EEOC Announces it will Require both 2017 and 2018 W-2 Data By September 30, 2019 . . . But the Saga Continues
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.06.19
The government took two significant steps on Friday regarding the battle over the EEO-1 pay data. Most notably, in response to Judge Tanya Chutkan’s recent ruling, the EEOC issued a Rule requiring employers with 100 or more employees and federal contractors with 50 or more employees to file “Component 2” W-2 earnings data for calendar year 2017 by September 30, 2019. This requirement is in addition to the mandate that such employers submit “Component 2” W-2 data for calendar year 2018 by that same date. The EEOC stated that it believes its portal will be open to receive such filings by mid-July 2019. On the same day, the Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal of Judge Chutkan’s ruling, so the fight over the EEO-1 pay data requirements will continue. However, the appeal does not stay Judge Chutkan’s ruling, so employers should prepare to file both 2017 and 2018 data by September 30th and should stay tuned, as this saga continues.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
