With an Eye Towards Pay Equity Illinois Enters the Wage Data Collection Game

Blair A. Gerold

On March 23, 2021, Illinois amended the state’s Equal Pay Act of 2003 to include additional reporting requirements targeted at identifying gender and racial pay disparities.

Under the newly enacted Section 11 of the Equal Pay Act, any private employer with more than 100 employees in Illinois must obtain an “equal pay registration certificate” from the Illinois Department of Labor. Employers must obtain this certificate within three years of the amendment’s effective date—i.e., by March 23, 2024—and then every two years thereafter.

To apply for this certificate, the employer must submit a $150 filing fee, the employer’s most recent EEO-1 report, and a report of all employees from the past calendar year “separated by gender and the race and ethnicity categories as reported in the business’s most recently filed Employer Information Report EEO-1, and report the total wages . . . paid to each employee during the past calendar year.”

Continue reading “With an Eye Towards Pay Equity Illinois Enters the Wage Data Collection Game”

Will Federal Contractors Be Required to Certify Employee COVID Vaccinations?

Brooke T. Iley and Albert B. Krachman

Do not be surprised if, before the end of 2021, the federal government begins requiring contractors to certify or represent that their employees have received COVID vaccinations. The federal government has long conditioned contract awards on contractor compliance with emerging social policy mandates. This practice dates backs to the 1960s, when collateral social policy clauses began appearing in federal contracts. The National Emergency created by COVID-19 would appear ripe for a similar federal government action in federal contracting.

Several factors are converging in the United States which signal the potential for a COVID vaccine Certification or Representation. First, the supply issue should be mostly resolved by June 30, 2021. The Biden administration has committed to make enough vaccines available for every adult in the country by the end of May 2021. Second, the administration has been extremely active in making procurement law changes to conform to its policy objectives. Crafting an Executive Order on COVID Vaccines for federal contractor employees is clearly within the administration’s wheelhouse and target zone. Third, as reported in the March 8, 2021, Wall Street Journal, the largest employers in the country, across all sectors, are already engaged in large scale efforts to vaccinate their own employees. Fourth, while the law in this area is still evolving, the prevailing view is that, with certain exceptions, private employers are legally permitted to mandate their employees receive COVID vaccinations as a condition of continuing employment, subject to a variety of considerations related to employee legal, medical, and workplace accommodations. Finally, the federal government might find a federal contractor vaccine mandate a helpful leverage point in the evolving conflict with those states choosing to disregard COVID protections. Continue reading “Will Federal Contractors Be Required to Certify Employee COVID Vaccinations?”

Delaware Court Preserves McDonald’s Right to Seek Clawback of Ex-CEO’s Severance Benefits

Daniel L. Morgan

A recent decision by the Delaware Chancery Court in the clawback litigation between McDonald’s Corporation and its former CEO highlights the meaning and impact of a common contractual provision: the “integration clause.” Such provisions (sometimes also called “entire agreement” clauses) state that the contract at issue embodies the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between them. The Delaware court rebuffed an effort by the former CEO to argue that the integration clause in his separation agreement precludes McDonald’s from asserting that the CEO’s false statements made while negotiating that agreement provide a basis for seeking repayment of severance benefits he received. The court’s opinion lays out the requirements that a contract must satisfy in order to prevent a party from using the other party’s deceptive or fraudulent statements made prior to entering the contract to seek repayment of the consideration provided. The case is McDonald’s Corporation v. Stephen J. Easterbrook.

Background of the McDonald’s Litigation

In 2019, McDonald’s Corporation parted company with its then-CEO, Stephen Easterbrook, finding that he had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with an employee. McDonald’s and Mr. Easterbrook negotiated and entered into an agreement that treated his separation as “without cause” and paid him significant severance benefits. Several months after Mr. Easterbrook’s departure, additional improprieties were brought to the attention of McDonald’s Board, resulting in McDonald’s filing a lawsuit to claw back the severance benefits previously paid. McDonald’s argues that it would not have agreed to the terms of the separation agreement if Mr. Easterbrook had not covered up the extent of his indiscretions.

Continue reading “Delaware Court Preserves McDonald’s Right to Seek Clawback of Ex-CEO’s Severance Benefits”

New! California Provides Additional Guidance on “Big Brother” Pay Data Reporting Requirements

Caroline Powell Donelan and Howard M. Knee

As a reminder, California’s new pay data reporting for employers with 100 or more employees (and at least one employee in California) is due on or by March 31, 2021. You can read more about these new requirements here. California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) has released helpful FAQs to walk employers through the filing requirements and required content. On February 1, 2021, the DFEH also published a 67-page California Pay Data Reporting Portal User Guide. While the portal itself will not be available until February 16, 2021, the user guide contains helpful information on pay data report content, differences and similarities between the California report and the EEO-1 report, and navigating the Pay Data Reporting Portal (once available), as well as sample reports. Please contact us with any questions.

D.C. Mayor Signs Non-Compete Ban, Dramatically Alters Competitive Landscape

Kevin M. Passerini and Daniel L. Morgan

Late in December 2020, the District of Columbia Council passed legislation titled, “Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020” (the “Act”), barring the use of non-compete agreements and workplace policies that restrict D.C. employees from competing with their employers after, and even during, employment. This week, the Mayor signed the law. Barring an unlikely intervention by Congress (which has authority to review legislation passed by the D.C. Council), the law will take effect after the 30-day Congressional review period.

This Act follows a recent, growing trend to limit the use of non-competes, but it goes further than other recent legislative efforts: it applies to employees at all income levels and even bars the use of “during-employment” non-competes and workplace policies such as those aimed at preventing disloyalty and abuse of company resources. Several key areas warrant emphasis.

Ban Applies to Employees Performing Work in D.C. for Employers that Operate in D.C.

The Act applies to “employees,” defined as any “individual who performs work in the [District of Columbia] on behalf of an employer and any prospective employee who an employer reasonably anticipates will perform work on behalf of the employer in the [District of Columbia].” The term “employer” is defined as “an individual, partnership, general contractor, subcontractor, association, corporation, or business trust operating in the District, or any person or group of persons acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer operating in the District in relation to an employee, including a prospective employer.”

Continue reading “D.C. Mayor Signs Non-Compete Ban, Dramatically Alters Competitive Landscape”

Large Employers Beware: California’s New Pay Reporting Requirements Will Have the State Looking over Your Shoulder for Years to Come

Caroline Powell Donelan and Howard M. Knee

On or by March 31, 2021, (and each March 31 thereafter), private employers in California with more than 100 full-time and part-time employees that are required to file employer information reports with the federal government (“EEO-1” reports) will be required to submit detailed data to California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) regarding the race, ethnicity, and gender of employees in the 10 job categories used in the federal EEO-1 form. Specifically, SB 973 requires employers to report: (1) the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and gender in each of these job categories (looking at any single pay period between October 1 and December 31 of the preceding year); (2) the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and gender whose annual earnings fall within each of the pay bands used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics; (3) the total number of hours worked by each employee counted in each pay band (despite the fact that this information is not commonly kept for exempt workers); and (4) the employer’s North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) code. If an employer has more than one establishment in California, it is required to submit a report for each establishment, as well as a consolidated report that includes all employees.

And, what will the government do with this data? The stated intent of the law is to identify and remedy pay inequities and strengthen current equal pay laws. The new legislation permits the DFEH to use the data collected to prosecute complaints alleging discriminatory wage practices under the Equal Pay Act (California Labor Code § 1197.5). Moreover, the DFEH is authorized to share the reports with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”), so the DLSE can identify wage patterns and institute litigation to challenge suspected discriminatory practices. In other words, rather than the government responding to complaints from employees, or investigating targeted industries, it will now evaluate all data submitted by large employers and decide whether enforcement action is warranted.

The legislation provides that reported data will be kept confidential and not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. The DFEH, however, may compile, publish, and publicize aggregate reports based on the data it receives, so long as the aggregate reports are reasonably calculated to prevent the association of any data with any individual business or person. The data may be used for investigation and enforcement proceedings by the DFEH and the DLSE under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and Labor Code, respectively. Of course, parties to private litigation will likely seek discovery of reported data as well.

SB 973 essentially mirrors an Obama-era pay data collection rule issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was later stayed by the Trump administration. Of course, it remains to be seen whether our new administration will revive these collection efforts at the federal level, but for now, California remains willing to carry the torch.

If you have any questions about your pay practices or these new California reporting requirements under SB 973, please contact a member of our Labor & Employment team.

Trump Administration Bans Contractors from Providing Certain Types of Diversity Training

Brooke T. Iley, Dominique L. Casimir, and Tjasse L. Fritz







On Tuesday evening, the Trump administration surprised the federal contracting community by issuing an Executive Order (“EO”) titled “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping” that will ban federal contractors from conducting certain types of anti-discrimination training. In particular, the EO prohibits workplace racial sensitivity and diversity and inclusion (“D&I”) training programs that contain so-called “divisive content,” defined in the EO as instilling a belief in the existence of systemic racism and inherent bias. The EO expands an earlier ban issued in a September 4, 2020, memorandum that prohibits certain anti-discrimination training from being conducted within federal agencies.

The EO comes on the heels of a widespread social and racial justice movement that dominated much of the summer of 2020, in response to which corporate America has taken a stand, with companies pledging millions to social justice reform movements. An overwhelming number of employers either have offered or plan to offer some form of diversity training to their employees. This latest EO leaves many federal contractors and subcontractors wondering whether and how to proceed, and what penalties they may face if they offer such training. Continue reading “Trump Administration Bans Contractors from Providing Certain Types of Diversity Training”

Strident DOL Revises FFCRA Reg, Thumbs Its Nose at NY Federal Court Decision

Jason E. Reisman

On August 3, 2020, at the urging of the State of New York, U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York struck down four different provisions of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) implementing regulation for the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”): (1) the “work availability” requirement, under which paid leave is only available if an employee has work from which to take leave; (2) the requirement of employer permission to take leave intermittently; (3) the definition of “health care provider” for purposes of exclusion from paid leave benefits; and (4) the requirement for an employee to provide certain documentation before taking leave. New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 2020 WL 4462260 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2020).

Although the judge did not issue a “nationwide” injunction, the mere fact that there was a decision by a federal judge striking certain important provisions of the FFCRA regulation left employers (or maybe just their counsel) in a panic about the implications outside of New York. Would this decision impact eligible employees in California? Would the decision be retroactive? Would the DOL appeal? Would it seek a stay of the decision while the appeal was pending? Continue reading “Strident DOL Revises FFCRA Reg, Thumbs Its Nose at NY Federal Court Decision”

Philly’s Salary History Ban to Be Enforced Starting in September

Asima J. Ahmad

As outlined in a previous post, the Philadelphia Wage Equity Ordinance is back in play. And now that the litigation dust has settled, the city announced that the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations (“PCHR”) will begin enforcing the ordinance on September 1, 2020.

As a reminder, the Ordinance prohibits all employers, employment agencies, or their agents from asking about a job applicant’s current or prior salary history during the application or hiring process if the position is located in Philadelphia. Shortly after the salary history ban was announced, the Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia sued to block it from going into effect on free speech grounds. The case proceeded to the Third Circuit, which ultimately held that the ordinance was constitutional in a unanimous decision issued this February.

The PCHR recently issued a set of FAQs which provide some useful information for employers, including whether the ordinance applies to internal candidates (no), whether an employer can rely on market data for salaries (yes), and whether an employer can ask a job applicant about their salary expectations (yes, but employers should not ask candidates if their salary “expectation” is tied to their current or prior salary history). The FAQs also outline suggested best practices for compliance, including:

    • Focusing questions on the applicant’s salary demands, experience, skills, and qualifications during the interview process;
    • Establishing salary ranges or pay scales for open positions;
    • Creating or modifying written policies to reflect compliance with the ordinance;
    • Training interviewers, hiring staff, and other applicable staff regarding compliance;
    • Refraining from seeking prior salary history from other sources, including a former employer or public records;
    • Instructing background reporting agencies to exclude information found regarding an applicant’s salary history; and
    • Developing protocols for discarding or isolating salary information that employers inadvertently receive but are prohibited from considering.

Job applicants who are asked about their salary history in violation of the ordinance can file a complaint with the PCHR and may be awarded compensatory damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, injunctive relief, or other relief. Employers are prohibited from retaliating against applicants who refuse to provide their salary history.

We recommend contacting a member of Blank Rome’s Labor & Employment team as soon as possible to ensure that your hiring process and practices follow the ordinance’s requirements, and that your staff understands the do’s and don’ts of the new law. We are happy to answer any questions about compliance or updating your policies and procedures, or to schedule a training.

Button Up Restrictive Covenants before Employees Start in New Positions

Kevin M. Passerini and Oliver R. Katz

Pennsylvania law has long required that a restrictive covenant agreement be signed prior to or at the start of employment for it to be enforceable. By extension, Pennsylvania law has also required consideration beyond continued employment—a promotion, bonuses or stock options, severance, or other meaningful consideration—to support a restrictive covenant agreement with an existing employee. Those requirements left a somewhat gray area where a newly hired employee (or an internal employee elevated to a new position) does not sign a restrictive covenant agreement until shortly after starting in the new role and does so without receiving any consideration distinct from the new employment position itself.

In its June 16, 2020 decision in Rullex Co., LLC v. Tel-Stream, Inc., 27 EAP 2019 (Pa. 2020), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court waded into that gray area to consider whether new or “fresh” consideration must be provided any time a restrictive covenant agreement is executed after an employee’s first day in a new role. The court rejected the exclusive use of a bright-line rule requiring execution at or prior to the commencement of employment. Instead, relying in part on a decision from 50 years ago, it left the door slightly open so that restrictive covenants signed after employment has already commenced may be enforced where there was a meeting of the minds on the substance of the restrictive covenants at or prior to the start of employment. As the court noted, the critical inquiry is whether the parties had agreed to the “essential provisions” when the relationship began, such that the restrictive covenant agreement was ancillary to the taking of employment, or whether there was no meeting of the minds such that the restrictive covenants were a “belated addition” to their relationship, requiring additional consideration. In applying its standard to the facts of the case, the court held that there was no meeting of the minds at the start of the relationship based on the delay of at least two months before the signing of the agreement and Rullex’s willingness to consider and accommodate revisions to the original draft.

With the clarity provided in Rullex, employers likely cannot rely on the mere circulation of a restrictive covenant agreement prior to the start of a new employment position to ensure its enforceability. And employers must also be wary of continued negotiations with prospective employees (or existing employees who are candidates for promotions) after having presented an agreement containing restrictive covenants.

Going forward, the most obvious (and best) way to avoid a dispute over whether the parties had a “meeting of the minds” is to have a restrictive covenant agreement signed before a new employee commences work in the new role and before an existing employee assumes a new role within the company. Another good option is for an employer to attach the restrictive covenant agreement to an offer letter that conditions employment (or any promotion or other new position) on the execution of the agreement and to require the individual to sign that offer letter in advance of starting in the new position with an acknowledgment that he or she has received and reviewed the agreement and accepted all of the terms of the offer. Anything less is likely to leave employers in the gray area, fighting it out in court or in arbitration.