On August 28, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a proposed rule that would substantially revise the federal-sector EEO complaint process under 29 C.F.R. Part 1614—the regulations governing how discrimination and retaliation complaints by federal employees and applicants are filed, investigated, and decided.
The proposed rule, which is not yet final
Employers are operating in an increasingly complex legal environment when it comes to transgender employees. Federal law continues to prohibit discrimination based on transgender status, but recent executive orders and shifting federal enforcement priorities have introduced new compliance considerations, particularly for federal contractors. This article provides practical guidance for employers seeking to understand their obligations and manage legal risk.
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.
Employers committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs have spent recent years navigating a hostile enforcement environment. Executive orders threatening broad enforcement action, expansive EEOC investigations, DOJ guidance introducing novel liability theories, and state legislation targeting DEI training have collectively created a climate of significant legal uncertainty.
Even against this backdrop, three recent legal developments offer meaningful encouragement for employers wishing to continue DEI initiatives. Courts and the federal government have begun to draw constitutional and legal limits around aggressive anti-DEI enforcement positions. While the compliance guidance we have previously provided remains relevant, the judicial record has shifted in ways that private employers should understand.
With the 2026 Colorado legislative session now complete, we have a full picture of which labor and employment bills advanced, which were vetoed, and what employers need to know now.
The table below summarizes the final disposition of all bills covered in our earlier update.
Employers often invest significant time and money in recruiting and paying sign-on bonuses for new hires. They also spend on relocating, training, funding necessary licenses and certifications for new or current employees, and paying retention bonuses for current employees. To protect these investments, employers have increasingly turned to contractual provisions that require workers who receive these incentives to repay specified amounts if they leave before completing a defined period of service.
Overview of USERRA
With military engagement on the rise, including in the Middle East, employers are increasingly navigating questions about their obligations under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape business operations, many employers are reassessing workforce needs and organizational structure. For many organizations, workforce reductions or redeployments may be unavoidable as roles evolve, processes are automated, and business models change. While some organizations may ultimately pursue involuntary reductions in force (RIFs), others are exploring whether voluntary separation programs (VSPs) can achieve workforce‑reduction goals while mitigating legal, operational, reputational, and employee‑relations risks.
With the 2026 Colorado legislative session now complete, we have a clearer view of which labor and employment bills advanced, or stalled, and which developments deserve employers’ attention. As in recent sessions, workplace legislation remained a major focus, with proposals touching on everything from collective bargaining and worker safety to wage-setting and reporting obligations.
In this update, we revisit the bills previously identified for Colorado employers to watch, along with several additional measures introduced during the session, and explain what matters most for employers.
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.