Speaker 1: President Trump's administration has been rolling back federal regulations on
Speaker 1: a wide array of issues. One of those regulations is
Speaker 1: an Obama Error rule that was aimed at combating salary
Speaker 1: discrimination against women and people of color. The administrat the
Speaker 1: Trump administration has delayed the rule, but a coalition of
Speaker 1: civil rights groups, including the National Women's Law Center and
Speaker 1: the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights under Law, are preparing
Speaker 1: a legal challenge to the Trump administration's delay of implementation.
Speaker 1: Here to talk with us about this rule and what
Speaker 1: the Trump administration is doing about it, or is Michael Selmi,
Speaker 1: a professor at George Washington University Law School. Michael, what
Speaker 1: would this rule do in terms of employers and their
Speaker 1: salary information? The rule was designed to provide more information
Speaker 1: to the federal government regarding pay practices of large employers. Currently,
Speaker 1: large employers have to provide demographic information about their workforce UH,
Speaker 1: and this would have extended their obligations to include pay
Speaker 1: data UM broadly categorized in the same way that the
Speaker 1: demographic information is done and UM. It's designed to address
Speaker 1: pay disparities with respect to women's pay, but the information
Speaker 1: UM would have been more broad than that, and it
Speaker 1: also would have only gone to the federal government. This
Speaker 1: was not going to be publicly available information. UM. But
Speaker 1: it was an effort to collect more information by the government,
Speaker 1: which respect to the pay practices of large employers. Well,
Speaker 1: what was the idea that the What was the government
Speaker 1: going to do with this information once it got it? Well,
Speaker 1: that's the UM. That's a good question. Uh. It can
Speaker 1: do a number of different things. Uh. It can based
Speaker 1: on the information, UH, start investigations of employer practices. They
Speaker 1: do that currently with the demographic information. If they they
Speaker 1: received the information, they have been receiving it for decades. UM.
Speaker 1: If they see why disparities in an employer's workforce, say
Speaker 1: it's all white or there's UM over were way more
Speaker 1: men than you might expect given the UM employer or
Speaker 1: the work that they're doing, that they can begin. The
Speaker 1: government based on that data can begin an investigation. And
Speaker 1: UH they could use the pay data in the same way. UM.
Speaker 1: Whether they would do that or how much action they
Speaker 1: would do based on the data, it's it's not so clear.
Speaker 1: But they would not be able to UM disseminate the
Speaker 1: information to private groups who are also gearing up to
Speaker 1: bring UM challenges to employers pay practices, but this would
Speaker 1: have information would have remained just what the government would
Speaker 1: have been confidential. So if it's just a reporting statute
Speaker 1: and the only the government's going to have it, what
Speaker 1: is the Trump administration saying about it? So they haven't
Speaker 1: said very much yet. They did, as you noted in
Speaker 1: the prelude, they put the rule on hold. The the
Speaker 1: employer's obligations to report this inspiration was set to begin
Speaker 1: in March of The rule was announced last year, was
Speaker 1: finalized last year, so they had some lead time to
Speaker 1: provide the information, which is basically based on W two
Speaker 1: statements and the like, but there would certainly be some
Speaker 1: burden in reporting it. UM. The Trump administration has put
Speaker 1: that on hold to review, UH, to further review, because
Speaker 1: the Obama administration also reviewed the rule. UM, this was
Speaker 1: not done in formal rulemaking. That was done in a
Speaker 1: more truncated process and UH. What the challenges now is
Speaker 1: at this point is just a foil request by the
Speaker 1: civil rights crews. But they want to know essentially why
Speaker 1: the Trump administration put it on hold UM and whether
Speaker 1: they are simply planning to retract the rule or whether
Speaker 1: they have some concerns about the potential costs burdens on employers,
Speaker 1: and so far the Trump administration has not provided any
Speaker 1: information of why they put it on hold, other than
Speaker 1: that they want to review it further. With respect to
Speaker 1: potential burdens, Well, what do we know about how much
Speaker 1: of a burden it would be on employers to provide
Speaker 1: this information. Well, there's UM wide disparities in terms of
Speaker 1: the UH projected costs UM in its rulemaking that they did.
Speaker 1: The e O c UM projected costs of about fifty
Speaker 1: million dollars for the employers. UH. The employer groups the
Speaker 1: Chamber of Commerce estimated that the cost would be closer
Speaker 1: to four millions, so there was a big gap between
Speaker 1: the two. UM. My sense is that, you know, there
Speaker 1: would certainly be costs, but it should be mostly a
Speaker 1: one time costs UM. Once the UM systems were set
Speaker 1: up to record this information, UH, it should be you know, annually,
Speaker 1: it should just be updating the information. And that's true.
Speaker 1: With the current demographic information on race and gender of
Speaker 1: the workforces, UM to pay would be a little bit
Speaker 1: more complicated to do UM, but once they figured out
Speaker 1: how to do it, and and that's one of the
Speaker 1: reasons for the delay, It wasn't entirely clear what was
Speaker 1: going to be required and how it was going to
Speaker 1: be done. UM, but the cost shouldn't be they should
Speaker 1: be one time costs. Well the UM you know, if
Speaker 1: if there if these groups are gearing up for a
Speaker 1: legal challenge by doing a Freedom of Information Act request,
Speaker 1: they're gathering information, what do you do you think there's
Speaker 1: any sort of procedural problems they're looking at or is
Speaker 1: it really just a matter of trying to figure out
Speaker 1: what the Trump Administration's rationalies? Oh? I think these um,
Speaker 1: it's always gamble when the administration, in this instance, the
Speaker 1: Obama administration completes the rule right towards the end of
Speaker 1: the administration before it can really be implemented. And I think, um,
Speaker 1: the civil rights groups uh are probably hoping to find
Speaker 1: something that might lead to a successful challenge that would
Speaker 1: require the Trump administration to implement the rule. But that
Speaker 1: seems unlikely UH to me, especially since it's currently just
Speaker 1: on hold. And UH it's possible too that the newly
Speaker 1: cost to the EOC, once they're um fully up with
Speaker 1: Republican majority, they could retract the rule as well. So
Speaker 1: it seems to be an effort to try and preserve
Speaker 1: a rule, but I think that's going to it's going
Speaker 1: to be a significant challenge for them to be successful
Speaker 1: on that. So it sounds like, unlike some of the
Speaker 1: places where the Trump administration has run into trouble and
Speaker 1: say environmental regulations and where there are questions about whether
Speaker 1: they followed the Administrative Procedures Act, this one may actually
Speaker 1: be an easier one for them to delay. I think
Speaker 1: that's right in part because the e o C did
Speaker 1: not follow the Administrative Procedures Act. They've used a different process,
Speaker 1: so it should be easier to undo. Although it's it's
Speaker 1: possible that the FOIL request could produce information that showed
Speaker 1: what the Trump administration is not supposed to do in
Speaker 1: the OMB review is just repudiate the rule. They would
Speaker 1: have to it would have to be cost bay and
Speaker 1: it's possible that they didn't have any of that information yet.
Speaker 1: But the fact that it's only on hold also seems
Speaker 1: like the challenge is likely a bit premature because the
Speaker 1: Trump administration has not completed its review of these regulations
Speaker 1: yet or this regulation well, and about we only have
Speaker 1: about thirty seconds. But what would the e o C
Speaker 1: have to do to withdraw the roll. Uh, they could,
Speaker 1: um as and when they're newly cut to they could,
Speaker 1: I believe, just um in their procedures, just withdrawn. And
Speaker 1: probably what they would do is say that they were
Speaker 1: withdrawing it to reconsider it. UM. And Michael, I think
Speaker 1: we're gonna we're gonna have to stop there. Thanks very
Speaker 1: much to Michael sell Me, professor at George Washington University
Speaker 1: Law School