Compliance Stuff

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: ...

On May 19, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Justice Department’s request to lift  U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen’s March 31 order   halting the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) rescission of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans. Under the rescission, announced in a  Federal Register Notice on Feb. 5, 2025 , Venezuelans who registered for TPS under former DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ October 3, 2023, designation of Venezuela for TPS, would have lost their TPS-based work authorizations on April 2, 2025, while TPS itself would have expired on April 7, 2025 . While the language of the Federal Register Notice indicates that Venezuelan TPS holders who registered under the 2023 designation will no longer be work authorized, the Supreme Court specifically noted that its  Miscellaneous Order (05/19/2025)  does not preclude challenges to any DHS actions that seek to invalidate TPS documents, including work auth...

Is the media buzz accurate? On Wednesday, President Donald Trump issued a new executive order,  "Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy."  The buzz is that the President has wiped out disparate impact liability. "NO MORE DISPARATE IMPACT? GOLLY!" But has he? I don't think so. The EO will have a definite -- dare I say it? --  impact , but that theory of liability is not dead. ABCs of disparate impact In 1991, Congress amended Title VII to include specific provisions related to "disparate impact" claims ( scroll down to subsection (k) ). Disparate impact exists when an employer has a facially neutral practice or requirement that disproportionately affects individuals in a protected group. This applies regardless of whether the employer had any intent to discriminate .  But, assuming the employer had no intent to discriminate, it has a defense if it can show that the practice or requirement is job-related and consistent with business necessity...

  Executive orders . As with many new administrations, the Trump administration is likely to begin with a flurry of executive orders. For newly inaugurated President Trump, such executive orders could be related to immigration (likely focusing on the border and travel), diversity equity and inclusion (DEI) in the federal government and federal contracting community, energy, regulatory reform, and international trade, among other topics. Agency rulemaking may be required to implement some of these executive orders, which will take time. Personnel . Confirmation hearings for judicial and agency appointments are likely to be a focus for the Senate in 2025. Because agency officials can be confirmed with a majority vote in the Senate, President Trump will have a relatively easy time getting people confirmed, though this is never a guarantee (see Julie Su and  David Weil ). “Personnel is policy” in Washington, D.C., and these officials will play an outsized role in shaping labor a...