Compliance Stuff

Takeaways The DOJ analysis bolsters EEOC’s shift away from disparate impact liability theories of employment discrimination.  The DOJ memo proposes stricter limits on disparate impact claims. Related links DOJ Office of Legal Counsel Memo   EEOC Releases New National Enforcement Plan   Does Employer Disparate Impact Liability Still Exist? The Latest EO Pushes to Eliminate It EEOC to Halt Investigations into Disparate Impact Claims Article On June 9, 2026, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel released a memorandum opinion finding the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) existing guidelines on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s disparate impact provisions to be unconstitutional. EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas had requested that the DOJ review the EEOC’s interpretative rules and guidance documents to advise whether the Title VII disparate impact provisions were constitutional as currently interpreted and applied. The memo’s conclusions align with ...

The Iowa drug testing statute (Iowa Code § 730.5) became more employer friendly effective July 1, 2025. Although the Iowa drug testing law remains one of the most technically challenging in the country, the  changes  will make it easier for employers to defend lawsuits. Burden of Proof The Iowa drug testing law previously required employers to prove that the requirements of the drug testing law were met in the event an employee alleged a violation . The amendments state that an aggrieved employee or applicant “has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation … directly caused any damages for which affirmative relief is sought.” The amendments provide that “[a]n employer” who violates the law or aids in the violation is liable to an aggrieved employee or prospective employee. Previously, the law permitted claims against “[a] person” who violated the law or aided in the violation. The amendments also qualify that attorney’s fees awarded to an ...

  The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued an interesting employment law decision,   E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. v. Carrera . As with the California Wage Orders and Labor Code, the FLSA contains several overtime exemptions. It is the employer’s burden to prove an employee falls under one of these exemptions. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was split with other federal appellate courts as to what evidentiary standard applies to FLSA claims, so the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.  In  E.M.D. Sales,   employees sued their employer for unpaid overtime . The company argued that the employees were exempt from overtime under the FLSA’s outside sales exemption . The federal district court and the Fourth Circuit applied the “clear and convincing evidence” standard . The Supreme Court rejected this approach and ruled that the lower, more employer-friendly “preponderance of the evidence” standard applies. This standard is essentially “ 50% plus a feather ,” and muc...