The proliferation of pay equity laws means one size does not fit all jurisdictions.

Geographic differences in pay equity testing requirements mean that one type of statistical test will not satisfy requirements in all jurisdictions. While the goal of pay equity legislation across states, at the federal level and in the EU have similar goals, the differing testing required across jurisdictions means that you may face the presumption of discrimination in one locale, even if under rules in another locale you do not.

Even in one location, UE countries and the EU Federation require different tests and it is not clear which are more stringent.

The differing testing requirements certainly add complications for companies with employees that span multiple jurisdictions, such as multiple states within the US, multiple countries within the EU, and between the US and the EU. While the differences between EU and US testing rules may be the most obvious and have significant potential for conflicting results, differences within the US, such as whether testing is done at the state-wide-level, county-wide-level, or at the level of each establishment in the company, can have the potential to create conflicting results. In the EU, how will the German regression testing fare against the 5% testing required by the EU, and which is considered more stringent if the EU test produces a finding of discrimination and the German regression testing does not?

This webinar will review some of the major differences in testing requirements. It will also discuss how to handle these differences and harmonize your pay equity testing so that you can create a pay structure that gives your employees the right pay incentives to align with non-discriminatory corporate economic goals, while avoiding running afoul of conflicting jurisdictional pay equity testing.