Compliance Stuff

On February 25, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit  ruled  in  Bruce v. Adams and Reese, LLP  that employers cannot compel arbitration of a case under a mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreement when an employee or former employee sues on multiple claims and at least one of them is for sexual assault and/or sexual harassment. Under the  Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) , mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements are invalid with respect to sexual assault or sexual harassment disputes. 0:00 6:57 Quick Hits In  Bruce v. Adams and Reese ,  LLP , a former employee sued a law firm for disability discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. The Sixth Circuit recently concluded that a mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreement is voidable when a plaintiff brings multiple claims in a case that includes sexual harassment and/or sexual assault. This is ...

Artificial intelligence (AI) continues to move at a pace that few regulatory frameworks can match. This week alone underscored just how deeply AI is permeating every corner of the business world—from financial services, health care, and data centers to marketing technologies, web analytics, and core infrastructure. On December 11, President Trump issued a sweeping Executive Order aimed at curbing the growing patchwork of state AI laws and signaling a strong federal push toward uniformity, global competitiveness, and innovation-first AI policy. The Order sets the stage for significant legal, political, and constitutional debate, particularly around state enforcement authority, algorithmic accountability, and the future of consumer protections. At the same time, states and regulators are not standing still. Florida's proposed AI consumer protections, California's continued expansion of privacy enforcement under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), and aggressive litig...

We’ve all heard the horror stories. A job seeker spends hours tailoring his resume, finally hits “submit,” and within seconds receives a rejection email in his inbox. Clearly, no human could have actually reviewed the resume. The applicant wasn’t rejected by a person; he was rejected by a pattern-matching algorithm. The “ No Robot Bosses Act ” could curtail these scenarios. The bill has bipartisan support in Congress, having been co-sponsored by Democrats Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon and Christopher Deluzio of Pennsylvania, and the Republican Delegate from Guam, James Moylan. The core premise of the proposed No Robot Bosses Act?  Employers would be prohibited from relying exclusively on automated decision systems to make employment-related decisions , including whether to hire or fire. Under the proposed law, an “automated decision system” is defined broadly as follows: a system, software, or process that . . . uses computation, in whole or in part, to determine outcomes, make or aid...

Two years ago, the long dormant duty to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs and practices was awakened by the U.S. Supreme Court in  Groff v. Dejoy . Gone were the days when an employer could justify the denial of a religious accommodation by showing that it would have had more than a  de minimis  impact on the business . Many religious organizations (rightfully) lamented that this resulted in the routine denial of most accommodation requests. Groff  eviscerated that standard. According to the Supreme Court, the denial of a religious accommodation requires proof that it would have caused “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of [the employer’s] particular business .” As the Supreme Court often does, it provided few details about the meaning of that requirement . Leaving them instead to be developed by the lower federal courts, on a case-by-case basis. Now, with two years of hindsight, that development is beginning to take shape. The good news: ...