2024 was a ‘super year’ for elections. Half of the world’s population – some 4.7 billion people – went to the polls in 72 countries. Political shifts often lead to significant changes in employment laws. We’re here to help you prepare for the changes ahead and to stay ahead of the curve on employment law developments
Pay transparency issues have been on the radar for some time, with employers navigating the patchwork of jurisdictions across the US demanding the disclosure of salary and wage ranges in job ads. So what’s new? Enforcement of these laws is on the rise, and employers have already been hit with fines and citations.
In this
We may be on the verge of pay equity and transparency requirements for federal contractors and subcontractors. On January 30, 2024 the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) issued proposed rulemaking that would, if finalized in its current form, require a significant change in recruiting and hiring practices for some contractors.
The FAR Council’s rule would:
The public has until April 1, 2024 to submit comments. We will be tracking this proposed rule as it continues to develop.
This is just the most recent development in the nationwide wave of state (e.g. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and Washington) and local (e.g. Cincinnati, Jersey City, New York City and others) pay transparency regulation our team has chronicled on our blog–see our most recent update on the District of Columbia’s new legislation here. Recently, there has also been litigation in various jurisdictions (e.g. Washington and New York City) seeking to enforce pay transparency regulations that are already on the books.
In its current form, the proposed rule would have broad application, covering both prime contractors and subcontractors performing a government contract or subcontract within the United States (including its outlying areas). The FAR Council states that it contemplated limiting application of the requirements to certain contracts but ultimately did not go that way since “[t]he benefits of the pay equity and transparency requirements in this proposed rule are equally impactful in commercial and noncommercial settings as well as to large or small dollar contracts.”
The proposal defines “work on or in connection with the [government] contract” as “work called for by the contract or work activities necessary to the performance of the contract but not specifically called for by the contract.” The Council “encourages” contractors to apply its provisions “to other positions, including to the recruitment and hiring for any position that the Contractor reasonably believes could eventually perform work on or in connection with the contract.”
Both requirements apply only to “applicants,” defined as a “prospective employee or current employee applying for a position to perform work on or in connection with the [government] contract.”Continue Reading Federal Contractors May Soon Be Required To Disclose Salary Ranges in Job Postings, And Prohibited From Seeking Applicant Salary History
The US Supreme Court’s SFFA decision ending affirmative action in higher education continues to have ramifications for corporate America. Attacks to workplace DEI are gaining momentum with targeted challenges from a variety of angles, not the least of which are those coming from conservative advocacy groups filing lawsuits, requesting agency investigations and pursuing other complaints. Just last week, as many prepared to watch Taylor Swift’s boyfriend perform in the Super Bowl, America First Legal (a nonprofit founded by a former adviser to Donald Trump) filed an EEOC complaint against the NFL challenging the Rooney Rule, a widely used hiring practice that emanated in the NFL and is followed across corporate America. For in-house counsel, this just further emphasizes the need to continue to diligently monitor the changing DEI landscape for signals warranting targeted audits or adjustments to workplace DEI programming.
When should in-house counsel take action? Let’s start to answer that question by looking at where we are now and the escalation of events in the past 7 months.
Thirteen attorneys general used SFFA to support their opposition to corporate DEI programs (see letter to Fortune 100 CEOs here). In response, attorneys general from other states wrote to the same CEOs stating that SFFA “does not prohibit, or even impose new limits on, the ability of private employers to pursue diversity, equity, and inclusion.”Continue Reading Is The Risk Calculus Related To Workplace DEI Shifting For US Employers This Election Year?
In this 60-minute session, our team will highlight what employers in New York and the surrounding areas need to know to effectively navigate 2024, with practical tips to handle the latest developments including:
The current increase in market volatility and heightened regulatory scrutiny has made for a treacherous landscape for multinational employers, and we’re here to help. Join us on October 18th in our New York office to connect on cutting-edge Employment & Compensation issues with a series of panel discussions, presentations and peer roundtables discussing the
Special thanks to co-presenter, Monica Kurnatowska.
The trend in increased pay equity-related reporting requirements for employers is just one reason more organizations are conducting pay equity audits to identify and correct pay variations between employees who perform similar work. The recently adopted EU Pay Transparency Directive (read more here) is one more law
The new year always brings new challenges for employers, but California employers in particular face a world of change in 2023.
In our 75-minute “quick hits” format, we help you track what California employers need to keep top-of-mind for 2023 and provide practical takeaways to help you navigate the new landscape.
This webinar helps to
Pay transparency laws (laws requiring employers to disclose compensation ranges to applicants) are spreading like wildfire across the US. Regulators are hoping such laws eliminate pay differentials based on gender or race. Putting good intentions aside, the laws are a source of huge consternation for businesses as the state and local requirements vary greatly in
