Compliance Stuff

On May 25, 2026, Pope Leo XIV released his first encyclical, “ Magnifica humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence .” For employers, this type of high-profile religious guidance related to AI is likely to shape how some employees understand the moral permissibility of using AI tools at work, and may contribute to requests for accommodations from those who object to using AI on religious grounds . This is not legal theory. It is already happening. See Sarah E. Needleman, She won a religious exemption from using AI at work. The Pope’s remarks could fuel similar appeals , Business Insider (June 5, 2026). As a result, employers find themselves at the crossroads between (relatively) new legal precedent and new technology. What Changed After Groff ? For years, many courts treated undue hardship in the context of religious accommodations as anything more than a minimal cost or burden. However, in Groff v. DeJoy , 600 U.S. 447 (2023), the U.S. Supreme C...

  TikTok is home to many viral video trends, including “day in the life” and “story time” videos. “Day in the life” videos frequently contain short, collected clips of a user’s day with music, text, or voice-overs explaining their day-to-day roles (and possibly their workplace).   For example, a “day in the life” video may feature an attorney badging into their office building, walking to their office, getting a cup of coffee, and sitting down at their desk to work on a brief.   “Story time” videos are often first-person videos of an individual explaining something that happened to them at work and are typically filmed outside the workplace and not in uniform. For example, a “story time” video may feature a worker in their living room explaining a story about a “crazy customer” or about their “bad coworker’s” behavior that day.   While the risks of social media in the workplace may seem obvious to some, platforms are complicated to navigate as it appli...

Prior to the enactment of Georgia’s Restrictive Covenant Act (“GRCA”), Georgia courts uniformly struck down non-compete provisions that used “in any capacity language”, i.e., a non-compete that prohibited an employee from working for a competitor in any capacity and not limited to the services that the employee performed for his former employer . Recently, in  All States AG Parts, LLC v. Herzig  (February 2025), the Georgia Court of Appeals followed the pre-GRCA rationale and struck down what it deemed to be an overbroad non-compete. In All States, the employer All States AG Parts (“ASAP”) provided replacement parts for agricultural and construction equipment. ASAP employed Mr. Rose in Outside Sales. Mr. Rose resigned his employment with ASAP and began working for a direct competitor . When ASAP sued Mr. Rose, he argued that the non-competition provision in his employment agreement was overbroad. The trial court agreed, and the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s determi...

  On February 14, 2025, National Labor Relations Board Acting General Counsel (“GC”) William Cowen issued Memorandum 25-05, which rescinded dozens of policy memos issued by his predecessor, Jennifer Abruzzo, during the Biden Administration. Cowen cited an unsustainable “backlog of cases” as the primary motivation for the rescission and shed light on his more measured prosecutorial intent, writing that “[t]he unfortunate truth is that if we attempt to accomplish everything, we risk accomplishing nothing.” Cowen also signaled that he plans to publish new guidance to replace some of the rescinded policy memos and signaled that his office may completely abandon other Biden-era policy initiatives. The rescission memo is among the first public steps Cowen has taken since assuming the Acting GC role in early February. As we expected, it confirms that he plans to chart a different course for some of the most visible and controversial issues in labor law today. Background:  Under the ...

On February 5, 2025, newly confirmed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo to all U.S. Department of Justice Departments targeting private employers’ use of DEI initiatives.  The memo is titled “Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences.”  In it, AG Bondi states that the DOJ will “investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities in the private sector and in educational institutions that receive federal funds.”   As a legal basis for such action, AG Bondi cites to the Supreme Court’s decision in  Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll. , 600 U.S. 181, 206 (2023), which held that the college and university Defendants’ affirmative action programs violated the promises of equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.  Despite the case not directly applying to Title VII, the quote relied upon by AG Bondi from that case is “eliminating r...

The Virginia General Assembly is currently considering new legislation with substantial impact on Virginia businesses.  Two of these new bills are   House Bill 2561   and   Senate Bill 1052 .  These bills would significantly increase the penalties for payroll mistakes, increase the time for employees to file several different types of claims, expand the types of lawsuits employees can bring as a collective action against employers, and expose small businesses with between five and fifteen employees to lawsuits for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under state law . If these bills are enacted, Virginia will be one of the most employee-friendly states with some of the harshest remedies for payroll mistakes in the nation .  House Bill 2561 was passed by the House Labor and Commerce Committee, and it is now headed to a House floor vote on Monday, February 3, 2025. There is no Senate version of the bill.   Senate Bill 1052 has already passed ...

  Within days of his second inauguration, President Trump issued a number of Executive Orders. While the impact of his Executive Orders will be seen with time, many employers may be left wondering how the Executive Orders addressing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) impact them. With these new Executive Orders, private employers [1]  are justifiably re-evaluating any action they have planned to take to move DEI forward. Private employers need to know two critical factors. First, the recently issued Executive Orders addressing DEI only cover the federal government workforce. Second, an Executive Order cannot replace or contravene statutes enacted by Congress (federal laws), state laws, or Supreme Court precedent . As such, all federal laws, state laws and Supreme Court precedent prohibiting employment discrimination remain intact and unchanged by the recent Executive Orders, and significant changes to internal DEI efforts may result in increased discrimination claims....