Workforce Bulletin

A reduction in force (RIF) is a complex process that demands more than just operational adjustments. It requires meticulous planning to align business objectives with legal compliance, sound decision-making, and thorough risk mitigation.

In this one-on-one interview, Epstein Becker Green attorney Ann Knuckles Mahoney joins George Whipple to unpack the intricate legal considerations that come with workforce reductions. Ann walks through the critical aspects of adhering to the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act and the challenges posed by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, especially for employers handling layoffs across multiple jurisdictions.

On February 21, 2025, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed into law two bills amending the state’s Wage Act and Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA). As we previously explained, absent those amendments, February 21 would have been the effective date for those laws as ordered by the Michigan Supreme Court. Below, we share highlights of the new bills as preliminary guidance.

More than a decade ago, Epstein Becker Green (EBG) created its complimentary wage-hour app, putting federal, state, and local wage-hour laws at employers’ fingertips.

The app provides important information about overtime, overtime exemptions, minimum wages, meal periods, rest periods, on-call time, and travel time, as well as tips that employers can use to remain compliant with the law and, hopefully, avoid class action, representative action, and collective action lawsuits and government investigations. 

As the laws have changed over the years, so too has EBG’s free wage-hour app, which is regularly updated to reflect those developments.

Even before the 2024 presidential election and the recent wave of executive orders, employers were evaluating their positions on various social issues. Whether taking a formal stand, abstaining from a position, or landing somewhere in between, employers often consider external stakeholders and the court of public opinion. But they frequently forget about a critical and impactful audience—their employees.

Below are a few key areas where evolving social policies intersect with employee considerations.

• Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Policies: Regulations around diversity, equity, and inclusion; sustainability; the environment; and financial investments can differ across federal, state, and local jurisdictions, and certain rules apply only to government contractors. Aside from legal concerns, employers may face public and private questions about their actions or policies from employees. As such, employers should make sure that their ESG policies are current, thoughtful, and well communicated, especially in light of changing public sentiment, regulations, and legislation.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re highlighting notable employment law updates from federal agencies and the courts, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Labor (DOL), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we examine how the loss of a quorum at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), along with the rollback of affirmative action requirements for federal contractors, are creating significant hurdles for employers.

The regulatory environment for employers is undergoing significant changes. President Trump’s removal of an NLRB member, the NLRB’s general counsel, and two EEOC commissioners has left those agencies without a quorum, delaying decisions and creating uncertainty for employers. Meanwhile, the repeal of Executive Order 11246 has ended affirmative action requirements for federal contractors and grantees.

In this week’s episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Erin E. Schaefer and Courtney McFate provide clarity amid these shifts. Employers should prepare for procedural delays from both agencies and reassess their compliance obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state or municipal contracts in light of reduced affirmative action requirements.

President Donald Trump has made several significant and sudden changes at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “the Commission”), the agency responsible for enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. First, he appointed current Commissioner Republican Andrea Lucas as new Acting Chair and then removed Karla Gilbride (a nominee of former President Biden) from her role as EEOC General Counsel.  Both of these decisions were routine and unsurprising for the start of a new presidential administration. President Trump then removed Commissioners Jocelyn Samuels and Charlotte Burrows, two of the three Democratic commissioners.  This move was far from routine and is likely to be challenged in court.

These sweeping changes initiated by President Trump at the EEOC should be seen as a critical element of an ever-expanding goal of government-wide elimination, not just of DEI, but of all forms of affirmative action.  This remaking of the EEOC should be viewed in parallel with Trump’s firing of two Democratic Members and the General Counsel at the National Labor Relations Board, revocation of Executive Order 11246, which contractually required covered federal government contractors and subcontractors to meet certain affirmative action obligations, and the possible elimination of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”).

Strategic ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) plan design and administration require more than just technical compliance—they call for foresight into how plans will hold up under legal scrutiny.

In this one-on-one interview, Epstein Becker Green attorney Jeb Gerth, an experienced litigator in ERISA cases, joins George Whipple to explore the critical role a litigator plays in reinforcing plan integrity. Jeb explains how incorporating a litigation perspective into the planning and administration process acts as a "stress test," helping to identify areas that might attract legal challenges or class action claims. He also discusses key vulnerabilities in ERISA plans, such as discretionary decision-making and inadequate documentation, and how addressing them proactively can reduce the risk of costly disputes.

With class actions often resulting in significant judgments and additional exposure through fee-shifting structures, Jeb provides practical, real-world guidance on preparing plans to withstand these challenges. From uncovering hidden risks during early plan administration to enhancing fairness and clarity in plan documents for both participants and courts, this conversation offers essential strategies for leaders looking to protect their organizations from potential litigation while fostering trust and compliance.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we are focused on the immediate impact employers face from the rush of Trump administration executive orders, memos, and proclamations.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump began his second term. On his first day back, he signed a record-breaking number of executive orders, many of which have a direct impact on both public- and private-sector employers.

In this week’s episode, we turn to Epstein Becker Green attorney Paul DeCamp to help clients make sense of this flurry of activity. Tune in as Paul outlines what employers can anticipate from Trump 2.0 in the months ahead.

On January 20, 2025, a new administration took control of the Executive Branch of the federal government, and it has signaled that it will make aggressive use of executive orders.  This would be a good time to review the scope of executive orders and how they may affect employers and health care organizations.

Executive orders are not mentioned in the Constitution, but they have been around since the time of George Washington. Executive orders are signed, written, and published orders from the President of the United States that manage and direct the Executive Branch and are binding on Executive Branch agencies.  Executive orders can be used to implement or clarify existing federal law or policies and can direct and manage the way federal agencies interact with private entities.   However, executive orders are not a substitute for either statutes or regulations.

The current procedure for implementing executive orders was set out in a 1962 executive order that requires that all such orders must be published in the Federal Register, the same publication where executive agencies publish proposed and final rules. Once published, any executive order can be revoked or modified simply by issuing a new executive order.  In addition, Congress can ratify an existing executive order in cases where the authority may be ambiguous.