Compliance Stuff

Seyfarth Synopsis: Late last week, the EEOC identified ten new rulemaking items that could significantly affect employer compliance obligations. The agenda entries include plans to eliminate EEO reporting requirements, rescind the UGESP, revisit regulations implementing the PWFA, and withdraw several longstanding interpretive guidance documents. While existing requirements remain in effect pending further action, the agenda provides a clear roadmap of the Commission's planned activities. While most of the country was preparing for the Independence Day holiday weekend, the EEOC identified ten new rulemaking initiatives in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The initiatives suggest a broad review of agency-created compliance requirements, reporting obligations, recordkeeping frameworks, and interpretive guidance that are consistent with the themes reflected in the EEOC’s recently issued National Enforcement Plan (NEP), as previously summarized here . Th...

On June 10, 2026, nineteen states and the District of Columbia filed suit in the District of Maryland seeking to halt implementation of Executive Order 14398, which was issued on March 26, 2026. The order requires federal agencies to insert a mandatory contract clause into all contracts, subcontracts, and “contract-like instruments” prohibiting contractors from engaging in “racially discriminatory DEI activities.” Compliance with the new clause is an express condition of eligibility to contract with the federal government, and consequences for noncompliance specifically include contract cancellation, exclusion from future federal contracts, suspension, and False Claims Act (FCA) liability . Filed as Maryland v. Hegseth , the complaint comes just two months after the administration announced its first False Claims Act resolution under the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, a $17 million settlement with IBM. The IBM Settlement In April, IBM agreed to pay $17,077,043 to resolve allegations t...

Many employers are surprised to discover that sponsoring a company health plan can trigger full HIPAA compliance obligations. Even if you are not a hospital or insurance company, y our self-funded health plan may qualify as a “covered entity” under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act . That can create potential legal exposure for both you, as the employer, and for your Third Party Administrator. What is a self-funded health plan? In a self-funded health plan, the employer takes on the financial risk of paying employee medical claims directly, rather than paying fixed premiums to an insurance carrier . Funds typically come from a dedicated trust or general company assets, with claims paid as they arise. Employers often choose this model for greater control over benefits design, potential cost savings (especially for larger groups), and better access to claims data for wellness initiatives. Key HIPAA trigger : Under federal rules , a group health plan, including self-...

The US Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division recently announced a proposed rule that would establish a standard for determining joint-employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) . The proposed rule seeks to harmonize the joint-employment framework by i mplementing a uniform standard across these three federal statutes. Notably, the 60-day comment period ended on June 22, 2026 . In Depth Under the FLSA, joint employers are “jointly and severally liable” for compliance with the statute’s requirements, including overtime pay . The proposed rule distinguishes between vertical and horizontal business relationships, establishing a separate standard for determining joint-employer status for each scenario . Vertical joint employment exists when an employee is “jointly employed by two or more employers that simultaneously benefit from the employee’s work” ...

The Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s Whistleblower Rewards Program has attracted significant attention since its launch in 2025 and following the Division’s announcement of its first whistleblower reward less than a year later. The program fundamentally alters the timeline of criminal antitrust investigations by financially incentivizing employees and former employees to approach the Division prior to a company completing an internal investigation, assessing exposure, or making leniency decisions. Since its launch, considerable attention has focused on how the program works and what it means for corporate compliance and leniency. Within that discussion, some misconceptions have emerged regarding both whistleblower eligibility and the program’s practical effect on antitrust investigations . As one of the former Division officials involved in launching and implementing the program, I believe those misconceptions obscure what may be the program’s most significant consequence: it...