On June 4, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) approved its National Enforcement Plan (“NEP”) for FY2025 – FY2029, rescinding and replacing the agency’s FY2024 – FY2028 Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”) before that plan’s scheduled endpoint. The NEP identifies and focuses the agency’s attention and resources on specific substantive categories of enforcement priorities including (1) “remedying DEI-related race and sex discrimination”; (2) “protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination”; (3) “defending women’s rights to single-sex spaces at work and workers’ rights to express the binary nature of sex”; and (4) “protecting workers’ religious liberty rights to receive religious accommodations and be free from religious discrimination, harassment, and related retaliation,” among others.
Continue Reading EEOC’s New National Enforcement Plan Signals Shift Toward Intentional Discrimination and DEI Enforcement
Illinois Department of Human Rights Seeks Public Comment on Draft AI Employment Regulations
Last month, the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) released draft regulations addressing employers’ use of AI in employment decisions and invited public comment. The IDHR will hold a hearing on the draft regulations on June 10, and the public comment period will close on June 29.
Continue Reading Illinois Department of Human Rights Seeks Public Comment on Draft AI Employment RegulationsNew York Bans Certain “Stay-or-Pay” Agreements
On December 19, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the “Trapped at Work Act” (the “Act”) (N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 1050–55) to prohibit certain types of so-called “stay-or-pay” agreements that require an employee to repay an employer for certain expenses or compensation if the employee terminates employment within a certain period of time after their start date. These obligations often include repayment for expenses such as training, education, quit fees, damages clauses, sign-on-bonuses, and other types of cash payments tied to a mandatory stay period. The Act, which took effect on December 19, 2025, is similar to a new California law that took effect on January 1, 2026.
The New York Act and the new California statute follow on the heels of the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) February 2025 recission of a 2024 NLRB General Counsel memorandum, which proposed that the NLRB adopt a framework to presume that any stay-or-pay provision is unlawful even if entered into voluntarily. The NLRB’s recission of this memo paved the way for New York and California (and potentially other states) to regulate stay-or-pay agreements at the state level.
Continue Reading New York Bans Certain “Stay-or-Pay” AgreementsEEOC Releases New Technical Assistance: “Discrimination Against American Workers Is Against The Law”
On November 19, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released a technical assistance document, “Discrimination Against American Workers Is Against The Law,” and updated its landing page on national origin discrimination. This development reflects EEOC Chair Lucas’s focus on national origin discrimination and Anti-American bias and follows comments she made in January 2025 and February 2025 stating that “protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination” is among the agency’s main priorities for compliance, investigations, and litigation.
Continue Reading EEOC Releases New Technical Assistance: “Discrimination Against American Workers Is Against The Law”California Update: New Employment Laws and Compliance Obligations for 2026
California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed several Assembly Bills (AB) and Senate Bills (SB) that expand employee rights and increase workplace compliance obligations for employers. Here is a rundown on the key new laws. Unless otherwise specified, the laws take effect on January 1, 2026.
Continue Reading California Update: New Employment Laws and Compliance Obligations for 2026Navigating California’s New and Emerging AI Employment Regulations
The California Civil Rights Council and the California Privacy Protection Agency have recently passed regulations that impose requirements on employers who use “automated-decision systems” or “automated decisionmaking technology,” respectively, in employment decisions or certain HR processes. On the legislative side, the California Legislature passed SB 7, which would impose additional obligations on employers who use these technologies; the bill is currently on the Governor’s desk. And, the Governor has signed SB 53, which provides certain employee whistleblower rights with respect to AI safety. Below, we discuss some of the key requirements in the new regulations and legislation.
Continue Reading Navigating California’s New and Emerging AI Employment RegulationsSupreme Court Holds That All Employment Discrimination is Equal: Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs.
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court altered the landscape for employers facing “reverse discrimination” Title VII lawsuits in the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and DC Circuits, by striking down a rule that had required plaintiffs from “majority groups” to allege additional “background circumstances” to state a prima facie case of employment discrimination. Examples of “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority” included statistical data that the employer had engaged in a pattern of discrimination against majority groups or a member of the relevant minority group made the employment decision that allegedly harmed the member of the majority group. In the other circuits, no such additional pleading requirement was required in reverse discrimination lawsuits. Justice Jackson authored the Court’s 9-0 opinion, Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., No. 23-1039, and Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch.
As a practical matter, more “reverse discrimination” lawsuits in the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and DC Circuits may survive a motion to dismiss—or employers may elect not to move to dismiss if the complaint’s allegations satisfy a Title VII plaintiff’s prima facie burden. That said, the opinion does not alter the liability framework—employers can still achieve summary judgment dismissals of Title VII employment discrimination lawsuits by demonstrating that the employment decision at issue was made for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
* * *
In Ames, the plaintiff alleged that her employer discriminated against her because of her heterosexual orientation when she was denied a promotion that was given to a lesbian woman and then later demoted and her prior position filled by a gay man. Slip Op. at 2. Analyzing her claim under the long-standing McDonnell Douglas evidentiary framework, derived from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973), the District Court granted summary judgment for the employer, noting the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of employment discrimination because she had not presented evidence of “background circumstances” that suggested her employer was the “rare employer who discriminates against members of a majority group.” Slip Op. at 2. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds That All Employment Discrimination is Equal: Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs.AI in the Workplace: Best Practices for U.S. Employers
As artificial intelligence (AI) tools become increasingly integrated into hiring and other workplace decisions, businesses must navigate a rapidly evolving legal landscape regulating the use of AI. To stay compliant and build trust within the workforce, employers can consider the following best practices for responsible AI deployment in employment contexts.
Continue Reading AI in the Workplace: Best Practices for U.S. EmployersFederal Appeals Court Reinstates Provisions of DEI Executive Orders
As explained in a prior blog post, on January 21, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”) (the “EO”), establishing new requirements for federal contractors and grant recipients to agree that their compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws is “material to the government’s
Continue Reading Federal Appeals Court Reinstates Provisions of DEI Executive OrdersPresident Trump’s “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” Executive Order Targets Federal Contractors and the Private Sector
On January 21, 2025, President Trump issued the Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity Executive Order (the “EO”), which revokes Executive Order 11246, a 60-year-old Civil Rights-era directive that prohibited federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin, and required federal contractors to take affirmative action to provide equal opportunity in employment. The EO seeks to “end[] illegal preferences and discrimination” and “promote individual initiative, excellence, and hard work” by ending the use of “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) or ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA)” programs. The EO does so by prescribing required contract provisions for federal contracts and by requiring specific reports from the heads of federal agencies, including identification of private entities for potential investigation, as described further below. The provisions of the EO do not apply to federal or private sector employment and contracting preferences for veterans. Federal contractors and grant recipients have until April 21, 2025 to comply with the EO’s revocation of affirmative action requirements. However, federal contractors, subcontractors, and grant recipients may become subject to the new contract provision requirements imposed by the EO without delay.1
Elimination of Federal Contractor Affirmative Action Requirements & DEI References
In addition to revoking Executive Order 11246, the EO requires the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”), which has been responsible for administering and enforcing Executive Order 11246 for many years, to “immediately cease” promoting diversity, enforcing affirmative action requirements, and allowing or encouraging federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in “workforce balancing” based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin. The EO explicitly prohibits federal contractors or subcontractors from considering race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin in employment, procurement, or contracting practices. Although OFCCP will no longer enforce affirmative action requirements, the EO delays implementation of this prohibition for current federal contractors through April 21, 2025, so contractors have until this date to sunset any affirmative action programs, absent judicial intervention.2
The EO also directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) and the Attorney General to review and revise, as appropriate, all government-wide processes, directives, and guidance; remove references to DEI principles from federal acquisition, contracting, grants, and financial assistance procedures; and terminate “all DEI-related mandates, requirements, programs, or activities,” which the EO does not define.
Continue Reading President Trump’s “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” Executive Order Targets Federal Contractors and the Private Sector