Employers

The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) Acting General Counsel recently concluded that surreptitious recordings of collective bargaining sessions is a per se violation of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).  In the memo issued to NLRB regional offices on June 25, 2025, Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen instructed regions to issue a complaint, alleging bad faith bargaining, if an investigation reveals surreptitious recording occurred. … Continue Reading

President Trump’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 includes substantial reductions to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) budget and staff.  The proposed discretionary budget is slashed from $13.5 billion to $9 billion, reducing it by one third.  The number of employees is reduced by nearly 4,000 from 14,855 to 10,879—or a more than 25% cut. … Continue Reading

The 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 data collection window opened on May 20, 2025, and the deadline to file the 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 report is June 24, 2025. Filers should note that the collection window is shorter this year, and that beginning this year, all communications sent to filers will be electronic.… Continue Reading

On April 30, 2025, Congressional Representatives Stephanie Bice (R-Oklahoma) and Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pennsylvania) introduced the More Paid Leave for More Americans Act in the House of Representatives.

The bill would develop a three-year pilot program administered by the federal Department of Labor (DOL) that would provide grant funding to states that establish paid family leave programs in partnership with private companies.… Continue Reading

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) – an association of several hundred employers and employer associations – sent letters to US Attorney General Pam Bondi to direct the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to ignore a swatch of Biden-era decisions pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order asserting that the President and the AG have the power to interpret the law for all agencies. … Continue Reading

Within the last two months, both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the armed services have followed Trump Administration directives to narrow or eliminate protections for transgender individuals.

EEOC Withdraws Lawsuits.  Aligning with Executive Order 14168 (Jan. 20, 2025) announcing that the federal government will recognize only male/female as the two “immutable biological classifications,” the EEOC has deprioritized transgender discrimination charges and moved to dismiss at least seven lawsuits brought on behalf of transgender employees.… Continue Reading

During the Biden administration, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a final regulation (the “2024 Rule”) seeking to increase the salary threshold for overtime eligibility for the “white-collar” exemption (also referred to as the “EAP” exemption – executive, administrative, and professional) and the “highly-compensated employee” (HCE) exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).… Continue Reading

In our previous post, we discussed the nationwide temporary restraining order issued by the United States District Court for the North District of Illinois that temporarily prevented the Department of Labor from requiring federal contractors to certify that they do not operate any diversity, equity, or inclusion programs that violate the Trump Administration’s recent Executive Orders (“Certification Provision”).… Continue Reading

On March 27, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the Department of Labor (DOL) from requiring federal contractors and grant recipients to certify that they do not operate any diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that violate the Trump Administration’s recent DEI related Executive Orders.… Continue Reading

A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently issued a decision in Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc., No. 24-1310 (8th Cir. Apr. 9, 2025), finding that the definition of “employee” in the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) requires physical presence within Minnesota; virtual presence and work-related contacts with the state are not sufficient.… Continue Reading