It looks like the skepticism of employers relying on previous wage history is not limited to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). The Ninth Circuit has decided to rehear a case, AILEEN RIZO v. JIM YOVINO, en banc. The case involves alleged pay discrimination against a female employee of Fresno County Office of Education (FCOE).
On Wednesday, August 23, 2017, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) filed an appeal with the Administrative Review Board (ARB), officially challenging a recent decision denying the agency access to some of the documents it sought as part of its highly-publicized review of the compensation practices at Google Inc.’s headquarters location.
On July 14, 2017, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Steven Berlin issued a recommended administrative decision in the publicity-generating case between Google and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). For those who have been following along, you know OFCCP sued Google in early January for access to additional employee pay data and employee contact information for more than 20,000 employees as part of a routine compliance review of Google’s headquarters.
On January 30, 2017, the Trump Administration released its Executive Order (EO), “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” an EO intended to cut regulations by removing two existing regulations for each new regulation enacted. The EO intends to “manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with federal regulations” through gradual attrition of regulation:
In a rare move, the Seventh Circuit, covering Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, has decided to rehear a case examining if discrimination based on sexual orientation is recognized as a form of discrimination based on sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision means the Seventh Circuit will hear the case en banc, with many believing the court’s decision to grant rehearing suggests the full panel may reverse course on earlier rulings which held that Title VII did not prohibit discrimination on the basis of one’s sexual orientation.
As part of the final round of decisions announced during the Supreme Court’s 2015 term, the Court delivered its opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas—a closely-watched affirmative action case. In its second swing at the case in three years, after initially remanding the case back to lower courts under stricter terms, the Court ruled the University of Texas’s (UT) consideration of race in its admissions process was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.