Compliance Stuff

In this episode of our  Defensible Decisions  podcast, Scott Kelly (Birmingham/Washington, D.C.), who is chair of the firm’s Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group, is joined by Kiosha Dickey (Columbia) and Jay Patton (Birmingham) to discuss the increasingly complex landscape of workforce reporting requirements for 2026 and beyond. The speakers cover essential federal obligations like the EEO-1 and VETS 4212 reports, while exploring the expanding state-level requirements in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York City that are adding new layers of compliance challenges for multistate employers. The speakers provide practical guidance on California’s enhanced reporting fields, mandatory penalties, upcoming transition to SOC codes, and critical action items employers should prioritize now to ensure accurate, timely filings and avoid costly enforcement consequences. Transcript Announcer: Welcome to the Ogletree Deakins podcast, where we provide listeners wit...

On January 22, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission voted to rescind its Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace . The proposal to rescind the guidance was approved two-to-one, with Chair Andrea Lucas (R) and Commissioner Britanny Panuccio (R) voting to repeal the document, and Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal (D) voting against rescission. The rescission is unsurprising now that the Commission has a quorum. Almost immediately after assuming her role as then-acting chair in January 2025, now-Chair Lucas signaled her opposition to portions of the guidance and indicated that she would seek to rescind or revise it as soon as she had the votes to do so. While the rescission is effective immediately, as a legal matter, the repeal of non-binding EEOC guidance does not dramatically alter federal anti-harassment law, nor does it bear on state civil rights laws that prohibit workplace harassment. History of Harassment Enforcement Guidance In 2015, the EEOC established ...

On May 15, 2025, the district court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order vacating the gender-identity portions of the EEOC’s 2024 Enforcement Guidance.  In the order, District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk stated that all language defining “sex” under Title VII to include “sexual orientation” and/or “gender identity” was contrary to law and therefore vacated.  Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia  (2020) So, where does the law stand in regards to how “sex” is defined under Title VII and whether it includes gender-identity or sexual orientation?  The Supreme Court previously addressed the issue, though in a limited capacity.  In  Bostock , Justice Gorsuch (joined by Justices Roberts, Ginsburg, Bryer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) established that an employer who terminates an individual based on that individual being gay or transgender violates the law; and this remains the law of the land.  The Supreme Court’s reasoning in  Bostock  can be ...

Don't expect the EEOC to appeal. (NOT OUR ACTUAL JUDGE.) In April 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued  Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace . The Enforcement Guidance addressed, among other things, harassment and discrimination based on gender identity. Current Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, who was a Commissioner at the time, dissented from the gender identity portions of the Enforcement Guidance, saying that “[w]omen’s sex-based rights in the workplace are under attack.” The State of Texas and the Heritage Foundation then sued the EEOC, seeking to block the gender identity portions of the Enforcement Guidance from taking effect.  Both sides filed motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs argued, among other things, that the Enforcement Guidance went way beyond the scope of the 2020 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in  Bostock v. Clayton County , in which the Court ruled that terminating an employee based on sexual orientation or g...