Compliance Stuff

In another major shift for workplaces, President Trump issued an executive order yesterday with huge implications for employment discrimination claims. For decades, employers could face liability for policies and practices that didn’t intentionally discriminate but had a “disparate impact” on a group of job applicants or employees based on a protected characteristic, such as race or sex. The president is now aiming “to eliminate the use of disparate impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.” Although courts nationwide apply the disparate impact theory of liability in employment discrimination claims – and the law hasn’t changed yet – we expect federal agencies to immediately halt related enforcement activities and take steps to influence broader reform. Here’s what employers need to know about this development and how it may impact your practices.  Understanding Discrimination Claims Disparate Treatment:  As you likely know, employers cannot intentional...

Since Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ) first  introduced  the “Nullify the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act” or “NOSHA Act” (H.R. 86) , there has been immense speculation about the future of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The inauguration of President Donald Trump served to increase scrutiny of the agency, and actions by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have caused speculation to run rampant. The focus on the NOSHA Act, what the administration might do, and how DOGE might impact OSHA may be distractions from a bigger threat facing OSHA and the way it regulates workplace health and safety. Quick Hits The introduction of the “Nullify the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act” bill by Representative Biggs (R-AZ) has sparked significant speculation about the future of OSHA, especially under the Trump administration. Justice Thomas’s dissent to the denial of certiorari in  Allstates Refractory Contractors, ...

On April 23, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) titled  Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy , which follows a string of prior EOs aimed at removing DEI programs, which we covered  here  and  here . This most recent EO seeks to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability across federal agencies, marking a significant shift in how civil rights statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, could be enforced. “Disparate-impact” is a foundational legal concept under both Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The former prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in federally funded programs, while the latter prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin in employment . Disparate-impact liability has long been used by federal agencies, like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and courts to identify policies that, while neutral on thei...

  The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) is often seen as just a transparency tool. But for federal contractors, FOIA can pose real risks to confidential proprietary data. Recent updates from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and pending litigation over contractor-submitted workforce reports make it clear that FOIA Exemption 4, which protects the disclosure of any confidential commercial or financial information, safeguards are stronger than ever, but only if you know how to use them. This January, the DOJ updated its  FOIA Guide  to clarify how Exemption 4 applies post- Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media.  588 U.S. 427 (2019). In the  Food Marketing Institute  case, the Supreme Court held that proprietary information can be withheld if it is both customarily and treated as private by the owner and was submitted to the government with an expectation of confidentiality.  Id . at 440. There is no longer a need to show  substantial compe...

The California Court of Appeal just handed employers a wage and hour win by ruling that meal period waivers prospectively signed by non-exempt employees are enforceable if certain criteria are met. The April 21 decision in  Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc.  provides employers with a solid game plan to approach meal period waivers at their workplaces . Below is a quick review of the case and four steps you should consider to take advantage of this positive decision and get the most out of your meal period waivers. How We Got Here and Why It Matters In  Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating ,  two former employees – La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek – who worked for a network of veterinary hospitals, Vicar Operating, Inc., alleged Vicar violated California wage and hour law. They launched a class action lawsuit against their former employer arguing that the company improperly handled their meal periods. They alleged Vicar r equired them and others to work five-to-six-h...

On April 1, 2025, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the remedies available to nondisabled employees subjected to improper medical examinations or inquiries under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) . The court’s decision in  Nawara v. Cook County  establishes that nondisabled employees may recover back pay if subjected to improper medical examinations or inquiries. Quick Hits The Seventh Circuit reiterated that the ADA’s limitation on medical exams and inquiries applies to all employees, not just those with a disability under the ADA. Hence, a nondisabled employee subjected to unlawful medical exams or inquiries may recover back pay if, for instance, the employee is off work without pay for some period or is discharged for refusing to undergo an improper medical examination . The court’s ruling highlights the importance of properly determining whether to require an employee to undergo a medical or mental health exam, i.e., to ensure that any such exam or inq...

On April 11, 2025, a federal judge for the U.S. Western District of Pennsylvania reversed his recent decision to dismiss a disability discrimination claim from a job applicant with a medical marijuana card who alleged he had a job offer rescinded following a pre-employment drug screen . Quick Hits A federal judge reinstated a disability discrimination claim after a job applicant with a medical marijuana card alleged that his job offer was rescinded without proper consideration of reasonable accommodations for his underlying medical conditions. The judge had previously dismissed the disability discrimination claim after finding that status as a medical marijuana cardholder was not a qualifying disability. The ruling underscores the legal uncertainty surrounding the protection of employees’ lawful medical marijuana use under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. While considering a motion to certify an appeal, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Colville reversed his  March 2025 dismissal...