Effective May 8, 2025, New York City employers with four or more employees must physically post a copy of their written lactation policy in an area accessible to employees as well as on its intranet if one exists.
This new posting obligation is an addition to the City’s requirement that covered employers maintain a written lactation room accommodation policy that must be provided to new employees upon hire and New York State’s requirement to provide the policy annually. The City enacted legislation on November 9, 2024, effective 180 days later, amending existing provisions to require covered employers to make their written policies readily available to employees.
In addition, the legislation amended the ordinance to reflect 2024 changes in New York State law (explained in detail here) requiring employers to provide at least 30 minutes of paid break time for breast milk expression. While the New York City ordinance covers only New York City employers with four or more employees, be aware that obligations for paid lactation breaks under New York State Labor Law § 206-c apply to all employers in New York State.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, on our Spilling Secrets podcast series, our panelists discuss the ins and outs of trying trade secret cases in a courtroom.
What’s the secret to winning a trade secret trial? Find out in this compelling episode of Spilling Secrets, where Epstein Becker Green attorneys Katherine G. Rigby, James P. Flynn, and Adam Paine break down the art of navigating these high-stakes cases.
From designing winning courtroom tactics and leveraging key witnesses to using storytelling as a tool to clarify complex trade secret claims, our panelists offer actionable insights and essential tips for safeguarding confidentiality and determining the right trial format to secure the best outcomes for your business.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re bringing you a special episode on the first 100 days of the Trump administration, in which we highlight sweeping policy shifts, battles at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB); revisions to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs; the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace; and more.
On April 3, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) issued two Memoranda (Memos) regarding the use and procurement of artificial intelligence (AI) by executive federal agencies. The Memos—M-25-21 on “Accelerating Federal Use of AI through Innovation, Governance, and Public Trust” and M-25-22 on Driving Efficient Acquisition of Artificial Intelligence in Government”—build on President Trump’s Executive Order 14179 of January 23, 2025, “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence.”
The stated goal of the Memos is to promote a “forward-leaning, pro-innovation, and pro-competition mindset rather than pursuing the risk-adverse approach of the previous administration.” They aim to lift “unnecessary bureaucratic restrictions” while rendering agencies “more agile, cost-effective, and efficient.” Further, they will, presumably, “deliver improvements to the lives of the American public while enhancing America’s global dominance in AI innovation.” The Memos rescind and replace the corresponding M-24-10 and M-24-18 memos on use and procurement from the Biden era.
Although these Memos relate exclusively to the activities of U.S. federal agencies with regard to AI, they contain information and guidance with respect to the acquisition and utilization of AI systems that is transferable to entities other than agencies and their AI contractors and subcontractors with respect to developing and deploying AI assets. In this connection, the Memos underscore the importance of responsible AI governance and management and, interestingly, in large measure mirror protocols and prohibitions found in current state AI legislation that governs use in AI by private companies.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re covering the relaxation of state-level non-compete rules, the recent block of Executive Order 14173’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-related certification requirement, and a federal appeals court’s decision to pause a challenge to the Biden-era independent contractor rule.
Wage and hour compliance often presents complex challenges for employers, with unclear regulations and changing enforcement priorities.
Addressing these issues proactively and resolving potential disputes are vital for maintaining compliance and reducing risks.
In this one-on-one interview, Epstein Becker Green (EBG) attorney Paul DeCamp sits down with fellow EBG attorney George Whipple to offer his seasoned perspective on wage and hour matters. Tapping into his experience as the former head of the Wage and Hour Division under President George W. Bush, Paul provides an insider’s view of government enforcement priorities, compliance pitfalls, and the complexities employers face when disputes arise.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re examining the potential shake-up in presidential power over independent federal agencies and what a review of a 90-year-old precedent by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) could mean for regulatory authority and employers nationwide.
With presidential power over independent federal agencies entering uncharted territory, SCOTUS may soon revisit its 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision, which limits a president’s ability to fire members of independent federal agencies—such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—without cause. SCOTUS could choose to:
- reaffirm Humphrey’s Executor,
- overturn the case entirely (potentially politicizing agency functions), or
- define “for cause” and allow terminations only under stringent circumstances.
Former Acting Attorney General of the United States and Epstein Becker Green attorney Stuart Gerson explores how a shift in this precedent could impact employers, industries, and the balance of federal power.
Case law related to the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (“EFAA”) continues to develop. In late 2024, the Third Circuit seemed poised to bring further clarity as to which claims fall within the EFAA and, therefore, are shielded from pre-dispute arbitration agreements. On April 6, 2025, the Court provided guidance related to the timing of “disputes” as used in the statutory text, but remanded for further consideration of whether an arbitration agreement existed at all under New Jersey law. Cornelius v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 2025 WL 980309 (3d Cir. Apr. 2, 2025).
Cornelius was a longtime CVS employee who alleged that she experienced discrimination from her male supervisor. After Cornelius filed numerous internal complaints, CVS terminated her employment in November 2021. She brought a Charge to the EEOC, received a right-to-sue letter, and filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. CVS moved to compel arbitration pursuant to its “Arbitration Policy.” Plaintiff opposed, arguing that the EFAA rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable as to her claims. The District Court disagreed, ruling that the EFAA did not apply to Cornelius’s claims because “her claims did not constitute a ‘sexual harassment dispute’” within the meaning of the statute, and compelled arbitration. Id. at *2.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re discussing the state-level, employment-related artificial intelligence (AI) laws and regulations sweeping the nation:
State laws are rapidly stepping in to regulate AI in the absence of federal legislation, with at least 45 states introducing AI-related bills this year.
Hear from Epstein Becker Green attorney Frances M. Green as she outlines how employers can navigate this evolving landscape by developing governance policies and providing clear training and guidelines to ensure the safe, transparent, and accountable use of AI tools.
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.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- DOJ Announces Initiative to Expand FCA Enforcement Into Alleged Discrimination
- Video: New Executive Order Targets Disparate Impact Claims Nationwide - Employment Law This Week
- EEOC Opens 2024 EEO-1 Reporting and the Deadline to File is Weeks Away
- Maryland Delays Start of Paid Family and Medical Leave Program
- Video: How Modern Workplaces Navigate Generational Shifts: One-on-One with Jeff Landes