Compliance Stuff

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a significant legal opinion concluding that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) longstanding interpretation of Title VII disparate impact liability is unconstitutional. The opinion questions aspects of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), the federal framework that has guided employers’ validation of employment tests and selection procedures for nearly 50 years. While the DOJ opinion does not change Title VII itself and is not binding on federal courts, it signals a potentially significant shift in federal enforcement priorities and creates new uncertainty for employers. For HR, compliance, legal, and talent acquisition professionals, the key question is straightforward: Should employers change how they evaluate seemingly neutral employment practices, including tests and other selection procedures? At least for now, the answer is generally no. A Brief Refresher: Disparate Impact an...

In today’s competitive and highly regulated business environment, organizations can no longer rely solely on instinct or outdated human resources practices to manage their workforce. Decisions related to hiring, promotions, compensation, employee development, and retention can carry significant financial, operational, and legal consequences. As a result, organizations that continue to rely primarily on subjective decision-making, inconsistent management practices, or outdated HR models risk falling behind competitors and exposing themselves to unnecessary liability. Employers are expected to demonstrate that workplace policies and employment decisions are job-related, consistently applied, and compliant with state and federal non-discrimination laws. This expectation has received increased national attention following Executive Order 14173 , “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which emphasizes compliance with federal civil rights laws and reinforces ...

On Wednesday February 25 th , the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division announced a settlement with Elegant Enterprise-Wide Solutions, an IT professional services company, alleging that their job advertisements generated by artificial intelligence (AI) violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).    The DOJ alleges that the job advertisements generated by an AI tool included citizenship status requirements stating that applicants must have H-1B, OPT, or H-4 visas. As these are types of work authorization visas, listing them as a requirement in the job advertisement would have the effect of screening out US workers . Section 1324b of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits discrimination in recruiting and hiring based on citizenship status. The terms of the settlement include payment of a civil penalty and reviewing and revising employment policies to ensure they comply with the INA. Elegant Enterprise-Wide Solutions also agreed to conduct train...

Key Takeaways from the November 2025 Webinar   Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming every stage of the employment cycle —from recruiting and selection assessments to performance management and workplace safety and employee monitoring. In a recent  expert panel webinar , Berkshire brought together a lawyer, a labor economist, and an industrial organization psychologist to discuss practical strategies to ensure defensibility and compliance as employers navigate the evolving regulatory landscape for AI tools in HR.   Below, we summarize the core discussion points and share actionable recommendations for employers considering or currently implementing AI in their employment processes.   Foundational Legal Considerations Existing Federal Laws Apply:   AI tools used in employment decisions are covered by long-standing federal anti-discrimination statutes (Title VII, ADEA, ADA), not just...