Workforce Bulletin

What employers should know about key developments this week:

• EEOC’s New Direction: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has scrapped its two-year-old enforcement priorities and rescinded 40-year-old affirmative action guidance in favor of a federal strategy that deprioritizes disparate impact liability and focuses enforcement on disparate treatment claims.
• State-Level Backlash: Multiple states—including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York—have expanded or maintained disparate impact liability in their civil rights laws, creating direct conflict with federal EEOC priorities.
• AI and Automated Hiring at Risk: The divergence between federal and state regulators leaves employers uncertain about compliance when using facially neutral employment technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI)-driven hiring tools and standardized testing validation.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week^®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Deborah DeHart Cannavino discusses the EEOC’s shift in focus from disparate impact to disparate treatment enforcement and what it means for multistate employers navigating a regulatory patchwork.

In June, the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an Opinion calling into question the concept of disparate impact liability under federal law. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1991, disparate impact liability is triggered if a neutral employment practice disproportionately harms a protected class. The Opinion concluded that certain guidelines maintained by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are unconstitutional because they are grounded in disparate impacts alone without sufficient regard to employer intent.

What employers should know about key developments this week:

• Agencies Lose Their Independence: In Trump v. Slaughter, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are not “independent.” The NLRB’s Board members and General Counsel serve at the President’s pleasure and can be removed at any time, for any reason—or for no reason.
• The Ripple Effect on the NLRB: Although the Slaughter ruling doesn’t affect other positions at the NLRB, it has the potential to have a significant trickle-down effect on those who report to the NLRB’s Board members or General Counsel. This will likely be compounded by the administration’s efforts to remove civil service protections for many positions at the NLRB as well as other agencies.
• A New Circuit Split on the Standard for Section 10(j) Injunctions: Applying the traditional four-part test for the first time since the Supreme Court’s decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit declined to accept an NLRB Regional Director’s contention that irreparable harm would result from an employer’s refusal to bargain, splitting with the Ninth and Fourth Circuits over the standard for granting injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act.

“BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color),” “Minorities,” “Native,” “Tribal,” “Indigenous,” “Immigrant,” “LGBTQ,” “Homosexual,” and “Gay.” 

These were the search terms utilized by the federal government to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in federal funding, all while using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to target those funds. In a stunning rebuke of such discriminatory practices, the District Court for the Southern District of New York found in American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald (ACLS), that the record established “beyond any dispute, that the Government used protected characteristics as criteria for identifying grants for termination. DOGE swept in race and ethnicity—including grants concerning Black, Asian, Latino, and Indigenous communities—as well as national origin and immigration status; religion and religious identity (including Jewish, Christian, and Muslim subjects); sex; and sexual orientation, as criteria for grant termination.” The federal government terminated grants involving African, Asian, and South American countries—as well as grants relating to Indigenous Americans and Jewish women—while retaining grants involving Western European subjects.

With the 2025-2026 legislative session now over, the New York State Senate and Assembly recently passed a handful of bills that, if enacted, would significantly impact New York State employers. Although approved by both chambers of the Legislature, laws are not enacted until presented to and acted upon by Governor Kathy Hochul. While it’s not a sure thing that the Governor will approve all of these measures, it’s wise to be aware and prepare for these potential changes.

On May 13, 2026, the Allegheny County Board of Health voted unanimously to advance for public comment a proposed amendment to Article XXIV of the Allegheny County Health Department’s (ACHD) Rules and Regulations.

On June 24, 2025, Connecticut enacted Senate Bill 1295 (Public Act No. 25-113), the most significant amendments to the Connecticut Data Privacy Act (“CTDPA” or the “Act”) since the law took effect. The amendments meaningfully expand who must comply with the CTDPA, broaden the categories of regulated data, and impose heightened obligations in connection with profiling, automated decision-making, sensitive data, the personal data of individuals under 18, and privacy disclosures.

What are the proposed rules on fertility benefits?

A cross-agency proposal would amend regulations implementing the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Internal Revenue Code, and the Public Health Service Act to add fertility benefits as a category of “excepted” benefits that are exempt from certain requirements, for the purpose of expanding access to fertility treatments and services.

What employers should know about key developments this week:

• Federal Agencies Propose Fertility Benefit Expansion: The U.S. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury have issued a proposed rule to allow employers to provide fertility coverage as a limited excepted benefit, exempt from the Affordable Care Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s portability requirements.
• DOT Clarifies Medical Marijuana in Drug Tests: The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has confirmed that a positive drug test for marijuana is disqualifying, regardless of whether the employee has a state medical marijuana license.
• Massachusetts Court Upholds Whistleblower Protections: According to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, whistleblowers in the state are protected, even if they’re complicit in the violation.

On April 13, 2026, Governor Abigail Spanberger signed SB 637 into law. In this bill, the Virginia General Assembly expanded the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA) by amending its definition of a covered employer and extending the statute of limitations for discrimination complaints.