President Trump's administration has been rolling back federal regulations on a wide array of issues. One of those regulations is an Obama Error rule that was aimed at combating salary
discrimination against women and people of color. The administrat the Trump administration has delayed the rule, but a coalition of civil rights groups, including the National Women's Law Center and the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights under Law, are preparing a legal challenge to the Trump administration's delay of implementation. Here to talk with us about this rule and what the Trump administration is doing about it, or is Michael Selmi,
a professor at George Washington University Law School. Michael, what would this rule do in terms of employers and their salary information? The rule was designed to provide more information to the federal government regarding pay practices of large employers. Currently, large employers have to provide demographic information about their workforce UH, and this would have extended their obligations to include pay data UM broadly categorized in the same way that the
demographic information is done and UM. It's designed to address pay disparities with respect to women's pay, but the information UM would have been more broad than that, and it also would have only gone to the federal government. This was not going to be publicly available information. UM. But it was an effort to collect more information by the government, which respect to the pay practices of large employers. Well, what was the idea that the What was the government
going to do with this information once it got it? Well, that's the UM. That's a good question. Uh. It can do a number of different things. Uh. It can based on the information, UH, start investigations of employer practices. They do that currently with the demographic information. If they they
received the information, they have been receiving it for decades. UM. If they see why disparities in an employer's workforce, say it's all white or there's UM over were way more men than you might expect given the UM employer or the work that they're doing, that they can begin. The government based on that data can begin an investigation. And UH they could use the pay data in the same way. UM. Whether they would do that or how much action they would do based on the data, it's it's not so clear.
But they would not be able to UM disseminate the information to private groups who are also gearing up to bring UM challenges to employers pay practices, but this would have information would have remained just what the government would have been confidential. So if it's just a reporting statute and the only the government's going to have it, what is the Trump administration saying about it? So they haven't said very much yet. They did, as you noted in
the prelude, they put the rule on hold. The the employer's obligations to report this inspiration was set to begin in March of The rule was announced last year, was finalized last year, so they had some lead time to provide the information, which is basically based on W two statements and the like, but there would certainly be some burden in reporting it. UM. The Trump administration has put that on hold to review, UH, to further review, because
the Obama administration also reviewed the rule. UM, this was not done in formal rulemaking. That was done in a more truncated process and UH. What the challenges now is at this point is just a foil request by the
civil rights crews. But they want to know essentially why the Trump administration put it on hold UM and whether they are simply planning to retract the rule or whether they have some concerns about the potential costs burdens on employers, and so far the Trump administration has not provided any information of why they put it on hold, other than
that they want to review it further. With respect to potential burdens, Well, what do we know about how much of a burden it would be on employers to provide this information. Well, there's UM wide disparities in terms of the UH projected costs UM in its rulemaking that they did. The e O c UM projected costs of about fifty million dollars for the employers. UH. The employer groups the Chamber of Commerce estimated that the cost would be closer to four millions, so there was a big gap between
the two. UM. My sense is that, you know, there would certainly be costs, but it should be mostly a one time costs UM. Once the UM systems were set up to record this information, UH, it should be you know, annually, it should just be updating the information. And that's true.
With the current demographic information on race and gender of the workforces, UM to pay would be a little bit more complicated to do UM, but once they figured out how to do it, and and that's one of the reasons for the delay, It wasn't entirely clear what was going to be required and how it was going to be done. UM, but the cost shouldn't be they should
be one time costs. Well the UM you know, if if there if these groups are gearing up for a legal challenge by doing a Freedom of Information Act request, they're gathering information, what do you do you think there's any sort of procedural problems they're looking at or is it really just a matter of trying to figure out
what the Trump Administration's rationalies? Oh? I think these um, it's always gamble when the administration, in this instance, the Obama administration completes the rule right towards the end of the administration before it can really be implemented. And I think, um, the civil rights groups uh are probably hoping to find something that might lead to a successful challenge that would
require the Trump administration to implement the rule. But that seems unlikely UH to me, especially since it's currently just on hold. And UH it's possible too that the newly cost to the EOC, once they're um fully up with Republican majority, they could retract the rule as well. So it seems to be an effort to try and preserve a rule, but I think that's going to it's going to be a significant challenge for them to be successful
on that. So it sounds like, unlike some of the places where the Trump administration has run into trouble and say environmental regulations and where there are questions about whether they followed the Administrative Procedures Act, this one may actually be an easier one for them to delay. I think that's right in part because the e o C did not follow the Administrative Procedures Act. They've used a different process,
so it should be easier to undo. Although it's it's possible that the FOIL request could produce information that showed what the Trump administration is not supposed to do in the OMB review is just repudiate the rule. They would have to it would have to be cost bay and it's possible that they didn't have any of that information yet.
But the fact that it's only on hold also seems like the challenge is likely a bit premature because the Trump administration has not completed its review of these regulations yet or this regulation well, and about we only have about thirty seconds. But what would the e o C have to do to withdraw the roll. Uh, they could, um as and when they're newly cut to they could, I believe, just um in their procedures, just withdrawn. And probably what they would do is say that they were
withdrawing it to reconsider it. UM. And Michael, I think we're gonna we're gonna have to stop there. Thanks very much to Michael sell Me, professor at George Washington University Law School