Human Resources

On January 22, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) held an open public meeting pursuant to the Sunshine Act to discuss and vote on the rescission of the 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace adopted by the EEOC during the Biden Administration (EEOC-CVG-2024-1; issued 04-29-2024) (“2024 Guidance”). Under this 2024 Guidance, sexual orientation and gender identity were specifically addressed following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020). It contains examples of prohibited conduct such as repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun an individual no longer used as well as the denial of access to a bathroom consistent with an individual’s gender identity.

Employer’s Separation Notice Obligations

A frontline service worker at a Cinnabon was recently terminated after a video circulated showing her hurling a racist epithet at a Somali couple. The footage spread quickly with millions of views on TikTok. The employer acted swiftly. And, in a development emblematic of the current digital moment, the terminated employee has since raised more than $327,000 in online donations as part of “A Public Awareness Initiative.”

Earlier this month, our team published an in-depth article for federal contractors on navigating WARN Act compliance amid government shutdowns and federal contract cancellations. Since then, we’ve been closely monitoring the broader wave of workforce reductions affecting not only government contractors but employers across industries and company sizes.

The recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has ignited a national conversation—not just about politics, but about the boundaries of employee speech and employer response in the workplace. In the days following Kirk’s death, a wave of firings and suspensions have swept across industries, with employers acting swiftly to distance themselves from employees whose public statements about the tragedy were seen by some as insensitive, inflammatory, or reputationally damaging, regardless of the political viewpoint expressed. In assessing whether to discipline or terminate an employee for statements made publicly on personal social media, employers must consider constitutional rights, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), anti-discrimination laws, off-duty conduct laws, and social media privacy laws.

Pen on the contract papers

Imagine accepting a new job, signing a stack of documents, and working for years—only to learn after being fired that hidden fine print gave you just months, not years, to sue for wrongful termination. Sound fair? The Michigan Supreme Court does not think so—at least not without closer inspection. In Rayford v. American House Roseville I, LLC, decided on May 23, 2024 (513 Mich 1096), the Court held that contractually shortened limitations periods in adhesive, non-negotiated employment agreements must undergo judicial scrutiny for reasonableness before enforcement. This ruling, penned by Justice Welch and joined by a majority, reverses a Court of Appeals decision and overrules prior precedents, signaling a shift toward greater employee protections in boilerplate contracts. For employers, it is a reminder that one-size-fits-all clauses might not hold up in court.

Professional TV cameraman during event recording

It was supposed to be a night of entertainment for concertgoers at a recent Coldplay performance. But for two company executives, the spotlight shone a bit too brightly when a “kiss cam” moment on the jumbotron captured what appeared to be a romantic embrace. The viral clip quickly made its way from the venue to social media feeds—and, inevitably, to the boardroom.

While most of us hope our professional lives don’t become the subject of a Viva La Vida meme, these headline-grabbing incidents can leave employers with serious employment law questions and reputational risks.

California flag, USA

Assembly Bill 2499 (AB 2499), which took effect on January 1, 2025, broadens previous requirements on how California employers treat employees who are victims of violence or who are the family members of victims. The new law broadens previous requirements and introduces several key changes for employers, including:

  1. An expanded definition of “victim”
  2. Reasonable accommodations for employees who are family members of victims
  3. The right to take leave for family members of victims (for employers with 25 or more employees)
  4. Greater access to paid sick leave
  5. New notice requirements for employers

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor released their 2026 Congressional Budget Justifications (CBJ) on May 30, 2025, providing valuable information related to the EEOC’s enforcement intentions and the future of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). A CBJ is the annual budget justification materials of a federal agency or a component of a federal agency that are submitted in conjunction with the President’s annual budget submission. The CBJ provides a detailed description of each program and information about how the agency will use funds, including increases and decreases in spending. The EEOC CBJ identifies four enforcement priorities and anticipated investigations into systemic intentional discrimination using the pattern or practice method of proof. Additionally, the EEOC CBJ and the Department of Labor’s Budget in Brief confirm that the OFCCP will be extinguished with its remaining two programs distributed to the EEOC and the Veterans Employment Training Service.

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.”