Compliance Stuff

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a significant legal opinion concluding that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) longstanding interpretation of Title VII disparate impact liability is unconstitutional. The opinion questions aspects of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), the federal framework that has guided employers’ validation of employment tests and selection procedures for nearly 50 years. While the DOJ opinion does not change Title VII itself and is not binding on federal courts, it signals a potentially significant shift in federal enforcement priorities and creates new uncertainty for employers. For HR, compliance, legal, and talent acquisition professionals, the key question is straightforward: Should employers change how they evaluate seemingly neutral employment practices, including tests and other selection procedures? At least for now, the answer is generally no. A Brief Refresher: Disparate Impact an...

  On January 5, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division issued   Opinion Letter FLSA2026-2 , addressing whether certain “Safety, Job Duties, and Performance” bonuses may be excluded from an employee’s regular rate of pay when calculating an employee’s overtime premium under Section 7(e) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The short answer: they cannot, at least under the circumstances analyzed in the opinion letter. The opinion letter involves a pay plan for waste-management drivers that included a base hourly rate plus incentive bonuses tied to safety, job performance, and completion of duties. These bonuses were formula-driven and could add up to $9.50 per hour when specific criteria were met. Once those criteria were satisfied, the amount of the bonus was quantifiable under the plan and automatically earned by the employee.  The DOL confirms in this opinion letter that Section 7(e)(3) of the FLSA allows exclusion only of truly discretionary bonu...

Sometimes employees get arrested for alleged crimes while off duty, and it’s better for employers to be prepared and know what to do beforehand than to find themselves in legal jeopardy after the fact. The right move for employers depends on the type of alleged crime, the type of job, and the location. Quick Hits Employers may have to deal with workflow or staffing issues, or even reputational harm, when an employee is arrested for an alleged crime while off duty. A workplace investigation may be needed in some cases to decide the proper disciplinary action. State laws, employment contracts, union contracts, and employee handbooks may play a role in determining any disciplinary action. One of the first steps an employer can take after an employee is arrested is to assess whether the conduct violated professional ethics rules, the employee handbook, or the union contract. Many employers stipulate in their employee handbooks or union contracts that employees must act in an ethical, pro...

On August 13, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision addressing an employer’s obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the context of remote work accommodations. The court’s decision presents a cautionary tale for employers with employees working remotely. Quick Hits On August 13, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision highlighting the complexities of ADA compliance in remote work accommodations, emphasizing the need for employers to substantiate claims of essential job functions and undue hardship. The court denied the employer’s summary judgment motion, finding factual disputes regarding the essential nature of in-person job functions and whether the requested remote work accommodation imposed an undue hardship. This decision underscores the importance of individualized assessments, clear documentation, and open communication when handling ADA accommodation requests, pa...