DAS outlines new equal-pay methodology, reports pay adjustments for thousands of state workers

Jessica Nieling, chief human resources officer for the executive branch, told the Joint Committee on Ways & Means Subcommittee on General Government on Jan. 29, 2025, that the Department of Administrative Services implemented a new equal-pay methodology on June 1, 2024 intended to narrow persistent wage gaps and increase transparency in how the state determines pay.

Nieling said the executive branch has conducted three cycles of equal-pay analysis since the Equal Pay Act was enacted (House Bill 2005, enacted in 2017 and operative in 2019). She described the new methodology as retaining the same three statutory factors — seniority, education and experience — but changing how education and outside experience are credited, removing prior hiring caps, and making the calculation more transparent to employees.

"We still use the same 3 factors, seniority, education, and experience," Nieling said. She explained the key changes: seniority remains one step per year of state service; outside experience now counts at the same rate for all job categories (two years of outside experience equals one step); and education of any kind is converted into experience for pay calculation (for example, a bachelor's degree converts to three years of experience). Nieling said the executive branch no longer applies category-based caps that had restricted initial hiring steps for some classifications.

Nieling said DAS engaged external consultants (the Segal Group), agency leaders, HR staff and labor partners while revising the methodology. She said staff pushed for simplicity and transparency so employees could understand how pay is calculated and could appeal if the record did not reflect their experience or education. DAS loaded each employee's individualized calculation into Workday and provided a one-page explanation of the math; employees had a 30-day window to appeal the new calculations and an ongoing unscheduled-review process for pay concerns.

Nieling said the appeals process has changed: unscheduled reviews begin in the hiring agency, but adjustments that affect enterprise-wide equity are routed to the Chief Human Resources Office for consistent application across agencies. She said the law and DAS policy prohibit reducing anyone's pay as a result of the analysis; adjustments only increase pay.

Nieling presented aggregate outcomes she said showed progress narrowing wage gaps. Under the new methodology, about 25% of employees across the enterprise received an adjustment; roughly 30% of employees of color and 27.7% of female employees received adjustments, with the largest increases concentrated in lower wage ranges and entry-level positions that had previously been constrained by hiring caps. Nieling said the state tracks recruitment outcomes and has seen a marked decline in declined job offers citing salary as the reason.

Committee members asked whether the methodology considers certificates, relevance of education to the job, and how quickly high-performing workers can advance. Nieling said DAS awards credit for the highest degree achieved and does not grant additional credit for certificates because of variability in certificate types and duration, but employees can appeal if a certificate is especially relevant. She distinguished seniority (time in state service) from experience (relevant prior work) and said experience in the new methodology is weighted consistently across job categories.

Members also asked about litigation risk and costs. Nieling said it is only six months into the new methodology and that litigation under the Equal Pay Act has been limited historically; she said the centralized, transparent approach should reduce liability risk, though she could not quantify cost impacts immediately. She confirmed the methodology applies enterprise-wide to the executive-branch workforce (DAS cited roughly 45,000 employees when describing data collection and calibration).

Nieling invited committee members to review the Workday calculator and offered to return with a live demonstration of how the calculator determines initial-step placement.

The presentation was informational; no formal committee action was taken on policy changes at the meeting.