Compliance Stuff

On January 21, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14173, "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," which revoked E.O. 11246.  E.O. 14173 ordered that the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) immediately cease holding federal contractors responsible for taking affirmative action or allowing workforce balancing on certain bases.  Federal contractors were in turn told to wind down compliance with E.O. 11246’s regulatory scheme by April 21, 2025. In response to E.O. 14173, on January 24, 2025, then-Acting Secretary Vincent Micone issued Secretary’s Order 03-2025, which ordered that OFCCP cease and desist all investigative and enforcement activity under E.O. 11246.  Order 03-2025 also placed OFCCP’s activity related to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 793 (Section 503), and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act, 38 U.S.C. 4212 (VEVRAA), in abeyance (temporary suspension) pe...

Spoiler: Section 503 takes center stage.   The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs dropped three proposed rules on July 1, offering revisions to its existing regulatory scheme. Key highlights : Executive Order 11246 . The OFCCP  proposes to rescind  the implementing regulations altogether. Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act . The OFCCP  proposes to update  the regulations to remove references to Executive Order 11246 and its regulations. Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act . In addition to eliminating references to Executive Order 11246, the OFCCP  proposes to rescind  all obligations relating to disability statistics , including voluntary invitations to applicants and employees to self-identify as disabled, the 7 percent utilization goal for individuals with a disability, and the data collection analysis. Proposed rule to rescind Executive Order 11246 regulations President Trump  revoked Executive Order 11246 ...

  California may likely soon join the growing list of states to require data breach notifications to be required within a certain amount of time – in this case, 30 calendar days. In recent years, many states have moved to provide specific timeframes for data breach notifications to consumers and regulators, while other states have continued to maintain more flexible deadlines. California lawmakers seem set on establishing a strict and challenging timeframe – what does your business need to know, and how can you prepare? The Basics California’s proposed legislation ( Senate Bill 446 ) is currently pending in the state Assembly and currently has no formal opposition. For this reason, it has a strong likelihood of being enacted into law. The legislature has until September 12 to pass the measure on to the Governor. He will have until October 12 to sign or veto it. Should the legislation be signed into law, it will become effective January 1, 2026. State Data Breach Notifications In th...

Employers will be required to report, by July 1, 2025, the number of children in New Mexico covered by their employer-sponsored group health plans. The reporting requirement comes from regulations under the state’s Vaccine Purchasing Act , one of a handful of state laws that put surcharges on health insurers, group health plans, third-party administrators, or some combination, to fund states’ purchases of vaccinations for children in the relevant state. Quick Hits New Mexico’s Vaccine Purchasing Act requires employers that sponsor plans and health insurers to report the total number of children covered during the past year. The purpose of the reporting is to help the state determine the quantity of vaccines to purchase. The deadline to report the information is July 1, 2025. Employers and health insurers must report to the New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance the total number of children in New Mexico who were enrolled in the plan during any part of the previous year a...

The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, recently affirmed a trial court ruling decertifying a wage-and-hour class action alleging a hospital failed to comply with protections for meal and rest periods for registered nurses. The ruling provided several significant employer-friendly holdings regarding class certification in California wage-and-hour litigation. Quick Hits The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, affirmed a trial court’s ruling decertifying meal and rest period claims. The appellate court held that an unreliable survey, combined with employee time records showing short/late/missed meal periods, was insufficient proof of classwide liability. The ruling confirms that class member testimony can rebut a presumption of meal period violations created by employee time records. Additionally, the ruling shows that courts can weigh credibility and credit employer declarations in determining whether individual issues predominate. In  Allison v. ...