Workforce Bulletin

On July 4, 2025, there were more than hot dogs and fireworks. President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), a comprehensive law that implements several of the administration’s tax, health, defense, and energy policy initiatives. This followed a flurry of activity earlier in the week in which the U.S. Senate narrowly voted to approve a substitute amendment to the OBBB. The Senate version resembles a prior version of the bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on May 22, 2025, but with certain key changes. All citations in this post are to the Senate provisions.

Below, we provide a summary of this legislation’s notable provisions that will directly impact employee benefits and executive compensation.

However, the law is sweeping and broader than the provisions noted here. Other, more contentious provisions in the OBBB, related to Medicaid funding cuts and efforts to decrease enrollment in the Affordable Care Act Marketplace Exchange plans could indirectly cause increased enrollment in employer-sponsored plans.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we explore Washington State’s new employment laws on reductions in force and background checks, digital labor law notices and pay equity measures in Ohio, and New York City’s enforcement of new employer obligations related to paid prenatal leave for employees.

• Washington Overhauls Employment Laws on Reductions in Force and Background Checks
• Ohio Leads the Way, Allowing Employers to Post Digital Labor and Employment Law Notices
• Pay Equity Expands in Ohio: Cleveland Passes Ordinance
• New York Paid Prenatal Leave: NYC Adds to State Mandate, Imposes More Employer Requirements
• Other Highlights

How can today’s workplace challenges be addressed with strategies that are both legally sound and business-focused?

For general counsel and human resources (HR) executives, a holistic approach addresses legal, operational, and organizational risks to ensure advice is both comprehensive and actionable.

In this one-on-one interview, Epstein Becker Green attorney Adam Tomiak sits down with fellow attorney George Whipple. Adam discusses how his in-house experience shapes his ability to deliver thoughtful, practical solutions. Additionally, Adam explains how listening to clients, understanding their challenges, and integrating various risk factors all add up to legal strategies that align with business realities.

In April 2025, the City of Cleveland approved Ordinance No. 104-2025 (the “Ordinance”), which will impose a salary history ban and create a pay disclosure requirement for employers starting Monday, October 27, 2025. The latter provision – the first in the Buckeye State to require affirmative disclosure of wages or salary ranges for advertised positions – distinguishes this Ordinance from pay equity laws already enacted in other Ohio municipalities. The new pay equity measures will apply to the City of Cleveland and private employers with at least 15 employees working within Cleveland, including job placement and referral agencies working on behalf of another employer. We discuss both requirements below.

Salary History Ban

Like similar laws in Cincinnati, Columbus, and Toledo, the Ordinance broadly prohibits covered employers from:

• Asking about an applicant’s current or prior salary, including wages, commissions, hourly earnings, and any other monetary earnings, as well as benefits (collectively, their “salary history”);
• Screening applicants based on their salary history (including requiring an applicant’s former salaries to meet a threshold);
• Relying solely on an applicant’s salary history when deciding whether to make an offer of employment or determining their compensation; and
• Refusing to hire or otherwise retaliating against an applicant for not disclosing their salary history.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, on our Spilling Secrets podcast series, our panelists discuss the current status of non-compete agreements across the nation.

Non-compete legislation is evolving rapidly at the state level, with new laws taking effect soon in Arkansas, Kansas, Virginia, and Wyoming. Looking ahead, pending bills in over a dozen states could reshape how employers approach restrictive covenants.

In this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, Daniel R. Levy, David J. Clark, and Carolyn O. Boucek discuss the new and proposed state non-compete laws and their implications for employers, as well as alternative tools that can be used to address these restrictions. From expanded protections for low-wage workers in Virginia to Kansas’s focus on non-solicit provisions, this episode offers actionable takeaways to help employers stay compliant.

On July 20, 2025, Ohio will officially become one of the first states to allow employers to provide digital—rather than physical—copies of certain labor law notices required under Ohio law.  Specifically, under changes imposed by Senate Bill 33 (SB 33), Ohio will soon allow employers and businesses to post the following Ohio notices digitally:   

• Minor Labor Laws
• Minimum Fair Wage Standards Law
• Civil Rights Law
• Prevailing Wage Law
• Workers’ Compensation Law
• Public Employment Risk Reduction Program Law  

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we examine the current administration’s intensified workplace immigration enforcement and how employers can prepare.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is ramping up worksite inspections and I-9 audits, presenting new challenges for employers nationwide. With no warning before an ICE visit, preparation is critical to minimizing risks and staying compliant.

This week’s key topics include:

• maintaining current I-9 forms for employees,
• developing a written playbook for ICE raids, and
• establishing post-raid protocols to protect and stabilize operations.

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson states that Title VII does not require a plaintiff who is a member of a “majority” group to present “additional background circumstances” as the lower court had held.

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, petitioner Marlean Ames (“Ames”), a heterosexual woman, claimed that her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, had passed her over for a promotion in favor of a less qualified gay woman. Soon after that, Ames claimed, the Department of Youth Services demoted Ames (and cut her pay) so that a gay man could fill the position rendered vacant by her demotion.

Ames brought suit under Title VII claiming that the Ohio Department of Youth Services had discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation. The District Court granted the Ohio Department of Youth Services summary judgment on the grounds that Ames failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination because “she had not presented evidence of [sufficient] background circumstances.” The lower court had found that, as a member of the “majority group,” i.e., heterosexuals, Ames needed to present evidence of “background circumstances” (referred to by the Court as the “background circumstances rule”) to establish that the defendant was the rare employer that would discriminate against the “majority” group.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we discuss the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) plan to eliminate the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) and the DOL’s new opinion letter program.

On May 30, 2025, the DOL moved to eliminate the OFCCP, shifting key enforcement duties to other agencies. At the same time, the DOL has launched a new opinion letter program, expanding access beyond the Wage and Hour Division.

Employers must navigate these changes while maintaining compliance with federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws. Epstein Becker Green attorneys Kim Carter and Paul DeCamp provide their insights into these shifts and their likely future impact on employers.

“ERISA? You’ll need a lawyer for that.” Our practice group’s tagline is meant to be a shorthand for the alphabet soup of laws that apply to employee benefits, including the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Employee benefits compliance has many traps for the unwary and is ever evolving. Below, we have provided a primer on current issues of importance in the employee benefits area to help in-house attorneys identify potential risks, mitigate them, and know when to call an outside ERISA lawyer.

1. What Is Old Is New: Get Your Health Plan Governance in Order

Employers that sponsor self-funded health plans have a host of complicated obligations. There are greater potential legal, regulatory, and fiduciary risks than in years past with managing health plans because of increased congressional legislation, increased Department of Labor (DOL) focus on group health plan compliance, and increased group health plan litigation, often by the same plaintiffs’ firms that have been suing 401(k) plans in fee litigation the past 20 years or more.