Compliance Stuff

  On February 6, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a narrow  ruling  in  National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump , vacating a preliminary injunction that had blocked enforcement of  Executive Order 14151 , “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” and  Executive Order 14173 , “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The decision leaves employers with ongoing and significant uncertainty about what distinguishes lawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programming from activities the administration may target for enforcement as “unlawful DEI.” 0:00 9:51 Quick Hits On February 6, 2026, the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ facial challenges in  National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump  to President Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders (EOs) were unlikely to succeed, but the court did not valid...

Key Takeaways: An employee is not entitled to unrestricted free speech in the workplace under the U.S. Constitution Employers should carefully craft policies regulating acceptable and unacceptable forms of speech in the workplace Employers should be careful to avoid restricting employee speech that is specifically protected under state and federal law With any change in political climate, it is hard for employers to navigate the statements of employees, both during the workday and their off time. Employees who make their political positions public often point to the First Amendment — “free speech” — falsely believing that this would allow them to make any statement, unrestricted, in any location and under any circumstance. However, employers should understand what protections do and do not apply in the workplace and should review or create policies and procedures in dealing with employee speech. Generally speaking, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to private ...

On March 27, 2025, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois temporarily blocked the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) from enforcing portions of two provisions in President Donald Trump’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-related executive orders (EO) . Quick Hits A federal judge in Illinois issued a temporary restraining order blocking the DOL from enforcing certain provisions in two executive orders aimed at eliminating “illegal” DEI programs. The judge found certain provisions are coercive and undefined, likely violating the First Amendment. The ruling comes amid multiple ongoing legal challenges related to DEI initiatives. U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting the DOL from enforcing a “termination provision” that requires federal agencies to terminate grants or contracts with organizations that promote DEI and a “certification provision” that requires grant recipients to certify unde...

  On November 13, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a d ecision prohibiting the practice of holding mandatory employee meetings to discuss the employer’s views on unionization . The decision follows through on the NLRB general counsel’s attack on so-called “captive audience meetings,” an important tool for employers to educate workers about the potential workplace implications of unionization. Quick Hits The NLRB issued a decision prohibiting employers from holding mandatory employee informational meetings to discuss their views on unionization. The decision o verrules a seventy-six-year-old Board precedent that had allowed such meetings. The NLRB outlined a “safe harbor” for employers to hold voluntary meeting s on unionization with employees. The Board held that an employer interferes with employees’ organizing rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it “compels employees to attend a captive-audience meeting on pain of discipl...