Guidance on EEO-1 Reporting Obligations Expected April 3
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.20.19
A March 4, 2019 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia reinstating the EEO-1 compensation reporting obligations has left employers in limbo as the current May 31, 2019 filing deadline fast approaches. The EEOC opened its online EEO-1 portal on March 18th without including the compensation reporting requirements, and issued a statement saying simply that it is “working diligently on next steps” in response to the court’s ruling. Unsatisfied with that response, and recognizing the burden that the revised data collection would place on employers, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan ruled yesterday that the EEOC and OMB have until April 3, 2019 to inform employers of the timing and scope of their reporting obligations.
Stay tuned for further updates, as we will provide additional information about this key reporting obligation when it becomes available.
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
