Photo of Erik Eisenmann

Erik Eisenmann

Erik Eisenmann is a business lawyer and partner at Husch Blackwell who represents employers in all aspects of labor and employment law, from counseling to litigation. He frequently defends clients throughout the country that are under investigation by, or have received citations from, OSHA and MSHA.

Contact:Read more about Erik Eisenmann
Some ampoules with vaccine and syringe injection.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought workplace vaccination policies to the forefront, raising complex questions about religious accommodations. Over four years after the initial rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine, these policies remain in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) crosshairs. The EEOC’s settlement with Infinity Rehab, announced on May 20, 2025, demonstrates that decisions made during the pandemic continue to create challenges for employers—and provides important insight into the EEOC’s current enforcement priorities.

On Wednesday, April 23rd, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” which renounces disparate impact theories of discrimination, and signals a significant shift for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) enforcement approach. In the EO, the White House directed all agencies to “deprioritize enforcement of all statutes and regulations to the extent they include disparate-impact liability.” The EO asserted the administration’s stance that disparate impact liability is unlawful, violates our Constitution, and “threatens the commitment to merit and equality of opportunity that forms the foundation of the American Dream.”

On March 19, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Public Affairs issued a press release announcing two technical assistance documents jointly released by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the DOJ. The stated purpose of the technical assistance is to encourage whistleblowers to file discrimination charges with the EEOC relating to unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs or practices or, in the case of state and local government employees, with the Department of Justice. It provides employees with instructions on how and where to file a claim of DEI related discrimination, along with descriptions of the types of DEI-related programs and activities that may constitute unlawful DEI under the current Administration’s policies. For employers, the technical guidance offers insight into the types of DEI activities that will be targeted by the Administration.

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.

Late yesterday, August 20, 2024, a Federal Court in Texas issued a decision which enjoins – on a nationwide basis – the FTC’s final rule which would effectively ban all non-competes with limited exceptions. While we expect the FTC to appeal this decision, the rule will not go into effect on September 4, 2024, or…

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.

On May 24, 2024, in Thryv, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 23-60132,  (5th Cir. May 24, 2024), a unanimous three judge panel for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a National Labor Relations Board order finding that the Employer violated the Act when it laid off employees pursuant to the terms of a last best final offer while the parties were bargaining for a successor contract. However, the court declined to rule on whether the Board had authority to issue its new consequential damages remedy – a primary reason this case was being closely watched as it moved through the appeal process.