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.

For technology and life sciences companies racing to innovate, protecting intellectual property (IP) can feel like an afterthought—until it isn't. Whether it's code generated by artificial intelligence (AI) with murky ownership rights or a prototype built without the proper licenses, the pitfalls are real, and the stakes are high.

Meet Hemant Gupta, an Epstein Becker Green attorney who brings a rare combination of credentials to his IP practice: years as a children's cancer researcher at St. Jude, hands-on experience as a software programmer, and deep knowledge of biotech and medtech. In this one-on-one conversation with fellow Epstein Becker Green attorney George Whipple, Hemant shares how his scientific and technical background gives clients a distinct advantage when navigating the intersection of IP law and emerging technology.

This regulatory action follows last summer’s Executive Order (EO) 14332 Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking, issued August 7, 2025. It covers most Executive Branch agencies, including those that directly regulate employers and the health care sector in particular, such as the Department of Labor, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Department of Health and Human Services. This overhaul of federal grantmaking is potentially impactful on any organization – including universities and other educational institutions, arts organizations, manufacturers, healthcare providers and researchers, and other entities that rely on federal funding for research grants and other monies.

• Two Federal Agencies Target DEI: The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is urging its employees to file whistleblower complaints and report diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) activities that violate the administration’s ban. Additionally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released a 2025-2029 National Enforcement Plan that prioritizes enforcement against DEI-related discrimination.
• DOL Opinion Letters: The DOL’s Wage and Hour Division published four opinion letters addressing overtime exemptions, bonuses, meal breaks, and compensable work. While these letters do not signal dramatic shifts in the DOL’s position, they provide greater clarity, consistency, and transparency.
• PAGA Standing: A California appeals court held that an employee who loses in individual arbitration may also lose standing to bring a representative claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Most employment disputes never see the inside of a courtroom. But when they do, the attorney standing next to you matters more than you might think.

Jessica Giambrone Palmese is an Epstein Becker Green attorney whose record speaks for itself: lead counsel on 20 federal and state employment trials taken to verdict, nearly undefeated, and with a practice built on 17 years of litigating on behalf of New York City.

In this one-on-one conversation with fellow Epstein Becker Green attorney George Whipple, Jessica explains how that depth of experience shapes her approach to every case—whether it goes to trial or not.

• Arbitration Agreement Drafting Pitfalls: Vague or imprecise language regarding discovery, confidentiality, neutrality, and mutuality can hand employees a roadmap for challenging—or defeating—your arbitration agreements in court.
• AI-Assisted Drafting Risks: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools may generate arbitration agreement language based on existing law but can miss evolving legal arguments in pending cases, making attorney review essential before finalizing any agreement.
• Strategic Decision-Making for Arbitration Programs: Employers should clearly identify their primary goals for an arbitration program, familiarize themselves with the chosen forum’s rules, and ensure consistency across all arbitration provisions company-wide.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Jonathan M. Brenner and Victoria Sloan Lin discuss how imprecise drafting can leave arbitration agreements vulnerable to court challenges, why AI-assisted drafting requires careful attorney oversight, and how employers can build a more defensible and strategically sound arbitration program.

• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Conversations Are Not Privileged: In United States v. Heppner, a federal judge found that conversations with an AI tool are not privileged due to the tool's terms of service and privacy policy—a stark reminder that employers should not discuss active cases or employment matters with public AI tools.
• IT Company Fined for AI-Generated Job Postings: The U.S. Department of Justice imposed a nearly $10,000 fine on an IT company for posting AI-generated job advertisements that unlawfully excluded U.S. citizens—highlighting the need for employers to keep a human in the loop when using AI in hiring.
• Washington Bars Mandatory Employee Microchipping: Starting in mid-June 2026, Washington State will prohibit mandatory employee microchip implants, joining more than a dozen states that have banned the practice.
• Colorado Works to Repeal 2024 AI Law: A working group has proposed repealing and replacing Colorado's comprehensive AI law before its June 30, 2026, effective date, which would remove onerous compliance and reporting obligations on employers, including small businesses.

The Missouri Attorney General’s (AG’s) Office recently learned this lesson in Missouri v. Starbucks Corp., when its Title VII anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) case against Starbucks was dismissed by a federal district court judge.

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, employers may be wondering how the Guidance came to be rescinded, and what this development means for them.

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.