Labor & Employment

Our experts deliver robust analyses to support organizations in navigating discrimination issues under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and various state laws. We routinely evaluate all types of employment decisions—from hiring, promotion, compensation, and termination—to determine compliance and identify adverse impact on various demographic groups, including age, race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, religion, and disability.

We review and model employment processes that promote objectivity and withstand legal scrutiny. Our services include:

• Adverse Impact Assessments: Using court-accepted statistical methods, we evaluate employment practices for disparate impact among demographic groups—covering compensation, hiring, promotions, and terminations
• Compensation Analyses: We assess pay equity using regression modeling and cohort analysis, helping employers meet Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requirements and comply with state and local laws such as the California Fair Pay Act of 2015.
• Performance Evaluation Audits: We analyze appraisal systems for adverse impact as well as validate that the ratings reflect actual job performance and support fair decisions in pay, promotion, and termination.

BRG conducts rigorous and proactive studies of employee compensation using methodologies accepted in litigation. Using multiple regression and other statistical techniques, we assess differences in base pay and incentive compensation among demographic groups.

BRG’s analyses are tailored to each client’s workforce, data structure, and compensation programs. We work closely with clients to define and control legitimate pay factors and ensure the analytical framework aligns with organizational practices. This approach enables us to explain pay differences and provide a clear, defensible foundation for decision-making when disparities are identified.

We also help clients better understand their data and the drivers of observed results through an iterative process. What may initially appear as disparities often reflects data limitations, inconsistent inputs, or the need to refine the model. Rather than relying on a standardized approach, our economists and analysts evaluate the data, validate assumptions, and incorporate relevant factors, such as certifications or role-specific attributes, so the analysis reflects how compensation decisions are made. This judgment-driven process ensures findings are grounded in the organization’s facts and circumstances, improves reliability, and helps identify and address potential issues before they lead to unintended differences.

Our experts identify outliers and “root causes,” evaluate compensation guidelines, and develop remediation strategies. We also support compliance with state and international reporting requirements and advise on compensation system design.

The use of AI tools in employee selection decisions is becoming increasingly common. As organizations implement AI, it is critical that employers understand the associated risks. When used for selection decisions, AI-based tools must meet the same standards as traditional employment tests, including consideration of potential discrimination and resulting legal risk.

Our experts conduct rigorous testing for adverse impact across gender, race/ethnicity, and age arising from the use of AI in employment decisions. By analyzing hiring and promotion processes for algorithmic bias, we help clients determine whether any demographic group may be experiencing unlawful discrimination.

In addition to federal anti-discrimination laws, employers face a growing patchwork of state and local regulations governing AI in hiring. For example, New York City’s Local Law 144 requires independent bias audits, public disclosure of summary results, and advance notice to candidates. Other jurisdictions are adopting similar requirements.

Illinois, California, and Colorado illustrate this trend. Illinois imposes disclosure and anti-discrimination obligations on AI tools in hiring. California’s 2025 regulations clarify that automated decision systems are subject to existing anti-discrimination laws, making bias testing and documentation critical in litigation. Colorado is advancing legislation to regulate automated decision-making, focusing on transparency and accountability. Together, these developments underscore that AI bias testing is increasingly required across jurisdictions. Using robust statistical methods, BRG helps organizations proactively identify and mitigate disparate impact while maintaining compliance with evolving regulatory requirements.

BRG also helps employers mitigate risk by validating AI-based selection tools. Validation involves collecting and analyzing evidence to confirm that a tool is job-related and predictive of performance, considerations that can be less apparent in AI systems. We typically apply two complementary approaches: criterion-related validation, which evaluates the relationship between test scores and job performance, and content-oriented validation, which assesses alignment between decision criteria and job requirements. Together, these approaches provide a rigorous assessment of the tool’s job relevance and predictive value.

BRG experts deliver clear, objective analysis of potential backpay and front pay losses in disputes involving alleged wrongful employment actions, including termination, failure to promote, and hostile work environments. By analyzing compensation records, career progression data, attrition patterns, and publicly available data sources, we provide clients with credible, data-driven estimates of potential financial exposure, helping them evaluate risk early and respond with confidence.

Our approach applies a rigorous “but-for” framework to assess how an individual’s earnings trajectory would have evolved absent the challenged employment decision. We model expected compensation growth and employment duration using accepted economic methodologies and case-specific evidence, including work-life expectancy data and industry dynamics. The result is a transparent, defensible analysis that withstands scrutiny in litigation, mediation, and settlement contexts.

We also evaluate mitigation, reemployment outcomes, and the availability of comparable opportunities in the relevant labor market. Through scenario analysis and sensitivity testing, we quantify how differing assumptions affect exposure, enabling clients to make informed strategic decisions. Whether supporting early case assessment, expert report development, or rebuttal analysis, BRG delivers insights that clarify risk, strengthen positions in negotiations, and drive effective resolutions.

BRG experts provide rigorous, data-driven analysis of executive compensation to support dispute resolution and proactive planning. Retained by both plaintiffs and defendants, our experts offer objective statistical evidence in cases involving compensation claims, equity disputes, and allegations of excessive pay.

We examine all components of executive compensation, including base pay, bonuses, equity awards, deferred compensation, and fringe benefits—using internal and external benchmarks. Our experts also review executive contracts to assess the impact of specific provisions on compensation claims. BRG has supported cases involving:

• Allegations of gender-based pay disparities among executives
• Claims of denied equity compensation by former CEOs
• Disputes among family business co-owners over alleged overcompensation
• Cancellation of stock options following corporate transitions
• Unfair stock ownership transfers within family-run companies
• Government efforts to recover compensation tied to fraud or misconduct

Our experts have testified in federal, state, and local courts, US Tax Court, administrative hearings, and arbitration proceedings featuring single arbitrators and arbitration panels.

Beyond litigation, BRG advises organizations on the design and implementation of executive compensation plans, considering performance metrics, industry standards, company size, and location.

BRG experts analyze employment agreements and practices related to non-compete clauses, restrictive covenants, and employee mobility. We assess the economic and competitive impact of these arrangements and provide expert testimony in disputes involving alleged anti-competitive behavior. Our work includes evaluating contract terms, market effects, and the enforceability of covenants under relevant legal standards.

BRG provides expert guidance in designing and evaluating employee selection systems that are fair, valid, and legally defensible. We specialize in both disparate impact analyses and validation studies, helping employers make smarter, compliant hiring and promotion decisions.

We support clients by:

• Developing customized selection tools aligned with business goals and legal standards
• Reviewing existing systems to assess validity and reduce risk

Our validation work follows the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978), professional standards such as the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology’s Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures (2018), and scientific and technical literature on personnel selection.

We commonly apply the following strategies to evaluate validity:

• Content validation to ensure tests measure job-relevant skills
• Criterion validation to link test scores to outcomes like performance or turnover
• Additional strategies such as construct validation and generalization, as appropriate

We have studied a wide range of selection tools, including public safety exams, physical ability tests, criminal history screenings, interviews, and performance appraisals. Every analysis is grounded in current research and tailored to meet both business needs and regulatory requirements.