On November 15, 2017, the National Women’s Law Center and the Labor Counsel for Latin American Advancement filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case was assigned to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. The Plaintiffs sued the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Administrator for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) (a division of OMB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under the Administrative Procedures Act. The Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment and an order from the court vacating an order issued by OIRA that stayed planned revisions to employer demographic reporting obligations.

Because a pay gap persists--between both men and women and between white, non-Hispanic men, and people of color--the EEOC and other federal agencies sought to improve enforcement of federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination. After a multi-year study, the EEOC concluded that it would revise a longstanding employer survey, the Employer Information Report EEO-1, to require that employers include W-2 earnings data for employees by sex, race, ethnicity, and job category.

Beginning in February 2016, the revisions to EEO-1 went through a seven month process of notice and comment, public hearings, and changes to reduce employer burdens. The final revisions to the EEO-1 were sent to the OMB in September 2016 and the OMB approved them.

However, in August 2017, after President Trump took office, the new Administrator of OIRA issued a short memorandum that immediately stayed the effectiveness of the revisions to the EEO-1. The memorandum provided virtually no explanation and justified its actions under the Paper Reduction Act. OMB’s decision to issue this memorandum was made in secret and without notice and comment. Following the OMB’s direction, the EEOC published a Federal Register notice stating that EEO-1 filers should not submit pay data in their filings.

Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants lacked the authority to stay a collection of data required by the agency rule governing the EEO-1 and, thus, that the stay was unlawful. Specifically, Plaintiffs made the following claims that Defendants had violated the Administrative Procedures Act:
1. Because OMB did not have authority to stay an ongoing collection of information that had already been approved and that was required by regulation, the Defendants acted in a manner that was in excess of their legal authority and had thus violated the Administrative Procedures Act.
2. Alternatively, because the Defendants had reviewed a previously approved collection of information without meeting the requirements under the Code of Federal Regulations, the Defendants acted in a manner contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
3. The memorandum staying the effectiveness of EEO-1 cited to the Paperwork Reduction Act, a law that established a process by which agencies obtain approval from OMB to collect certain types of information from the public, as a justification, but this law specifically states that it does not increase OMB’s authority over substantive agency policies. Thus, because the Defendants wrongfully used the Paperwork Reduction Act to justify their actions, they violated the Paperwork Reduction Act and, in turn, the Administrative Procedures Act.
4. Because the Defendants did not provide a reasoned basis for their decision to review and stay the effectiveness of EEO-1, they acted in a manner that was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
5. With regard to the EEOC, it acceded to the OMB’s unlawful actions and thus violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

In February 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the case. In October 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. In December 2018, the Defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court ruled on all motions on March 4, 2019. The Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement and denied the Defendant’s motions. The Court found that the Defendant’s stay of pay data collection violated the PRA and the APA and that the Defendants’ actions were arbitrary and capricious. The Court vacated the OMB’s stay and the EEOC’s announcement of the stay and reinstated the revised EEO-1. 358 F.Supp.3d 66.

On March 18, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a request for a status conference. The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants had delayed complying with the Court’s order and were unwilling to provide information about their plans to comply. The parties continue to litigate over the enforcement of the Court's order, with multiple third parties submitting amici briefs. So far, no appeal has been filed.

Sara Stearns - 04/02/2019


compress summary