Workforce Bulletin

This week, we examine significant regulatory shifts affecting employers in New York City, California, and Pennsylvania, as aggressive local enforcement strategies and expanding interpretations of background check laws cause compliance obligations to evolve rapidly. Find out more in this episode of Employment Law This Week®.

What employers should know about key developments:

• New York City’s Enforcement Blitz: The city’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection is cracking down on violations of the Protected Time Off Law, issuing warnings to 56,000 employers. Non-compliance risks hefty penalties for employers.
• California Investigates Price Manipulation: California is probing “surveillance pricing,” in which companies use prospective customers’ personal data to adjust prices, potentially violating the Consumer Privacy Act. The state is focusing on the retail, grocery, and hotel industries.
• Pennsylvania Expands Background Check Law: A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruling broadens Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act to include restrictions and notice requirements, even for voluntarily disclosed criminal history.

On February 26, 2026, Andrea Lucas, Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), sent a pointed letter to Fortune 500 CEOs, General Counsels, and Board Chairs, to remind them of their obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

On January 22, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted 2-1 to rescind its “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace” (the “Guidance”), originally issued in 2024. The rescission prompted federal lawmakers to introduce legislation that – among other things – would amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) to broaden its definition of sex to expressly include sexual orientation, gender identity, sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, and pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. While the elimination of the Guidance does not mean that the EEOC no longer recognizes harassment as a form of discrimination,[1] employers may be wondering how the Guidance came to be rescinded, and what this development means for them.

[1] The Supreme Court of the United States established this principle in 1986. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson.

New York City employers are facing significant new compliance obligations with the newly effective amendments to the Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (ESSTA) now mandating 32 hours of unpaid leave in addition to existing paid leave entitlements, as explained in detail by our colleagues here.

On January 20, 2026, two job applicants filed a class action lawsuit against Eightfold AI Inc. (“Eightfold”) alleging that Eightfold, an AI-driven hiring platform used by major employers, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”) by secretly generating AI-driven applicant “likelihood of success” scores based on a 0-5 scale and dossiers functions as illegal, undisclosed consumer reports.

Visits from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can have negative effects on employee morale and retention, especially if a business is unprepared. Plan for ICE investigations before they happen. Learn more in this episode of Employment Law This Week.

What employers should know about recent developments:

• Proactive Response Planning: Establish a written response plan, seek guidance from legal counsel, and ensure employees are thoroughly trained on protocols in case U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrives at the workplace.

• Consequences of Being Unprepared: Failing to plan can prolong ICE visits, harm your organization’s reputation, and negatively impact employee morale and retention.

• Action Steps for Employers: Implement clear, actionable policies and procedures, develop checklists for staff response, and conduct I-9 audits in advance to ensure documentation is current.

In this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Melissa L. Jampol and Thomas J. Jaworski provide practical steps for employers to strengthen compliance with federal regulations, communicate confidently with staff, and mitigate risk in a rapidly evolving enforcement landscape.

Employers offering or considering tuition reimbursement plans are facing significant regulatory changes in both California and New York. Tuition reimbursement plans are offered by employers as a fringe benefit that reimburses employees who want to continue their education in a degree program or receive certain certifications. Many employers impose certain conditions for receiving reimbursement, including staying on the job and requiring employees to repay the employer if they terminate employment within a specified period of time. Recent changes to state laws governing employer recoupment rights and repayment agreements require review of the administration and documentation of employer’s tuition reimbursement plans. Like many workforce-facing benefits, tuition reimbursement is no longer just an HR perk, it is a compliance issue. While California and New York requirements are very similar, there are important differences.

When ADA Compliance Feels Daunting, Dov Lutzker Offers a Clear Path Forward

Navigating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) can feel overwhelming for employers, especially in a post-pandemic world where remote work and accommodations are at the forefront. But what if there were a way to approach these challenges with confidence and clarity?

Meet Dov Lutzker, a seasoned attorney with over two decades of experience enforcing the ADA at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked alongside the very people who shaped the law.

In this one-on-one conversation with fellow Epstein Becker Green attorney George Whipple, Dov shares his unique perspective on ADA compliance, offering practical insights for employers.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, we examine the coordinated efforts by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to target diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

The efforts raise critical implications for private employers' compliance strategies.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Susan Gross Sholinsky and Daniella Lee provide practical guidance on assessing risk, reviewing external communications, and remaining compliant in this evolving landscape.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we discuss the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) new compliance tools, its proposed pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) transparency regulation, and updated enforcement priorities from the DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration. We also cover the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) revamped case intake process.

➡️ DOL Releases Compliance Tools

➡️ DOL Issues Proposed Regulation for PBMs

➡️ NLRB Adjusts Intake Procedure