The legal battle between the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and The New York Times has escalated into one of the most consequential press-freedom and employment-law clashes in recent memory. What began as a DEI-related discrimination suit has morphed into a sweeping constitutional confrontation with the Times accusing the federal government of weaponizing its enforcement machinery against a news organization for its journalism.
On March 23, 2026, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson signed ESHB 1155 into law, enacting a near-total ban on noncompetition covenants in Washington state. Effective June 30, 2027, all noncompetition covenants are void and unenforceable, regardless of when the parties entered into the covenant.
Smart glasses give users hands-free access to information, photos, video, and audio as well as the ability to record without the inconvenience of holding up a camera. Employees and employers alike may find these benefits helpful in the workplace. Employers, however, should proceed with caution as the use of these devices involves several legal issues to consider.
Earlier this month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement, commenced litigation against Rock Snowpark on July 2, 2025, for allegedly retaliating against an employee that posted a series of Bible verses on social media that the Snowpark considered discriminatory against the LGBTQ+ community.
In our ever-evolving world, fostering cultural sensitivity is paramount for creating inclusive and respectful work environments and minimizing legal risks. Language plays a crucial role in shaping our perceptions, and unfortunately, some words used in everyday conversation may perpetuate stereotypes and contribute to cultural insensitivity. This Native American Heritage Month, employers should consider abandoning the following words and phrases, and encourage their employees to do the same, in an effort to embrace more inclusive work environments, and mitigate the risk of discrimination claims brought by indigenous members of their workforce.
A whopping 7 in 10 Americans favor the legalization of cannabis, according to Gallup, as more states are slated to legalize adult use cannabis, or at least decriminalize it, this year. Indigenous nations, such as Wisconsin’s Ho-Chunk, are following suit. As of April 30, the Ho-Chunk tribal legislature voted to decriminalize cannabis on its tribal lands. Yet, as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) advances the rescheduling of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act, complex jurisdictional questions remain regarding the enforcement of cannabis laws at the tribal and state levels. Among them, as of 2024, can tribes legalize cannabis use and sale on their own lands?
From Congress’ recently proposed “Dismantle DEI Act of 2024” to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s decision permitting mandatory diversity training by employers, diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs remain a contentious issue in U.S. politics. In June 2024, attorneys general from 40 states joined one of two dueling letters, reflecting the inconsistent sentiments on this topic across state lines.
While properly implemented DEI programs remain permissible under Title VII and other applicable laws, recent legislation proposed by Senate and House Republicans would seek to eliminate any such programs sponsored or supported by the federal government. On June 12, 2024, twenty-two members of Congress, led by Ohio Senator J.D. Vance (Donald Trump’s vice-presidential candidate in the 2024 election) introduced the Dismantle DEI Act of 2024 (the “Act”). With respect to the Act, Senator Vance stated, “The DEI agenda is a destructive ideology that breeds hatred and racial division. It has no place in our federal government or anywhere else in our society.” The proposed legislation seeks to eliminate all federal DEI programs and funding for federal agencies, contractors which receive federal funding, organizations which receive federal grants, and educational accreditation agencies. Although the Act would not apply to the private sector, the federal government remains the nation’s largest employer and the Act would impact a workforce of over four million employees.
In the complex tapestry of workplace dynamics, there exists an often unspoken advantage known as the beauty premium or “pretty privilege.” This phenomenon refers to the societal bias toward individuals who are perceived as conventionally attractive. Over twenty years of scholarly articles show an unconscious preference to interact with people we may find attractive, even in the employment context during the hiring process and throughout employment. While it may seem superficial, pretty privilege can significantly impact one’s career trajectory, opportunities, and overall experience in the professional world.
In our ever-evolving world, fostering cultural sensitivity is paramount for minimizing legal risks and creating inclusive, respectful work environments. Language plays a crucial role in shaping our perceptions, and unfortunately, some words used in everyday conversation may perpetuate stereotypes and contribute to cultural insensitivity. As employers gear up for the new year, they should consider abandoning the following words and phrases. Encouraging their employees to do the same will help create more inclusive work environments and mitigate the risk of discrimination claims brought by members of their workforce.