Compliance Stuff

A longtime rule may soon be scrapped that helped employers ensure they were providing equal employment opportunities and improve diversity, equity, and inclusion while also complying with federal anti-discrimination laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) submitted a proposal to the White House on May 27 seeking to revoke a safe harbor for employers that’s been in place for nearly 50 years. The move aligns with the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate DEI programs from the workplace and focus on merit-based opportunities. Here are three key takeaways from the EEOC’s latest action and the practical steps employers should be taking now. 1. Employers Would Lose Safe Harbor The EEOC wants to revoke a 1979 interpretive rule addressing a potential conflict between voluntary affirmative action plans (not those previously mandated for federal contractors) and compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based ...

Federal lawsuit says Chick-fil-A franchisee denied employee’s request to observe Sabbath on Saturdays, then fired her AUSTIN, Texas — Hatch Trick, Inc., a Chick-fil-A franchisee operating multiple locations in Austin, violated federal law by refusing to reasonably accommodate an employee’s request to refrain from working on Saturdays in observance of her Sabbath day and instead fired her, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the employee, who managed Hatch Trick’s delivery drivers at one of its Austin locations, is a member of the United Church of God denomination, which observes a Saturday Sabbath. In adherence to her religious faith and practice, she requested no scheduled hours on Saturdays, and she disclosed the need during her job interview . Although Hatch Trick initially honored the employee’s request to refrain from Saturday work, after several months the company changed its position and ...

On May 11, 2026, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a single mandatory racial sensitivity training did not meet the high bar for a hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. 0:00 3:51 Quick Hits The Tenth Circuit held that a single mandatory racial sensitivity training—and its alleged aftereffects—did not meet the high bar for a hostile work environment claim under Title VII or Section 1981 . The court found that training materials using terms like “white exceptionalism” and “white fragility” were not enough standing alone, because the plaintiff could not show they actually changed his job duties or advancement opportunities. A failure to investigate employee complaints about training content did not independently create a hostile environment , but the court signaled it could strengthen a claim where other allegations are more substantial. Summary In Young v. Colorado Department of Correction...

Aviation services company settles federal suit alleging it failed to accommodate employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs MIAMI – Menzies Aviation (USA), Inc., a nationwide aviation logistics services provider, will pay $55,000 and implement significant policy and training reforms to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today. According to the EEOC suit, Menzies Aviation failed to accommodate a Fort Lauderdale-based employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs which precluded her from working during her Sabbath observance, from Friday sundown through Saturday. Because of the company’s refusal of her request, the employee was forced to quit in December 2023. “Employers need to be aware of their o bligations under federal law to provide reasonable religious accommodations, ” said EEOC Miami Regional Attorney Kristen Foslid . “We appreciate Menzies Aviation’s cooperation in resolving this...

  Federal lawsuit alleges news publisher failed to promote a white male employee because of his race and sex WASHINGTON — The New York Times Company, a global news publisher based in New York, N.Y., violated federal law when it passed over a white male employee for a promotion because of his race and/or sex, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, The New York Times chose not to promote a well-qualified white male employee because of his race and/or sex. The New York Times has a well-documented commitment to enacting race and sex conscious decision making in the workforce through its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. In The New York Times’s 2021 “Call to Action” and throughout numerous other publications, the company stated goals and action plans to increase non-white and female representation in its leadership positions. Acting in accordance with such goals, the company left a lo...

On February 26, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a federal sector decision in  Selina S. v. Driscoll , ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows federal agencies to exclude transgender workers from using bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity. The ruling extends to other federal agencies’ sex-segregated facilities, including changing areas, locker rooms, and sleeping quarters. Importantly, the decision applies only to federal agencies, not to private-sector employers, and does not bind federal courts. Quick Hits Federal agencies may now restrict transgender employees’ access to sex-segregated facilities matching their gender identity under the EEOC’s new interpretation of Title VII. The 2–1 ruling along party lines overturns decades-old precedent dating back to the EEOC’s 2015 decision in  Lusardi v. Department of the Army , which supported bathroom access corresponding to gender identity. Commissioner Kalpana K...