• 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Direction: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has scrapped its two-year-old enforcement priorities and rescinded 40-year-old affirmative action guidance in favor of a federal strategy that deprioritizes disparate impact liability and focuses enforcement on disparate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.

• 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.

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.

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.

• DOL Proposes Joint Employer Rule: The Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed a rule reinstating the economic realities test for joint employer liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, prompting employers with subcontractors, franchises, or subsidiaries to assess their exposure before the June 22 comment deadline.
• Fifth Circuit: Misclassification Alone Isn't Enough: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a verdict denying overtime pay to a misclassified worker, finding that, under the FLSA, an employer cannot be liable for overtime of which it had no knowledge.
• I-9 and Accessibility Rules Tighten: Immigration and Customs Enforcement has reclassified nearly all Form I-9 errors as uncorrectable "substantive" violations subject to significant fines. Separately, health care organizations receiving Department of Health and Human Services funding face a May 11 web accessibility deadline that is not covered by the Department of Justice's recent Americans with Disabilities Act Title II extension.

• NLRB Nomination Signals Shifting Board Majority: The nomination of James Macy—packaged with the renomination of Democratic Member David Prouty—could give the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) a three-person Republican majority, providing the votes needed to overturn Biden-era precedents.
• Quorum Pressure Drives Confirmation Timeline: The Senate must confirm at least one nominee before Member Prouty’s term expires in August to preserve the Board’s quorum, making a swift confirmation process likely.
• Key Precedents on the Chopping Block: With a third Republican vote, the Board is expected to revisit the captive audience meeting rule, the Cemex bargaining order decision, Thryv’s expanded remedies, and standards for evaluating employer work rules.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week^®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Michael S. Ferrell discusses what a three-person Republican majority on the NLRB would mean for employers and which Biden-era precedents are most likely to be reconsidered.

• False Claims Act Exposure: The Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Civil Rights Fraud Initiative is scrutinizing any entity that contracts with or receives funding from the federal government whose diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices may violate the False Claims Act.
• April 25 Deadline for Federal Contractors: A new executive order requires federal contractors and their subcontractors to certify that they will not engage in discriminatory DEI programs. Federal contractors must act now to meet the looming compliance deadline.
• Multifront Enforcement Risk for All Employers: Private employers should also take note—investigations, subpoenas, and contract obligations are hitting from multiple directions, often before litigation even begins, as the DOJ and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission signal aggressive enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week^®, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Leah Brownlee Taylor and Lauri F. Rasnick unpack the administration's escalating DEI enforcement actions.

The results of this informal survey provide the opportunity not only to reflect on the challenges confronted by the global organizations we are privileged to represent, but also to prepare for what the legal landscape might hold in 2026. 

2025 reshaped the employment law landscape, bringing sweeping changes at both the federal and state levels. In this year-end special episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys break down the most impactful developments for employers.

The EEOC, now under the leadership of Chair Andrea Lucas and with a quorum for the first time in months, is signaling shifts in enforcement priorities that could have significant implications for employers.

Epstein Becker Green attorney James D. Mackinson discusses the latest updates from the EEOC and what they mean for employers.

For the first time in more than 10 months, the NLRB may soon have three members, reestablishing a quorum and potentially impacting employers significantly.

Epstein Becker Green attorney Corey P. Argust discusses the implications as the NLRB moves toward full operations.

However, the proclamation is not yet a complete, fully operational rule. Many specifics remain ambiguous. Below is a breakdown of what is known, what is uncertain, and what stakeholders should plan.

Essential Impacts for Employers:

• The federal memo expands religious accommodations, including remote work.
• The Supreme Court’s 2023 Groff v. DeJoy ruling raised the “undue hardship” standard, making it more difficult for employers to deny religious accommodation requests.
• Accommodation requests are increasing, intersecting with remote work.

These developments create new compliance challenges and potential legal risks for employers in the public and private sectors. Epstein Becker Green attorney Nancy Gunzenhauser Popper explains how to evaluate accommodation requests under the heightened standard and what the new federal memo could mean for your organization.

• a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) authority,
• another Fifth Circuit decision restoring pregnant worker protections,
• the White House’s reversal of a key non-compete executive order, and
• a court ruling against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) early right-to-sue policy.