EEO-1 Pay Reporting Obligations Back On?
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.07.19
A March 4, 2019 ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has effectively reinstated a key Obama-era pay reporting obligation, finding that the Trump Administration’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) blocked enforcement of the obligation without providing sufficient justification.
The reporting obligation at issue, which proponents claimed would increase pay transparency by requiring employers to provide data on employees’ wages, hours, and demographics in their annual EEO-1 filings, was put on hold by OMB in August of 2017. In response, the National Women’s Law Center and the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement filed suit, asserting that their organizational missions were hampered by the resulting lack of public EEO-1 data. The District Court’s ruling, issued by District Judge Tanya Chutkan, found that OMB did not take proper steps in staying the regulation, and that its actions were arbitrary and capricious and constituted an abuse of discretion.
This ruling is bad news for employers, as the required data collection would be burdensome and expensive. Employer organizations, moreover, have argued forcefully that the pay data required for reporting would be susceptible to a high degree of “false positives” and would not be useful to the OFCCP’s and EEOC’s efforts to identify genuine pay disparities or otherwise assist their enforcement efforts.
The big open question is whether, in light of Judge Chutkan’s ruling, employers will be required to submit the pay data by the current reporting deadline of May 31. We expect guidance from the EEOC on that issue in the near term. And it remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will appeal Judge Chutkan’s ruling, or whether the current deadline will be extended.
The case is National Women’s Law Center, et al., v. Office of Management and Budget, et al., 1:17-cv-02458-TSC.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25



