Category: Wage and Hour Violations

Posted on

Immigration Threats Used to Hide Wage Theft | Worker Rights

2.4 Million workers victims of ongoing WAGE THEFT. Helmer Friedman LLP employment law attorneys.

When Employers Use Immigration Threats to Hide Wage Theft

Immigrant workers face a dangerous new form of workplace retaliation that threatens both their livelihoods and their legal status. Employers increasingly use immigration threats as weapons to silence workers who report wage theft, creating a climate of fear that allows workplace violations to flourish unchecked.

Recent cases expose the severity of this growing problem. In Colorado, an employer followed through on deportation threats after a worker filed a wage theft claim, resulting in the worker’s removal from the country. This extreme retaliation represents a troubling escalation in employer tactics designed to suppress worker complaints.

“Unfortunately, this employer took action against him in retaliation where he called ICE and was able to send them back to his home in Latin America,” said Mayra Juárez-Denis, executive director of Centro de Los Trabajadores, a North Denver organization that protects worker rights.

Immigration Threats Create Widespread Fear

The current political climate has amplified the effectiveness of immigration-related threats as a form of worker retaliation. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser notes that threats to report workers to Immigration and Customs Enforcement “hold a lot more weight” due to heightened immigration enforcement concerns.

Worker advocacy groups report hearing about such threats with increasing frequency. These intimidation tactics extend beyond undocumented workers, targeting employees with legal status or documentation who speak up about workplace violations.

“Now we are hearing about this new retaliation tool from unscrupulous employers who want to instill fear in their workers,” Juárez-Denis explained. She described “a new atmosphere where there is fear to speak up if they take your wages away, if they don’t pay you because people are scared to speak.”

This fear-based approach allows employers to exploit vulnerable workers while avoiding accountability for wage theft and other workplace violations.

Legal Protections Shield Workers from Retaliation

Despite employer intimidation tactics, strong legal protections exist for workers who report wage theft. Under California and Colorado law, employers cannot threaten to report workers to any law enforcement organization, including ICE, in response to workers asserting their legal rights.

Anti-retaliation laws protect workers who engage in “protected activity,” which includes filing both formal and informal complaints about wage theft. These protections apply even when complaints are ultimately found to be incorrect.

The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division provides additional safeguards for workers in specific visa programs. Under H-1B whistleblower protections, employers face penalties up to $5,000 per violation and potential two-year debarment for retaliating against workers who report violations.

Using a person’s immigration status to avoid payment of wages or prevent the exercise of labor rights violates state law in multiple jurisdictions. These violations carry serious consequences for employers who engage in such practices.

Taking Action Against Workplace Retaliation

Workers experiencing immigration threats or other forms of whistleblower retaliation should understand that help is available. Legal remedies for illegal retaliation can include reinstatement, back wages, and other appropriate relief determined by labor authorities.

If you have experienced retaliation, harassment, discrimination, or threats in the workplace, it is crucial to seek guidance from highly experienced employment law attorneys like those at Helmer Friedman LLP. With over 20 years of proven expertise and a strong track record of successful case outcomes, their team is dedicated to advocating for workers’ rights. They offer confidential consultations to evaluate the specifics of your situation and provide personalized legal strategies to help you achieve justice.

“We’re prepared to take action, and we want people to let us know if they’re hearing about these threats or these actual retaliatory steps because they’re illegal and they’re wrong,” Attorney General Weiser emphasized.

Workers should not allow fear of immigration consequences to prevent them from seeking justice for workplace violations. Legal protections exist specifically to shield workers from such retaliation, and enforcement agencies stand ready to hold employers accountable for illegal intimidation tactics.

Posted on

$40,000 Recouped in Retaliation Penalties for a Care Facility Worker

Employment laws - Wrongful termination and retaliation lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

The California Labor Commissioner’s Office (LCO) has taken decisive action against Ali Baba Corp., recovering an impressive $40,460 due to serious workplace retaliation and labor law violations. This substantial recovery followed an intensive investigation uncovering the unlawful termination of a dedicated care facility worker who bravely reported hazardous working conditions and the failure to provide mandated meal breaks.

I spoke up because I believed the residents deserved better care and that all workers should be treated fairly.

California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower emphasized the significance of the case, stating, “This case progressed swiftly because Ms. Delgado was well-informed about her rights, took immediate action, and courageously spoke out against unlawful working conditions. Retaliation is a grave violation of the law, and we are steadfast in our commitment to holding employers accountable while ensuring that workers receive the wages and penalties they rightfully deserve.”

Jessica Delgado, who had devoted nearly ten years to the mental health care facility, observed a troubling decline in working conditions following a management change. She witnessed bathrooms left in a state of neglect, a kitchen infested with roaches, and mounting safety concerns regarding resident welfare that were disregarded by the new leadership.

This outcome demonstrates that standing up for what is right truly matters and reinforces the legal protections available to workers.

Deeply concerned for the residents’ well-being, Delgado took the initiative to email management about the unsanitary conditions and alarming safety issues. Unfortunately, her calls for action went unanswered. After several attempts to address her concerns internally yielded no results, Delgado decided to inform her employer of her intention to report these violations to the LCO. In retaliation, Ali Baba Corp. suspended her and subsequently terminated her employment, wrongfully alleging that she had made threats against the company.

Believing her termination to be unjust and well aware of her rights under California labor law, Delgado promptly filed a retaliation complaint with the LCO and also reported the missed meal breaks that were a violation of her rights.

“I spoke up because I believed the residents deserved better care and that all workers should be treated fairly,” expressed Jessica Delgado. “This outcome demonstrates that standing up for what is right truly matters and reinforces the legal protections available to workers.”

In a landmark decision in November 2024, the LCO cited Ali Baba Corp. (operating as Riviera Living) and its owner, imposing a $40,000 penalty for the unlawful suspension and termination of Delgado. When the employer failed to appeal the citations within the designated timeframe, these citations became final judgments lodged by the superior court.

The LCO subsequently initiated bank levies and successfully recovered the full judgment amount of $40,460, complete with accrued interest, which was duly paid to Delgado.

Posted on

Understanding Employment Cases of 2024 and Their Impacts on Employees

High Court Ruling on employment cases.

1. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis:

This case ruled that employees alleging a discriminatory job transfer do not need to demonstrate significant harm, only “some harm.” This decision simplifies the process for proving harm in discriminatory job transfer cases.

2. Murray v. UBS Securities:

The court emphasized that a whistleblower under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act only needs to show that their protected activity was a contributing factor to an adverse employment action. This effectively lowers the burden of proof for whistleblowers in retaliation cases.

3. Okonowsky v. Garland:

This case concluded that a coworker’s social media posts can be considered when assessing a Title VII claim for a hostile work environment. This allows social media evidence to be used in harassment cases.

4. Rajaram v. Meta Platforms:

The ruling prohibits discrimination against U.S. citizens based on their citizenship status, extending protections to U.S. citizens.

5. Daramola v. Oracle America:

The court clarified that the anti-retaliation provisions of certain laws do not apply outside of the United States, limiting protections under anti-retaliation laws for employees working abroad.

6. Castellanos v. State of California:

This ruling upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 22, which limits protections for workers classified as independent contractors.

7. Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office:

The case established that a single use of a racial slur can be actionable for creating a hostile work environment, thereby strengthening protections against racial harassment in the workplace.

8. Quach v. California Commerce Club:

This decision determined that a party opposing arbitration does not need to show prejudice to establish a waiver of their right to arbitration, which protects employees from unfair arbitration agreements.

9. Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors:

The court ruled that time spent on an employer’s premises for security inspections is compensable as “hours worked,” ensuring employees are fairly compensated for time spent on work-related activities.

10. Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services:

The ruling stated that an employer is not liable for penalties under Labor Code section 226 if wage statements were provided in good faith. This sets a precedent for employer liability in cases relating to wage statements.

11. Vazquez v. SaniSure:

The court decided that an arbitration agreement signed during one period of employment may not apply to subsequent employment. This clarifies the applicability of arbitration agreements across different employment periods.

12. Mar v. Perkins:

Employees were found to be bound by an arbitration agreement if they continue working after a policy modification, establishing that continued employment constitutes consent to arbitration.

13. Osborne v. Pleasanton Auto:

This ruling protects employees from defamation claims related to HR complaints by defining pre-litigation statements made to HR as conditionally privileged protected activity.

14. Wawrzenski v. United Airlines:

The court mandated that plaintiff comparators need to be similar “in all relevant respects” for discrimination cases, strengthening the standard for using comparators in such cases.

15. Shah v. Skillz Inc.:

The court clarified that stocks are not considered wages under the Labor Code, elucidating the treatment of stocks in employment cases.

Are you being harassed or discriminated against in your workplace? At Helmer Friedman LLP, we have highly qualified employment law attorneys ready to fight on your behalf. Don’t suffer in silence; reach out to us for expert legal representation. At our firm, you’re not just a number—you’re a valued individual deserving justice and equity. Contact us today.

This post is based on information published recently in Advocate Magazine authored by Andrew Friedman and Erin Kelly. READ MORE…
Posted on

Wage Theft Rampant in H-1B Visa System

Combating workplace discrimination - Helmer Friedman LLP.

H-1B Visa Exploitation

The American dream, symbolizing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, continues to draw many to the U.S. with promises of fulfilling careers and prosperity. Recently, Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX, has voiced his determination to increase the number of H-1B visas, arguing that many Americans lack the education required to fill the highly specialized roles these visa holders take on. This renewed push highlights the need to take a closer look at how the H-1B visa system operates and why corporations are eager to see more of these visas issued despite ongoing concerns about exploitation and its impact on both immigrants and American workers.

Companies such as Disney, FedEx, and Google, subcontract H-1B visa holders who are exploited by IT staffing firms like HCL Technologies, an India-based firm that grossed over $11 billion in 2020. An Economic Policy Institute (EPI) analysis of an internal HCL document, unveiled through a whistleblower lawsuit, revealed that HCL had been evading the H-1B statute which mandates employers pay their H-1B employees no less than the actual wage paid to their U.S. counterparts. This illegal practice has likely resulted in underpayment of at least $95 million, causing financial distress to thousands of skilled migrant workers.

The exploitation of the H-1B system also harms U.S. workers. When employers can undercut wages, working conditions and wages for U.S. employees are degraded. Furthermore, many are replaced by lower-paid H-1B workers, disrupting the American middle-class job market, once a beacon of hope for workers, including those of color.

Despite these flagrant violations of the H-1B law, the Department of Labor (DOL) has largely remained inert, failing to enforce wage rules and close the outsourcing loophole. This neglect not only supports the abusive outsourcing business model but also encourages offshoring high-paying U.S. jobs.

However, change might be on the horizon. The DOL, together with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), are urged to take decisive action, including launching investigations into potential underpayments, imposing serious penalties, demanding adherence to H-1B wage rules, and closing the outsourcing loophole. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is also encouraged to pursue visa fraud aggressively under the False Claims Act.

If you are an immigrant who has faced wage theft under the H-1B visa, know that you are not alone, and help is available. Wage theft is not only unfair—it’s illegal, and you have the right to seek justice. An experienced employment law attorney can help you navigate the process and ensure you recover the wages you are legally owed. Additionally, if you have information about abuse or misuse of the H-1B visa system, it’s important to speak with a whistleblower attorney who can guide you in reporting such violations. Protect your rights and take action today.

Posted on

Wage Theft Crisis

2.4 Million workers victims of ongoing WAGE THEFT. Helmer Friedman LLP employment law attorneys.

The Hidden Theft: Billions Lost in Unpaid Wages

Injustice is not always visible – especially when companies subtly dip into their employees’ hard-earned wages. A recent study from EPI unraveled how employers are unlawfully paying less than the minimum wage to their employees – a subtle form of theft that is costing workers billions of dollars every year.

The Impact of Wage Theft: By Numbers

According to the survey data, around 2.4 million workers from the top ten most populous U.S. states are victims of this ongoing wage theft, losing roughly $8 billion annually. On an individual level, affected workers lose an average of $64 per week, accounting for almost a quarter of their weekly earnings. If these workers were paid correctly, 31% of those struggling with poverty would be lifted above the poverty line.

The Crime Wage Theft Hotspots

Minimum wage violations are more prevalent in some states than others. Florida leads the pack with a violation rate of 7.3%, followed by Ohio (5.5%) and New York (5.0%). However, when it comes to the highest amount of lost wages due to these practices, Texas, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina top the chart.

The Most Affected Demographics

Unfortunately, this unscrupulous practice is more likely to affect certain groups. Our young workforce (ages 16 to 24), women, people of color, and immigrant workers often report being paid less than the minimum wage. Part-time employees, service industry workers, and unmarried workers, especially single parents, also fall victim to these violations at a higher rate.

The Bigger Picture

When looking at the grand scale of things, the financial exploitation of workers is staggering. Bad employers are stealing around $15 billion annually from their employees, purely from minimum wage violations alone. This amount surpasses the total value of property crimes committed in the U.S. each year. Yet, there is a stark difference in the resources allocated to combat wage theft compared to property crime.

This substantial wage theft affects workers and puts undue pressure on taxpayers and state economies. Around one-third of workers experiencing these violations rely on publicly funded assistance programs like SNAP and housing subsidies. Moreover, wage theft artificially lowers labor costs for the “thieving” companies, creating an unfair competitive advantage and putting downward pressure on wages industry-wide.

The Solution

Enforcing tougher wage and hour laws and strengthening enforcement against wage theft should be a priority to deter higher rates of violations. Furthermore, raising wages for low-wage workers could lead to significant public savings and improvements in our collective health, education, and social mobility.

Nobody should be robbed of their hard-earned money, especially under the guise of employment. Let’s join hands to bring this hidden theft to light and take appropriate action.

One notable example of combating wage theft is the recent victory of Disneyland employees, who filed a class action lawsuit that resulted in a $233 million award for their lost wages. This case highlights how employees can unite to challenge unfair labor practices by collectively filing a class action lawsuit. Such lawsuits allow workers to pool their resources, share their grievances, and present a united front against powerful employers. To effectively pursue this legal avenue, employees should consider hiring an experienced employment law attorney who handles class action cases. These attorneys can guide employees through the legal process, ensuring their voices are heard and their rights are upheld while potentially securing significant restitution for lost wages.

Posted on

Wage Theft $912,594 Recovered: Understanding Your Rights and Protections

Race discrimination, retaliation, workplace violation lawyers of Los Angeles Helmer Friedman LLP.

As we navigate the complex world of labor laws, it is essential to understand the rights and protections that safeguard workers against wage theft. Whether it be through crafty tip pools or employers illegally retaining tips from credit card purchases, workers must be aware of their rights to receive the overtime pay to which they are entitled.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is one such piece of legislation that works to uphold these rights. A recent case involving a Londonderry brewery and restaurant, Pipe Dream Brewing LLC, highlights the need for workers to be aware of these protections. The establishment was found to have violated the FLSA by retaining tips paid via credit card transactions and denying overtime wages to exempt employees.

These infractions resulted in the recovery of $912,594 for 44 employees. This sum included back wages, withheld tips, and liquidated damages. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, which facilitated the recovery, also assessed $5,148 in civil money penalties for the tip-related violations.

“No employer or agent shall collect, take, or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron or deduct any amount from wages due an employee on account of a gratuity, or require an employee to credit the amount, or any part thereof, of a gratuity against and as a part of the wages due the employee from the employer. Every gratuity is hereby declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees to whom it was paid, given, or left.”

The law is explicit—managers, supervisors, and employers are strictly forbidden from participating in tip pools or pocketing any portion of employees’ tips for any reason. These protections ensure that workers can fully realize the wages they have lawfully earned.

Federal and State laws, such as California Labor Code Section 351, offer robust protection against wage theft. This code explicitly prohibits employers and their agents, including supervisors and managerial personnel, from sharing in or retaining any portion of a gratuity intended for employees. The law clearly states that gratuities are the sole property of the employees to whom they are given:
“No employer or agent shall collect, take, or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron or deduct any amount from wages due an employee on account of a gratuity, or require an employee to credit the amount, or any part thereof, of a gratuity against and as a part of the wages due the employee from the employer. Every gratuity is hereby declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees to whom it was paid, given, or left.”

This case clearly illustrates the costly consequences for employers who attempt to circumvent these laws. It emphasizes the importance of employees understanding their rights and the mechanisms in place to protect them. The Wage and Hour Division offers resources like the Workers Owed Wages online search tool to assist those in claiming back wages, should they believe they are owed.

As employees, it is crucial to stay informed about the specific laws that protect us from wage theft, tip pooling, and other unscrupulous practices. The Fair Labor Standards Act safeguards serve as a robust shield, ensuring that workers get the pay they have worked hard for and duly deserve.

Posted on

Employer Coerced Kickbacks from Employees after Wage Action

Workplace violations, discrimination, whistleblower retaliation lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

Sparklean Laundry Fined Nearly $400K for Labor Violations

A real estate company, Sparklean Laundry, was found guilty of coercing its employees to pay kickbacks on wages that were initially recovered for them. The company was ordered to pay over $281,000 in damages for this act, and an additional $100,000 for retaliating against its employees who were exercising their labor rights. Benjamin Piper, who owned Fox Real Estate Group, Inc., the parent company of Sparklean Laundry, was also ordered to pay the damages.

The U.S. Department of Labor announced the order, which resulted from an earlier case where Fox Real Estate Group, Inc. refused to pay overtime to about 80 employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA is a law that protects workers against certain unfair pay practices, and it sets out labor regulations regarding employment across states, including minimum wages, overtime pay requirements, and child labor limitations. Passed in 1938, the FLSA is one of the most critical laws that employers need to understand, as it sets out a wide array of regulations for dealing with employees, whether salaried or paid by the hour.

After an investigation by the Department of Labor, Fox Real Estate Group, Inc. agreed to pay back the overtime wages it had refused to pay earlier. However, the company demanded kickbacks from the employees later and submitted fraudulent receipts purporting to show that the employees had received their recovered wages. The company also threatened the employees.

“Workplace retaliation is intolerable and illegal,” said Regional Solicitor of Labor Marc Pilotin in San Francisco. “The Department of Labor will use all of its tools to combat retaliation, including through requiring employers who retaliate to compensate workers above and beyond the wages their workers are owed.”

The Department of Labor recovered thousands of overtime wages for the employees, and one of the employees received nearly $7,000. However, the court order is making the company pay double the amount of wages to the employees. As a result, the employee will receive a total of nearly $14,000.

Employers and workers can call division staff confidentially with questions, regardless of where they are from, and the department can speak with callers in more than 200 languages through the agency’s toll-free helpline at 866-4US-WAGE (487-9243).

“This was a clear case where punitive damages were appropriate against the employer, which both violated federal law and broke its promises to the department,” Pilotin added.

Posted on

Good Faith Is A Defense To Labor Code’s “Knowing And Intentional” Standard

Wage and hour violations employment law attorneys Los Angeles Helmer Friedman LLP.

On Remand From California Supreme Court, Court Of Appeal Holds That Good Faith Is A Defense To Labor Code’s “Knowing And Intentional” Standard

Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 88 Cal.App.5th 937 (2023), review granted Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, 2023 WL 3745105, at *1 (Cal., 2023)

In California, if an employer unlawfully makes an employee work during all or part of a meal or rest period, the employer must pay the employee an additional hour of pay. Labor Code § 226.7(c). In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., 40 Cal.App.5th 444 (2019), the Court of Appeal held that this extra pay for missed breaks (commonly referred to as “premium pay”) does not constitute “wages” that must be reported on statutorily required wage statements during employment (§ 226) and paid within statutory deadlines when an employee leaves the job (§ 203).

The Supreme Court reversed that portion of the Court of Appeal’s holding, concluding: “Although the extra pay is designed to compensate for the unlawful deprivation of a guaranteed break, it also compensates for the work the employee performed during the break period. The extra pay thus constitutes wages subject to the same timing and reporting rules as other forms of compensation for work.” Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., 13 Cal.5th 93, 102(2022).

The Supreme Court then remanded the matter to the Court of Appeal to resolve two issues that the parties addressed in their respective appeals but that the Court of Appeal did not reach based on its conclusion about the nature of missed-break premium pay: (1) whether the trial court erred in finding that Spectrum Security Services, Inc. had not acted “willfully” in failing to timely pay employees premium pay (which barred recovery under § 203); and (2) whether Spectrum’s failure to report missed-break premium pay on wage statements was “knowing and intentional,” as is necessary for recovery under section 226.

After receiving supplemental briefing following remand, the Court of Appeal concluded as follows: (1) substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Spectrum presented defenses at trial—in good faith—for its failure to pay meal premiums to departing employees and, therefore, Spectrum’s failure to pay meal premiums was not “willful” under section 203; and (2) because an employer’s good faith belief that it is in compliance with section 226 precludes a finding of a knowing and intentional violation of that statute, the trial court erred by awarding penalties, and the associated attorneys’ fees, under section 226.

The California Supreme Court has granted review.

Posted on

AB 257: Council to Regulate Working Conditions for Fast Food Workers

Burger King

AB 257: Council to regulate working conditions for fast food workers; on hold pending litigation and, potentially, a referendum

With AB 257, the Legislature will establish a new and powerful Fast-Food Council, the first of its kind in the State. Sponsored by the Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”) and inspired by its “Fight for $15 and a Union” movement, the Council will be empowered to regulate wages, hours, and working conditions of California’s fast-food employees, a population of workers historically subjected to hazardous working conditions and shamefully low wages.

The Fast-Food Council will be made up of 10 members, appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Rules Committee, and will dictate working conditions for employees of chains with at least 100 outlets nationwide. The Council is expected to raise fast food worker wage rates as high as $22 an hour.

Unsurprisingly, the Chamber of Commerce has made destroying the bill a priority. As this article was going to print, a judge temporarily blocked the State from implementing the law as the result of a lawsuit filed by a coalition of giant corporate chain restaurants, which is seeking a referendum on the November 2024 ballot in a bid to overturn the law. “If and when the referendum challenging AB 257 qualifies for the ballot, the law will be put on hold,” said Katrina Hagen, Director of the Department of Industrial Relations.

None of this corporate chicanery would be possible but for the Supreme Court’s obsequious decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations). Of course, while the Founders were well aware of the existence of various types of business enterprises (joint-stock companies, corporations such as the East India Company, which was incorporated in 1600, and the like), the Founders did not provide for any corporate rights in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Rather, the Founders understood that, to the extent that corporations had any type of personhood, it was a legal fiction limited to a courtroom. But we digress.

Posted on

SB 1162: Expanded Pay Data Reporting and Mandatory Pay Scale Disclosures

If you feel you were paid less because of gender, national origin, or race contact Helmer Friedman LLP.

Effective January 1, 2018, California’s Equal Pay Act prohibited employers, with one exception, from seeking applicants’ salary history information and required employers to supply pay scales upon the request of an applicant.

SB 1162 expands upon these pay transparency measures and counters workplace discrimination by requiring employers of 15 or more employees to: (i) include the pay scale for a position in any job posting; (ii) provide pay scale information to current employees and to applicants upon reasonable request; and (iii) maintain employee records, including job titles and wage rate histories, through the term of each employee’s employment and for 3 years after their employment has ended.

SB 1162 also expands covered employers’ pay data reporting obligations. Since 2021, California law has required private employers who have 100 or more employees and who must file a federal EEO-1 to file an annual pay data report with the California Civil Rights Department (formerly the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing) on or before March 31 of each year. SB 1162 broadens these obligations in several significant ways.

First, the bill expands who must file a pay data report so that all private employers with 100 or more employees will be required to file a pay data report regardless of whether they also must file a federal EEO-1, and private employers with 100 or more employees hired through labor contractors will be required to submit a separate pay data report regarding these contracted workers.

Second, in addition to demographic and pay band information, employers’ pay data reports will also need to identify, within each job category, the median and mean pay rate for each combination of race, ethnicity, and sex.