Search form

Senate Votes to Disapprove Obama-Era Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order

By Leslie A. Stout-Tabackman, Laura A. Mitchell and F. Christopher Chrisbens
  • March 7, 2017

The U.S. Senate has passed, by a single-vote margin, a joint resolution previously passed by the U.S. House that “disapproves” President Barack Obama’s 2014 Executive Order 13673: Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, often called the “blacklisting” executive order. (For more on Executive Order 13673, see our articles, ‘Blacklisting’ Rules for Government Contractors Proposed by Federal Agencies under Executive Order and DOL and FAR Council Publish Final ‘Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces’ Rules for Government Contractors.)

The joint resolution, authorized by the Congressional Review Act, is headed for President Donald Trump’s signature, the last hurdle to the demise of the “blacklisting” regulations. Trump is expected to sign the joint resolution without much deliberation.

Most provisions of Executive Order 13673 are on hold. A U.S. District Court in Texas in October 2016 halted implementation of the “labor law violation” reporting provision of the FAR Council’s final rule implementing the Order, as well as the prohibition of mandatory arbitration agreements. (See our article, Texas Federal Court Blocks Enforcement of Key Portions of Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Rules.) Nonetheless, the “paycheck transparency” provisions took effect for new contracts on January 17, 2017. (See our article, Paycheck Transparency Mandates of Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces E.O. Take Effect January 1.) This left many contractors with compliance responsibilities for regulations in legal limbo, in light of the lawsuit and the results of the presidential election.

If Trump signs the resolution, the Order, the FAR provisions and DOL’s Guidance document will be dead. In addition, the lawsuit challenging the Order will be moot, and federal contractors will be free from the Order’s burdens and obligations, including the paycheck transparency obligations.

Federal contracting agencies likely will be directed to halt implementation of the pay transparency regulations as soon as the joint resolution is signed. Contractors that have the pay transparency provision in their contracts or in pending solicitations will want to pursue removing such provisions.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions about this or other developments.

©2017 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

February 22, 2018

Top Five Labor Law Developments for January 2018

February 22, 2018

Management-side labor and employment lawyer John Ring has been nominated by President Donald Trump to fill the vacant seat on the five-member National Labor Relations Board. If confirmed, Ring would replace former-Board Chairman Philip Miscimarra, a Republican, and restore a 3-2 Republican majority to the Board. Miscimarra’s term... Read More

February 21, 2018

Maine Recreational Marijuana Law Limits Drug Testing, Disciplinary Consequences Imposed by Employers

February 21, 2018

A provision of Maine’s recreational marijuana law prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions for off-premises marijuana use, as of February 1, 2018. This law effectively prevents Maine employers from testing for marijuana for pre-employment purposes. The law also affects employers who employ employees subject to federal... Read More

February 20, 2018

Georgia Supreme Court Clarifies Insurance Company is Not ‘Financial Institution’ in Garnishment Law

February 20, 2018

An insurance company named as a garnishee in a garnishment action is not a “financial institution” under Georgia’s garnishment statute when the garnishment is seeking earnings owed to its current or former employees. May 2016 Amendment Apparently responding to a federal judge’s 2015 ruling that portions of Georgia’s post-judgment... Read More