- Minors
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- Arbitration
- Work from Home
- Workplace health
- Intellectual Property
- Trade Secrets
- Corporate
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- Center for Disease Control
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- IRS
- Paid Sick Leave
- Temporary Leave
- Treasury
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- Overtime Rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Independent Contractors
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- Employment Law
- ERISA
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Human Resource Department
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- Young v. UPS
- Amazon
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- Department of Health and Human Services
- EEOC
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Checks
- Security Screening
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer
- Cloud
- Creech v. Brown
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Lane v. Franks
- Micro-unit
- Non-exempt employees
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- "Ban-the-box"
- 2013)
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Bullying
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Companionship services
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Crystalline Silica
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Earnings
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Home Health Care Workers
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Jury duty
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Maternity Leave
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Northwestern
- Payroll
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- At-will employment
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- COBRA
- Defamation
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Employee Forms
- Employee Hazards
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Endorsements
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- FICA
- Form I-9
- Freedom of Speech
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- Giant Food LLC
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- KYSHRM 2013
- Litigation
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Medical Exams
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Account Protection
- Online Defamation
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Play or Pay
- Private employers
- Record Retention
- Reference checks
- Sequester
- Severance Pay
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- Tangible employment actions
- Tax Refund
- Telecommuting
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Quality Stores
- United States v. Windsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Crisis Management
- Employee Arrests
- Employee photographs
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- KRS 391.170
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- Municipal Liability
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Posting Requirements
- Public Sector Liability
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Social Privacy Laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Workplace Politics
- Business Insurance
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Federal Department of Labor
- Hiring and Firing
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Insurance Coverage
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- National Labor Relations Act
- Retaliation by Association
- Salary Threshold
- Unemployment Benefits
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
Employers, Beware: New EEOC Proposed Rule Would Gather Data, but Not Context
Every year, employers with 100 or more employees are required by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (“EEOC”) to invite employment applicants to self-identify their gender, race, and ethnicity on an EEO-1 report. On February 1st, however, the EEOC published a Proposed Rule that requires these employers to also include pay data and hours worked for all employees. This new regulation will provide a fairly powerful tool to the EEOC, but it could also prove to be a nightmare for employers.
The EEO-1 form sorts employees into ten very broad categories of employment. The new regulations would include 12 bands of employee pay for an “annual salary” for each job classification. The form also would require employers to report the number of hours worked in each pay band for the year. Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez said that the form furthers the EEOC goal of equal pay, which he said the agency cannot do without “the best, most comprehensive information about what people earn.” As the form divides employees out by gender, race/ethnicity and pay received for hours work, it provides a fairly hefty tool for EEOC data analysis of potential discrimination.
At the same time, the form as proposed provides an equally hefty potential burden for employers. What the form does not provide, for instance, is context. Suppose, for example, two employees - one male and one female, both in the same pay band with the same number of hours worked. The male makes 20% more pay than the female as noted on the form, but what the form does not take notice of is the fact that the male is a twenty-year veteran of the company, while the female is a recent hire. This might pose a red flag to the EEOC on the basis of gender discrimination, and the agency may choose, based on the data, to conduct an investigation of the employer, which can create a significant burden on that employer. The form data collected doesn’t consider factors such as seniority, skill sets, job duties, promotions and bonuses, and so the potential for EEOC investigation based on a misread of facially disproportionate data is high. Too many differences in pay are based on legitimate, non-discriminatory factors for most employers, so the inclusion of this data in this manner on the draft EEO-1 form should be a significant concern to employers.
Luckily, employers have until April 1 to make their voices heard on this proposed regulation. Also, concerned employers should turn to experienced counsel for a discussion and analysis of potential pay disparity issues in the workplace before the EEOC comes knocking on the door. This proposed form is set to take effect on September 30, 2017. For more information on the proposed revision to form EEO-1 or how it may affect your workplace, please contact the attorneys at McBrayer.
Cynthia L. Effinger, attorney with McBrayer law is located in the firm’s Louisville office. Ms. Effinger’s practice is concentrated in the areas of employment law and commercial litigation. Her employment law practice is focused on drafting employment manuals and policies, social media, wage and hour, non-compete agreements and workplace discrimination. Ms. Effinger can be reached at ceffinger@mcbrayerfirm.com or (502) 327-5400, ext. 2316.
Services may be performed by others.
This article does not constitute legal advice.

