Sending Office: Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro
Sent By:
Elizabeth.Albertine@mail.house.gov

Support Scott/DeLauro/Frankel Equal Pay Amendment

Endorsed by: 9to5, AFL-CIO, African American Ministers In Action, American Association of University Women, American Civil Liberties Union, American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, American Sustainable Business Council, Atlanta Women for Equality, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Center for American Progress, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Coalition of Labor Union Women,
Coalition on Human Needs, Communications Workers of America, Economic Policy Institute, Equal Pay Today!, Equal Rights Advocates, Family Values @Work, Feminist Majority, Hadassah, The Women’s Zionist Organization of America, Inc., Indiana Institute for Working
Families, Jewish Women International, Labor Project for Working Families in partnership with FV@W, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Legal Aid at
Work, Maine Women’s Lobby, Make it Work, Mi Familia Vota, MomsRising.org, NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF), National Center
for Transgender Equality, National Council of Jewish Women, National Education Association (NEA), National Employment Law Project, National Employment Lawyers Association, National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, National Organization for Women, National Partnership
for Women & Families, National Women’s Law Center, National Workrights Institute, Oxfam America, PathWays PA, People For the American Way, Public Justice Center, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, The United State of Women, Women Employed, Women’s
Law Project, Workplace Fairness and Ultraviolet.

Dear Colleague,

We write to urge you to vote “yes” on Scott amendment #113 to Division C, Commerce, Justice, & Science & Related Agencies.

This amendment would strike a provision that prohibits the EEOC from using funds to collect pay data based on the basis of gender, race and ethnicity from employers with more than
100 employees. A vote against this amendment is a vote against equal pay for equal work, plain and simple. 

Ø 
Myth: The burden on employers is too great.

  • Employers already maintain data about the race and gender of their employees by occupational category and they are required to maintain all of this data by law. They also already maintain
    the W-2 wage data that would be reported.

  • The EEOC undertook a careful, rigorous, and transparent analysis of what it would take for employers to comply with the pay data collection and found that it would take approximately
    31 hours per firm annually, a reasonable amount of time given the substantial benefit to equal pay enforcement.

  • The National Academy of Sciences concluded that use of the EEO-1 form for pay data collection would be “quite manageable” for employers.

  • Employers universally report EEO-1 data electronically. If the employer does not employ certain job categories, the default is zero, meaning the employer would not have to fill out that
    section. It is misleading to argue that employers would have to key in every bubble on a printed form.

Ø 
Myth: The EEOC does not have the capacity or resources to collect this data.

  • For 50 years, the EEOC has collected from employers annually, a summary of total employees by gender, race and ethnicity, by job category. 
  • Employers know this as the EEO-1 form and are familiar with the process.  
  • This is only an amended version of this form that would be used to collect pay data.

Ø 
Myth: Collection of this data is too expensive.

  • The EEOC undertook a careful, rigorous, and transparent analysis of what it would take for employers to comply with the data collection and found that providing the pay data would cost an average
    of $416.58 per employer
    filing an EEO-1. 
  • The EEOC carefully considered the varying wage rates for the different types of staff typically involved with preparing this data and the number of hours each staff role would typically take in providing
    this data. 

Ø 
Myth: Collection of this data would result in a loss of protection of confidentiality.

  • EEOC is required by Title VII to protect the confidentiality and integrity of all EEO-1 data.  As a Federal executive agency, all staff are subject to background investigations and staff annually
    review and re-certify the Rules of Behavior, which include training in data protection. Agency IT systems are subject to weekly scanning by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and annual internal and expert third-party audits for best practices and
    compliance with cybersecurity standards.
  • Any EEOC officer or employee who breaches data or systems confidentiality is personally subject to criminal penalties.

Ø 
Myth: The process was rushed.

  • In 2016, the EEOC voted to update the EEO-1 form to ask companies with 100 employees or more to report information on what they pay their employees based on sex, race and ethnicity.
  • The decision was made and approved by OMB after a long and transparent deliberation process, including a public hearing and two rounds of notice and comment for employer and public input. The 2016
    EEOC effort itself grew out of a multi-year review and analysis undertaken by the Department of Labor, which included multiple opportunities for stakeholder comment and public input. 

Ø 
Myth: The occupational categories are too broad.

  • The EEO-1 categories have been used effectively for years.
  • These data would yield a substantial benefit in helping the EEOC to detect patterns of pay disparities. Job-specific nuances that require closer review do not mean that broad categories have no value.
    The fact that the EEO-1 includes information about employer industry adds important context and information to the occupation categories—so if you are looking at private secondary schools, you know that the professional category includes lots of teachers,
    and not many lawyers—while if you are looking at law firms, the opposite is true.  Industry plus occupational category allows the EEOC to identify patterns of wage gaps that bear closer scrutiny.

Paying people fairly for the work they do shouldn’t be dependent on their gender, race or ethnicity. Vote YES on the DeLauro/Frankel/Scott amendment.

Sincerely,

Rosa L. DeLauro

Member of Congress

 

Bobby Scott

Member of Congress

 

Lois Frankel

Member of Congress

Related Legislative Issues

Selected legislative information: Appropriations, Family Issues, Labor

icon eDC logo e-Dear Colleague version 2.0