Workforce Bulletin

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we examine how employers should address controversial employee social media activity, especially amid widespread social tension such as that seen after the murder of Charlie Kirk.

An employee’s off-duty conduct can be grounds for termination, but disciplining employees always carries some risk. Recent online discussions surrounding the public murder of Charlie Kirk have spurred firings across the nation, leaving employers exposed to backlash for their action or inaction.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Kimberly C. Carter offers guidance on addressing employee social media activity, emphasizing the importance of clear, proactive policies to set expectations and outline consequences.

In a June 2025 decision in Purl v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas vacated the 2024 HIPAA reproductive health rule (the “Rule”), which the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued to limit how reproductive health care information could be disclosed by HIPAA regulated entities (e.g., Covered Entities and business associates), as we wrote about here and here. Now, HHS has let the August 18, 2025 appeal deadline pass without challenging the Purl decision.

HHS’s decision not to appeal Purl, however, does not relieve HIPAA regulated entities from their obligations to protect reproductive health care information. HIPAA regulated entities must still ensure that their existing HIPAA policies and procedures adequately protect PHI, including reproductive health care information, even though the protections that were in the Rule are now defunct. 

Recent violence and political discord have led to a marked increase in social media activity. With that has come a new viral trend; let’s call it termination trolling. Influencers and activists have been amplifying social media posts calling for people to get fired based on their social commentary. One group claims to have located more than 50,000 posts that, in its view, should be grounds for employment termination.

A number of employers have publicly dismissed employees (either on their own or in response to public pressure) after becoming aware of their social media comments or posts. Given the volume of posts and efforts to get people fired based on their social media posts or other comments, employers should prepare to manage such demands.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: Starting October 1, 2025, new AI rules in California will change how businesses in the state use automated tools in hiring, promotions, and other workplace decisions.

Key Takeaways for Employers:

• Anti-Discrimination Measures: The new regulations specifically target discriminatory practices in employers’ use of automated decision systems (ADS).

• Recordkeeping Requirements: Employers are now mandated to retain all ADS records and data for a minimum of four years.

• Regulatory Precedent: California’s proactive stance on AI regulation is anticipated to influence similar regulatory frameworks nationwide, establishing a precedent for other states.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Frances M. Green provides an essential breakdown of the new California regulations, including actionable insights on conducting risk assessments and aligning them with existing cybersecurity and privacy audits to ensure compliance.

On September 3, 2025, the European General Court (General Court) dismissed an action challenging the EU–U.S. Data Privacy Framework (DPF), developed to provide U.S. organizations with a reliable means to transfer personal data from the United States to the European Union, consistent with EU law.

The General Court’s judgment in case T-553/23, Philippe Latombe v European Commission, confirms that “the United States ensured an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the European Union to organisations in that country,” the Court’s press release states. The General Court and the Court of Justice make up the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

This decision means that entities that have self-certified compliance with the DPF may, for now, continue to rely on that mechanism for personal data transfers to the United States from the European Union (EU). The self-certification process includes, for example, a description of an organization’s activities with regard to all personal data received from the European Union in reliance on the EU-U.S. DPF, the organization’s policies covering such data, the types of data processed and, if applicable, the type of third parties to which it discloses such personal information.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: As religious rights in the workplace gain new attention, a recent OPM memo broadening religious accommodations for federal employees could impact employers everywhere—at home and in the office.

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.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re covering four key employer-focused developments:

• 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.

Earlier this summer, the Washington, D.C. Council (“Council”) narrowly passed an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2026 Budget (the “Amendment”) partially repealing portions of Initiative 82 and restructuring how tipped workers’ wages will rise over the coming years. If enacted, the Amendment would also impose new pay transparency requirements for all D.C. employers, not just those with tipped workers, and will require periodic studies of the District’s restaurant industry and tipped worker pay.

Meet Courtney McFate, a skilled employment litigator with a knack for balancing a wide range of compliance and business objectives.

In this one-on-one interview, Courtney joins fellow Epstein Becker Green attorney George Whipple to discuss her evolution from a rule-following litigator to a trusted business advisor who helps clients navigate complex legal landscapes without compromising their goals.

Courtney shares her experience in guiding businesses through U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) wage and hour audits, emphasizing the importance of preemptive internal audits to mitigate risks and save millions in potential penalties. She also highlights her approach to evidence preservation and strategic planning when facing wage and hour class actions, ensuring her clients are prepared and protected.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we dig into the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s new Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action notice standard, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) relaunched Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program, and the DOL’s scaled-back approach to wage and hour investigation penalties.