Wage and Hour Laws Archives - Levy Employment Law

14

February, 2023

Workplace Breastfeeding Laws Offer General Consistency with Local Nuance

Breastfeeding protections have gone mainstream. Through the magic of a budget spending bill, nursing employees in workplaces throughout the country now have legal protections that will afford them break time and access to spaces outside of toilet stalls in which to express breastmilk. That is a sea change in many parts of the country, and a more modest shift for employers in the tri-state area of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, where these protections have been afforded to varying degrees under state and local laws going back nearly a decade.

Amazingly, the new laws are fairly consistent with those already in existence, which makes compliance less burdensome for employers. The laws focus on requiring three things:

suitable space;
sufficient time; and
protected access.

Suitable Space

Make it Private

Nursing a baby often can be done discretely even in public, under cover of a light blanket, shawl or loose garment. Expressing breast milk to be stored in bottles for later use is an entirely different operation and experience, as anyone who has seen or used the various pumping apparatuses well knows. For that reason, the existing and new laws entitling employees to suitable space for expressing breast milk all prioritize that the space offer “privacy.” Often the laws clarify that means the space should be “shielded from view” and “free from intrusion.” And to dispense with the most obviously private but apparently not suitably hygienic option, the laws consistently state that the space cannot be a restroom or toilet stall.

Employers looking to achieve compliance should consider options like a private office or conference room with solid walls, blinds, or filtered glass – and a lock on the door or at least signage advising against entry while the room is in use. Even a storage closet, if appropriately cleared out, may be fit for this purpose.

Consider Proximity

While the federal law only mandates privacy, the state and local laws often also consider accessibility. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and New York City, for example, all require that the designated space be in close proximity to the employee’s work area. This criterion serves employers’ interests, as well, in that it minimizes the time that the employee needs to spend away from the work area.

Furnish Appropriately

Some of the laws additionally require that the designated space be outfitted appropriately to its purpose. New York State and New York City require that the space be well lit and include a chair and working surface. New York City and Connecticut require access to an electrical outlet, and New York City further requires that employees have nearby access to refrigeration. New York State recognizes greater variability in work locations and therefore requires access to an outlet only if the workplace is supplied with electricity, and access to refrigeration if it is available. Connecticut also requires nearby refrigeration or an employee-provided cold storage unit. The New York state and city versions finally require access to clean running water.

Optimally, therefore, employers looking to achieve compliance should be looking to provide the following furnishings and equipment:

a chair and work surface;
ample light;
an electrical outlet; and
nearby running water and refrigeration.

Employers that incorporate those items will meet their obligations under the current jurisdictional variations in the law.

Undue Hardship Is Considered

Employers with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from the federal PUMP Act if they can demonstrate that compliance would impose an undue hardship. Comparable state and local laws similarly recognize an undue hardship exception, but employers invoking this exception should be prepared to demonstrate that they reasonably explored options for providing suitable space and were unable to do so.

Sufficient Time

Access to a suitable location would be virtually meaningless if employees could only use it on their meal break. The laws therefore additionally require employers to provide “reasonable” break time for employees to express breastmilk. The federal “PUMP Act” grants this right to break time for up to one year after the child’s birth. The New York State version extends the protection to up to three years after childbirth, while other state laws are not specific as to duration.

New York State has issued guidance that employees are entitled to break times of at least 20 minutes in duration in these circumstances, but can use more or less time as needed. The U.S. Department of Labor previously had advised that a break of 15 to 20 minutes to pump, plus some time for set up and clean-up, was most common. The DOL has removed any specific reference to duration in its most current Fact Sheet on break time for nursing employees. Employers generally are not required to pay employees for break time taken to express breast milk, provided the time is actually a break and the employee is not performing work while pumping.

Reasonableness is a Variable Threshold

“Reasonableness” is determined through the same process that employers are expected to follow for accommodating employees for other legally-protected reasons. In New York City, the process is called a “cooperative dialogue,” and the city’s phrasing is indicative of that which is expected of all employers in this context – some degree of discussion, consultation and consideration of the employee’s needs in relation to the nature, size and operations of the employer’s business.

The duration of break time needed for expressing breast milk may include factors beyond the employer’s control, such as the speed of the pump itself, as well as factors that the employer can influence. For example, employers that offer a secure location for employees to store their breast pump in close proximity to the employee’s work space and/or the designated break room can thereby reduce the time needed for set-up and cleanup.

One of my clients was frustrated that an employee was taking hour-long breaks to express breast milk. In speaking with the employee, the employer learned that each break period, the employee would leave the work area, go out to her car in the parking garage to retrieve her breast pump and walk to the designated room (waiting for elevators along the way), and then return her pump to her car before coming back to the work area. A secure storage solution was all that was needed to cut the break time in half. The more comfortable an environment the employer can provide, and the fewer obstacles an employee faces in cleaning and storing needed equipment for pumping, the less time an employee will need to be away from productive work.

Protected Access

All the laws related to nursing employees include an assurance that the break time and designated spaces are legally-protected. This means that employers cannot discriminate or retaliate against employees for requesting or using the time or facilities, or for breastfeeding in the workplace. Some of the laws, including New York State, New York City and Connecticut, additionally require that employees receive notice of their rights with regard to expressing breastmilk. In New York, the state and city laws additionally require employers to have written policies with specifically-delineated provisions.

Compliance with these varied laws is more readily achievable than, for example, many of the paid leave laws. Employers must still, however, note the variations in legal requirements and adjust their workplace practices accordingly.

By Tracey I. Levy

10

February, 2023

Pay Transparency Laws Can Help Workers, But Not in the Way Advertised

Led by the rationale proffered by legislatures in support of pay transparency laws, I have been thinking about them from the wrong perspective. Promoted as a means of closing the gender wage gap, I have been vocal in my criticisms that the laws will be of little or no effect for two key reasons. First, because they do not get to the root problems that produce most of the pay gap, as I discussed in this blog article. Second, because even where they provide useful information for negotiations, they do not overcome the tendency of certain groups to “undersell” themselves.

Reflection on their efficacy is important, because the laws are proliferating and the existing versions are already being tweaked. Less than three months after it took effect, New York City is considering amending its pay transparency law, partly to align with the New York State version of the law, and partly to capture forms of compensation beyond base salary. The city’s proposed amendments to the law will not do anything to address its deficiencies in resolving the gender pay gap.

Connecticut, on the other hand, currently has an earlier version of pay transparency, which requires employers to disclose salary ranges to job applicants during the hiring process. The state is considering amending the law to align with the approach in New York, California, and Colorado, and require that salary ranges appear in job postings. That is a distinction with a difference. Not so much for the gender pay gap problem, but relative to the new way in which I am considering the benefits of pay transparency.

Reconsider Pay Transparency as Serving a Different Beneficial Purpose

How are pay transparency laws helpful to U.S. workers? Sometimes you need to consider things from a different perspective. The aha moment for me was in the epilogue of Barbara Ehrenreich’s book, Nickel and Dimed, which I recently had the opportunity to read. Reflecting on her own experience as a journalist undercover, temporarily occupying the space of a low-wage worker, Ehrenreich observed that her coworkers in those positions had little opportunity to comparison shop for higher-paying positions.

Time is money, transportation is money, and when you have little or no money saved, you cannot afford to hop between multiple employers and interview processes. You only go to as many places as it takes to land a job, even if it is not the best job.

We Don’t Talk Much About Money

Friends and family may provide few insights into other work opportunities because, at all levels of society, most people tend not to say how much they are paid. This was illustrated last month, when The New York Times ran a Sunday feature on people’s compensation, “27 People on the Streets of New York Talk About How Much They Make.” They reported that most of the people they stopped on the streets (nearly 400 were asked) declined to speak with them on the record about how much they earned.

Similarly, from the employer’s perspective, I suspect my own approach is similar to that of most small business owners. Even this past year when I knew pay transparency laws were on the horizon I did not list pay in my job postings. In my interviews with candidates, pay is usually one of the last points covered, and only if I am asked. But why is that? I have done benchmarking and believe I am paying on the higher end for the roles I am filling. And yet I have historically hidden that fact. I could say I wanted people to work for me because they were interested in the work and not the money. While true, I am not sure that was my motive. Rather, I think I am just reticent to talk about pay, worried that my benchmarking is wrong, or that I am planning to offer too much and should pay less. I hedge as long as I can before committing to compensation to reassure myself that I am not overpaying the person or, if I am, that it is because they are a great candidate and worth the investment.

Comparison Shopping Is a Valuable Benefit

Overcoming that reticence and secrecy to allow for “comparison shopping” is how pay transparency laws can make a difference for workers. Imagine if every help wanted ad in the paper or online included a wage range. Employers would be disinclined to inflate that number, lest too many of their current employees start to question their pay, and they would not want to lowball it too much, lest they lose out on attracting the best candidates.

How valuable would it be for people who are barely getting by financially to have salary information for dozens of open jobs at their fingertips? They could quickly pinpoint the highest paying opportunities and prioritize applying for those. Would that equalize pay between men and women, or between individuals of different races? I am not sure that it would for the various reasons I have covered in prior articles. But it sure might help those at the bottom rungs of the pay scale do just a little bit better. Over time those incremental differences can mean the difference between paying for food, shelter, clothing and transportation, versus having to forego one or more basic necessities.

For low wage workers, then, there is a benefit to pay transparency laws. And for any worker the laws force disclosure of data that allows for some degree of benchmarking and comparative analysis, which can help inform wage negotiations. But at more skilled, higher-level positions, the compensation range for posted positions tends to get wider, so the comparative data is less helpful.

New York City’s Newest Contemplated Changes Will Not Help

Currently, New York City only requires employers to disclose base salary, not incentive compensation or commissions. The City Council is considering amendments to the law that would require inclusion of the job description, which would make the law consistent with New York State’s pay transparency law that takes effect in September 2023. The amendments would also require employers to describe the non-salary or non-wage compensation for the position, including bonuses, benefits, stocks, bonds, options and equity or ownership. All that additional data will make for a mighty long (and pricey) job posting for employers, and in my experience those non-wage factors can encompass so many variables that the information employers include in their postings in response to such a mandate will be of little value to applicants.

Rather than bog down employers with further mandates and clutter their job postings to such a degree that the most useful information gets lost in the fine print, local and state governments would be better served in recognizing the value of mandating pay transparency in job postings simply as to base salary. For those who lack the time and resources to interview widely or otherwise collect comparative pay data, it could be invaluable. As for solving the gender pay gap, move past the quick fix window-dressing of pay transparency. Instead, consider the societal changes needed to really make a difference.

By Tracey I. Levy

8

December, 2022

Is Pay Transparency Just Legislators Throwing Arrows at a Dartboard, Missing the Root Problem

What if all these new legislative initiatives at pay transparency are solving the wrong problem? Touted as a solution to pay inequity, a recent study lends much reason to question the viability of that approach. And from personal experience as a “big law” associate, I know that “transparency” is not always as clear as it may seem.

Can Pay Transparency Hit the Bull’s-Eye?

I have been having a lot of conversations about this subject recently. I have spoken with reporters, some “on background” and some for articles in which I have actually been quoted, conversed with colleagues about how we think the latest laws will play out, and had thorny practical discussions with my clients who are struggling to understand just what they need to do in order to be in compliance with laws that are incredibly localized when their recruiting area is incredibly diffuse. I am particularly proud of and grateful for my recent conversations, posted in Forbes.com (New Wage Transparency Law Has Overlooked Problems and Why Your Company May Need A ‘No Haggle’ Rule) with award-winning author, coach, mentor and researcher of the secrets to professional success Dr. Ruth Gotian. All these conversations are driven by recent legal changes, which in certain jurisdictions now mandate that employers disclose and in some instances affirmatively and publicly publish, the range of what they are willing to pay for any particular job opening.

I have read commentary from many others, including colleagues who I hold in high esteem, on this very same subject. And there is one statistic that I found buried in the midst of a recent article published by SHRM that has me feeling more discouraged than ever and wondering whether legislators are simply throwing arrows at a dartboard and hoping for a bull’s-eye.

Clarifying the Cause and Meaning of “Pay Inequity”

The federal government statistics we use when we refer to a pay equity gap are based on the average earnings of individuals in various demographic categories, without controlling for related business factors. Payscale has reported that when controlled for job responsibilities, education and experience, women earn 99 cents for every dollar earned by a man, and the pay disparities among men of different races similarly only differ within the range of a penny.

So do we have a serious pay inequity problem? Job responsibilities, education and experience have long been recognized as entirely legitimate, nondiscriminatory factors that may be considered in making employment decisions. While facially non-discriminatory, factors such as education can also be misused as a proxy that excludes or marginalizes individuals of color who otherwise possess abundant performance potential. But absent statistical proof of a disparate impact, and evidence undermining the legitimacy of the criterion applied, our legal system does not recognize differences in treatment based on those factors to be evidence of discrimination. And if differences in pay based on education, job responsibilities, and experience are widely recognized to be lawful, then what is it that we expect pay transparency will achieve?

Back in the Day…Lessons from Personal Experience

Back when I was an associate at a large law firm, I took comfort in the lockstep pay scale that governed my first eight years with the firm. It was my law school graduation date that determined how much I would be paid, and I knew the same was true for the other men and women associates in the offices surrounding me.

There are of course a few deviations even in the most lockstep of systems, and in law firms associates may be told they are taking a step back by a year or two in the pay scale based on intervening work experience before joining the firm that may not directly relate to the work of the department with which they are now associated. But it was all transparent, or seemingly so, and I never had reason to question whether I was being paid differently as a woman.

I made a conscious choice relatively early in my large law firm career to scale back my work schedule, first to allow for advanced legal studies and then to care for my children, and my compensation continued along the lockstep track but with a proportionate reduction that aligned to my reduced billable hours commitment. That too was transparent and I was and remain so grateful for the opportunity I was given to continue my career with the firm in that capacity.

But all was not quite as transparent as it seemed. I had a 1200 hour per year billable expectation, and I made it my business to meet and usually exceed that billable target every single year. My compensation was in line with that target. What was less apparent was that some associates who were classified as full-time employees, and therefore expected to meet a 2000 hour per year billable target, did not consistently achieve their objective. I know anecdotally from my work over the years with other large law firms that those who fall regularly short of the billable hours target receive taps on the shoulder and a nudge to secure alternative employment outside of the firm. There is only so long that they are carried on a more lucrative financial wave than that which applied to people like me who worked (and were paid) for a part-time schedule.

So I know firsthand what pay transparency looks and feels like, and I know it not to be a panacea that achieves true equality. The point that stymies me is that if our societal problem pertains to differences in pay that align to differences in the type of work we are performing, the training we received before engaging in that work, and the years of experience we have developed, then how on earth is pay transparency going to change that societal problem? It feels instead like additional window dressing to claim we are solving a problem when what actually we are doing is likely to have little or no impact.

Let’s Name the Real Problems

As a step in a forward direction, I suggest we begin by naming our actual problems:

One:

Women and certain marginalized groups are more likely to take jobs that fall on the lower end of the overall societal pay scale. As a result, their lifetime earnings are likely to be less than those of white men.

Two:

Women and certain marginalized groups are less likely to accrue as much seniority in the jobs that they take because life factors may necessitate their temporary exit from the job market, or their experiences at work may be such that they eventually choose to leave, often for less lucrative positions, rather than stick it out in an environment where they do not fully feel they belong.

We Need Different/Better Solutions

The existence of these specific problems is not new news. But the laws on pay transparency seem entirely irrelevant to solving them. Instead, we need to take several reflective steps back as a society. We need to give serious thought to whether we are under-compensating people for caretaker and other types of roles that currently fall on the lower end of the pay spectrum. Supply and demand helps to drive wages, but so does the government, and reimbursement rates for child care, elder care services, and preschool education that leave people just above the poverty level send a message that we are looking to do these things on the cheap and do not place as much value on them as a society.

As for our workplaces, our laws against harassment and discrimination can really only go so far. My earliest exposures in corporate America to what was then entitled diversity and inclusion initiatives was greatly underwhelming. They felt like lip service, comprised of special recognition days and a handful of guest speakers over the course of a 12 month period and I could not imagine how any of that made those who were under represented feel wanted and included. But D&I has evolved to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging, and more recently I have had the good fortune to work with many talented, insightful leaders who are pressuring organizations to turn a mirror on themselves, to look at the composition of their workforces to consider whether those align with the organization’s values, to search for where people may be discouraged from applying or may choose to leave before they or the organization have been able to enjoy the benefits of their contributions, and to develop creative solutions. I regularly tell DEIB professionals that I do not envy their jobs. To be effective, they must lead a course of soul-searching, break down systems, analyze their component parts, and get buy-in to effectuate change.

I applaud the objective of getting us to a point in society where we all feel valued and appropriately compensated for the work that we do. But no wave of a magic legislative wand is going to get us there. Let’s instead buckle down at each of our organizations, partner with those who are developing some expertise in this area, roll up our sleeves and get to work.

By Tracey I. Levy

29

August, 2022

Unlimited Time Off Presents Hidden Challenges for Employers

I have increasingly been fielding inquiries from organizations that are looking to implement some version of unlimited time off for their employees. They saw that employees continued to be productive while working remotely during the pandemic, and they want to give them the flexibility to take time off as/when needed – provided the work still gets done. The motives behind these policies are commendable, but the challenge lies in their implementation.

Consider Scope as to Legally Required Time Off
Employers currently face a myriad of paid leave requirements, which vary by state and locality. These laws may mandate paid time for sick leave, domestic violence victims, care of family members, voting, jury service, witness duty, blood donation, bone marrow donation, attending school meetings and activities, public health emergencies, bereavement, or for no specific reason at all. When considering an unlimited time off policy, employers need to determine whether the policy is intended to cover some or all of these paid time off legal requirements.

Employers are also required in various locations to provide a range of unpaid time off, which may include family and medical leave, pregnancy disability leave, military leave, family military leave, leave for first responders, leave for crime victims, and lengthier leave for jury service. Some states offer partial compensation through state-regulated programs for certain periods of unpaid leave. In most circumstances, even the biggest proponents of unlimited paid time off do not intend to pay for the time used during most or all of these leave periods, particularly not for legally required leaves that can extend for months at a time. The scope of the unlimited time off policy in relation to legally required leaves needs to be determined in advance so that policies can be properly drafted.

Is This Just for the Employee’s Self-Care, or Family Too?
Also when considering scope, employers should determine whether they want unlimited paid time to be available for care of family members. Employers may intend for the unlimited paid time to cover employees who are themselves ill or injured, even for extended periods of time, and they can cap their payroll exposure by requiring qualifying employees to apply for short-term and long-term disability benefits for more extended absences. However, most paid sick leave laws are not limited to leave for the employee’s own illness or injury. The sick leave laws extend to family members – often spanning multiple generations and even individuals who are “like” family but with no blood or marital relationship.

Granting unlimited paid time off to care for family members can quickly leave an employer in an awkward situation of trying to balance its broad policy offering, the statutory protections that cover at least part of the leave time, and the need to have the employee get work done. Some employers address this by carving out care of family from their “unlimited” time off policies. They may choose to grant only the legally required leave for care of these individuals, or may provide a benefit that is more generous than the law, but less than “unlimited.” Other employers reframe the unlimited time off policy as intended for discretionary and personal reasons, akin to a combination of vacation, personal days and flexible holidays, and maintain a separate, statutory-compliant paid sick and safe leave policy that caps the amount of time employees can use for their own or a family member’s illness, injury or related medical or safety reasons.

Consider Approvals and Documentation
The temptation and appeal of an unlimited policy is to be free from all the legal mandates related to time off policies. Senior leaders just want employees to be “responsible adults,” take the time they need and make sure they do their jobs.

The reality is that reasonable minds will differ as to when an employee is acting responsibly when determining when and for how long to take off from work. “Unlimited” time does not relieve managers of the responsibility to manage their employees.

While requesting medical or other documentation in support of a time off request may seem superfluous if the time off is “unlimited,” such documentation can be critical to ensure that, when time is being taken for legally protected reasons, it is given appropriate consideration. And when time is being taken “just because,” managers should have greater flexibility to advise employees if the scheduling of that time off would be contrary to business needs, and delay or deny those requests.

Spell It All Out in Writing
An unlimited paid time off policy must address all the above considerations and the parameters that the employer has chosen to set with regard to the scope, use, timing, and ancillary requirements under its policy. To the extent that paid or unpaid leave laws may require specific language or provisions to be included, that too should be folded into the unlimited time off policy – if the leave law is intended to be satisfied through the unlimited paid time off policy. And if the legally protected leave is being carved out as an exception to “unlimited” paid time off, then that needs to be made clear in the written policies as well.

Finally, in those locations where paid sick leave and other specific time off accruals and usage need to be reflected on pay stubs or elsewhere, employers should consult with legal counsel and their payroll provider as to where and how accruals should be reflected. Some jurisdictions have held that no accruals need to be posted when a policy grants unlimited time, while other jurisdictions have been less clear on how that notice requirement is to be satisfied.

Keep Perspective
Legislators mean well when they adopt new paid and unpaid leave requirements. But these laws are often written from the perspective of protecting employees from miserly employers. They can feel unduly constricting to generous employers that want to give employees time to relax and manage their personal obligations, but do not want to run afoul of the law.

Some version of “unlimited” time off is achievable even in the most regulated localities. The policies just need to be thought through in advance, in the context of applicable leave laws, and drafted to cover the relevant parameters. This is one of those situations in which it would be prudent to seek guidance from legal counsel.

By Tracey I. Levy

16

June, 2022

Beyond Job Postings, New York State Pay Transparency Laws Would Create a Foundation for Massive Employee Pay Data and Pay History Collection

Two bills passed by both houses of the New York State legislature and currently awaiting submission to the governor for signature add a new, and significant, dimension to the range of pay transparency laws that are proliferating around the country. Starting from the most public version of pay transparency requirements in the context of individual job postings, these laws impose substantial data retention and reporting requirements that may have widespread implications for future assessment of the equitableness of employers’ pay practices.

Pay Transparency in Job Postings

The first pending New York State law follows the model of New York City and Colorado in that it will require employers to disclose in their job postings the proposed wage or range of wages that would be paid for an advertised job, promotion or transfer opportunity. The law will prohibit employers from refusing to interview, hire, promote, employ, or otherwise retaliate against an applicant or employee for that individual’s exercise of rights under the pay transparency law.

Where the law is more expansive than others is in two respects. First, it additionally requires employers to include the job description in their posting or advertisement, if a description exists. Second, and building on that requirement, the law expressly requires employers to retain:

a history of the compensation ranges for each job, promotion or transfer opportunity; and
the job descriptions for those positions.

While the pay transparency law will not require employers to report or otherwise collectively disclose that compensation history, another law passed by the state legislature and pending the governor’s signature will, if adopted, expand employee compensation reporting requirements for employers.

Equal Pay Disclosures – State Contractors

Described as relating to equal pay disclosure for state contractors, this second pending law will require contractors to submit reports that include a summary of their “workforce pay averages” (a term not defined by the legislation), which are to be calculated by job category, gender, race and ethnicity, and also report the percentage difference between pay averages in each category. Businesses with 100 or fewer employees would be exempt from the pay disclosure reporting requirement.

The pending law makes clear that it does not mean to impose a mere paperwork exercise. Rather, various state government leaders are to receive annual reports related to the information gleaned from the reports. All the reports are required to be available to the public for inspection and copying, redacting only individual employee names and social security numbers that may have been included. Further, all government agencies that have retained government contractors are required, “where practicable, feasible and appropriate,” to assess the equal pay practices of contractors submitting bids or proposals to be awarded a state contract.

Implications if New York State’s Pay Transparency Initiatives Become Law

There are substantial, and valid, considerations motivating this drive toward greater wage transparency, as we have discussed in past blog articles and in an interview I did with Dr. Ruth Gotian for Forbes.com. And there also is reason to question whether these laws will actually achieve their intended objective of wage parity. Will arming applicants and employees with more information be sufficient to overcome differences in negotiating style (that often correlate with gender and racial differences, whether that be attributable to natural proclivities, defensive techniques developed in response to unconscious bias, or other factors)?

If signed into law, these new legislative requirements pull employers into the center of a massive experiment. Historical data that employers are required to gather and retain provides a ready source of new information that plaintiffs’ lawyers can likely obtain through discovery and utilize in support of legal claims. And it is not a far leap to anticipate subsequent legislation that requires employers to publicly report, publish or analyze the data that they will soon be required to collect and retain. The proposed equal pay disclosure law for state contractors already exemplifies that approach.

Pay transparency laws, particularly in a state like New York where employees have a protected right to discuss salary information with one another, will invite probing questions from existing employees who suddenly learn they are far lower on the pay scale than they had realized. Already HR colleagues have reported that they are fielding these types of inquiries as to rationale and pressure to boost pay for certain employees. Employers that have not holistically evaluated their compensation philosophy, methodology and baseline data, and those employers that do not currently have well-defined roles that align with detailed job descriptions and salary bands, may face serious employee relations issues, or worse, under pay transparency mandates.

In New York State, the earliest any of these laws will take effect is November 1, 2022. Perhaps a pay audit and equity analysis as a summer project?

By Tracey I. Levy