Workforce Bulletin

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we highlight new guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-related discrimination.

We also examine the Acting EEOC Chair’s letters to 20 law firms regarding their DEI practices, as well as the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) Director’s orders to retroactively investigate affirmative action plans.

On Thursday, March 26, 2025, a federal judge for the Northern District of Illinois issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) prohibiting enforcement of portions of Executive Order 14151 (“the J20 EO”) and Executive Order 14173 (“the J21 EO”), two of President Trump’s first directives seeking to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), previously explained here. This order has implications for federal contractors and grant recipients nationwide, at least for now.

The Case

The case, Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump et. al., was brought by a Chicago-based association, Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT), that advocates for women with careers in construction industry trades.  Federal funding has constituted forty percent of CWIT’s budget. After the issuance of the J20 and J21 EOs, CWIT received an email from the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Women’s Bureau stating that recipients of financial assistance were “directed to cease all activities related to ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ (DEI) or ‘diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility’ (DEIA).” Similarly, one of its subcontractors emailed CWIT to immediately pause all activities directly tied to its federally funded work related to DEI or DEIA. CWIT brought the action against President Trump, the DOL, and other agencies alleging, among other things, that its Constitutional rights were violated by various provisions in both EOs. For example, CWIT argued that the J20 EO targeted “DEI,” “DEIA,” “environmental justice,” “equity,” and “equity action plans” without defining any such terms. This lack of definition, according to CWIT, makes it difficult to understand what conduct is permissible and what is not.

On March 4, 2025, the New York Senate passed Senate Bill S372 (the “No Severance Ultimatums Act” or “S372”). If enacted, S372 would add a new section to the New York Labor Law requiring New York employers to provide for a 21-business day review period and a seven-day revocation period in all severance agreements. Currently, similar protections are afforded to employees who are over the age of 40 pursuant to the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA), which amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Similar protections are also available to New York employees who enter into agreements settling claims of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, but only if the agreement contains a non-disclosure provision relating to those claims.

Specific Requirements Under Consideration

Under the terms of S372, any severance agreement offered to an employee or former employee will need to:

• contain a notice advising the employee of their right to consult an attorney regarding the agreement;
• provide at least 21 business days for review of the agreement; and,
• acknowledge a seven-day period within which the employee may revoke the agreement.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re focused on federal contractors and the effects that the reinstatement of Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 will have on employers.

President Trump’s executive orders against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are back in effect after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stayed a nationwide injunction, posing new compliance challenges for federal contractors.

In this week’s episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Nathaniel M. Glasser and Frank C. Morris, Jr., outline the implications for employers, focusing on the False Claims Act, whistleblower risks, and the need for certification of compliance with anti-discrimination laws. Tune in to learn what steps your organization can take to mitigate potential penalties and retaliation claims.

Addressing whistleblower claims is one of the most sensitive and complex issues employers face. It becomes especially challenging when the claims involve compliance officers, risk officers, or even lawyers tasked with identifying potential problems.

In this one-on-one interview, Epstein Becker Green attorney Alex Barnard sits down with George Whipple to explore the unique challenges whistleblower allegations present within organizations. Alex explains how courts distinguish between performing one's job duties and raising legitimate whistleblower concerns, particularly when internal experts are involved. He also outlines key strategies for investigating claims fairly, avoiding retaliation, and navigating the fine line between good-faith and bad-faith whistleblowing.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re covering a change in leadership at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the reinstatement of National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) member Gwynne Wilcox (restoring a crucial quorum), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) focus on new enforcement priorities.

On Friday, March 14, 2025, ruling on a Government motion for a stay pending appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an Order staying a preliminary injunction that was issued in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) et al. v. Trump three weeks prior. The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel allows for full enforcement of two Executive Orders (EOs) regarding “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI), lifting the nationwide injunction against specific provisions that we explained here.

The Fourth Circuit panel issued its decision shortly after a District Court hearing on an emergency motion filed by the plaintiffs, who requested a status conference to review the  U.S. Department of Justice’s alleged refusal to comply with the preliminary injunction. Four days earlier, on March 10, 2025, the District Court had issued a Clarified Preliminary Injunction along with a Memorandum Opinion, explaining that the February 21st ruling did not apply to the President, but applied to all federal executive branch agencies, departments, and commissions, and their heads, officers, agents, and subdivisions.

Beginning April 9, 2025, Ohio employers will be legally required to give employees access to their paystubs. Citing transparency, accountability, and fairness in the workplace, the Ohio General Assembly unanimously passed the the Paystub Protection Act (PPA),  which requires Ohio employers to issue paystubs, either electronically or via hard copy, to all employees on regular paydays that include the:

• Names of the employee and employer;
• Employee’s address;
• Employee’s total gross wages during the pay period;
• Employee’s total net wages during the pay period;
• Amount and purpose of each addition or deduction to wages; and
• Dates of the pay period.

For hourly employees, the following three additional items are required:

• Total hours worked;
• Hourly rate; and
• Hours worked in excess of 40 hours in one workweek.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we examine the risks tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives that employers face due to the Trump administration’s executive orders and the ensuing scrutiny from federal agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

President Trump’s two anti-DEI executive orders are temporarily blocked, but some employers are adjusting policies and shifting the way they collect workforce data. While critical obligations, such as EEO-1 reporting, remain in place, the EEOC’s acting chair has indicated the agency will prioritize addressing race and gender discrimination and bias.

In this week’s episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Jill K. Bigler and Briar L. McNutt discuss how employers can balance compliance with federal, state, and international regulations while effectively mitigating risks.

While much attention has been given to the Trump Administration’s early federal policy objectives to increase immigration enforcement, clients should also be aware of similar increased enforcement policies at the state level.

Last month, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed into law a bill passed by the state legislature during a recent special legislative session. The new Tennessee law attempts to strengthen immigration enforcement in Tennessee with the following measures:

1. Creates a Centralized Immigration Enforcement Division at the state level, to be led by a Chief Immigration Enforcement Officer (“CIEO”) appointed by the Governor. The CIEO will coordinate directly with the Trump Administration on federal immigration policies and implementation.