Workforce Bulletin

On November 8, 2024, the California Privacy Protection Agency (the “Agency” or the “CPPA”) Board met to discuss and commence formal rulemaking on several regulatory subjects, including California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) updates (“CCPA Updates”) and Automated Decisionmaking Technology (ADMT). Shortly thereafter, on November 22, 2024, the CPPA published several rulemaking documents for public review and comment that recently ended February 19, 2025. If adopted, these proposed regulations will make California the next state to regulate AI at a broad and comprehensive scale, in line with Colorado’s SB 24-205, which contains similar sweeping consumer AI protections. Upon consideration of review and comments received, the CPPA Board will decide whether to adopt or further modify the regulations at a future Board meeting.  This post summarizes the proposed ADMT regulations, that businesses should review closely and be prepared to act to ensure future compliance.

Article 11 of the proposed ADMT regulations outlines actions intended to increase transparency and consumers’ rights related to the application of ADMT. The proposed rules define ADMT as “any technology that processes personal information and uses computation to execute a decision, replace human decisionmaking, or substantially facilitate human decisionmaking.” The regulations further define ADMT as a technology that includes software or programs, uses the output of technology as a key factor in a human’s decisionmaking (including scoring or ranking), and includes profiling. ADMT does not include technologies that do not execute a decision, replace human decisionmaking, or substantially facilitate human decisionmaking (this includes web hosting, domain registration, networking, caching, website-loading, data storage, firewalls, anti-virus, anti-malware, spam and robocall-filtering, spellchecking, calculators, databases, spreadsheets, or similar technologies). The proposed ADMT regulations will require businesses to notify consumers about their use of ADMT, along with their rationale for its implementation. Businesses also would have to provide explanations on ADMT output in addition to a process for consumers to request to opt-out from such ADMT use.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, on our Spilling Secrets podcast series, our panelists dig into trade secrets lessons employers can learn from hit movies.

In this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Daniel R. Levy, Aime Dempsey, and George Carroll Whipple, III, explore trade secrets through the lens of Oscar-nominated films, offering insights into protecting sensitive information in today’s competitive landscape.

Whether looking at a magical spellbook from Wicked or groundbreaking architectural designs in The Brutalist, the discussion underscores how trade secrets intertwine with innovation, employee training, and organizational culture. Discover how Hollywood’s biggest stories offer practical lessons for safeguarding your business’s most valuable assets.

On Friday, February 21, 2025, a federal judge issued a Preliminary Injunction in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, et al. v. Trump, blocking significant portions of two Executive Orders (EOs) issued by President Donald Trump. The decision, which will be appealed, creates more uncertainty for employers with programs that may fall under the broad umbrella of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) or “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility” (DEIA) in light of the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate DEI programs within federal agencies and impose restrictions on private sector DEI initiatives. For now, the court’s order blocks most – but not all – of the provisions in the two EOs.

Background

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland addressed a motion seeking relief from EO 14151 (“Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” which the court labeled “J20 Order”) and  EO 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” referred to by the court as the “J21 Order”). Epstein Becker Green has published several advisories explaining these EOs and how they may affect federal contractors and other federal funding recipients (see here and here) as well as other public and private employers (see here).

Both EOs were challenged by a group of plaintiffs that includes the City of Baltimore, the American Association of University Professors, and National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. In brief, the plaintiffs argued that:

On January 23, 2025, as one of the first actions of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order (EO) 14179, “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,”  making good on a campaign promise to rescind Executive Order 14110 (known colloquially as the Biden AI EO).

It is not surprising that AI was at the top of the agenda for President Trump’s second term. In his first term, Trump was the first president to issue an EO on AI. On February 11, 2019, he issued Executive Order 13859, Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence. This was a first-of-its-kind EO to specifically address AI, recognizing the importance of AI to the economic and national security of the United States. In it, the Trump Administration laid the foundation for investment in the future of AI by committing federal funds to double investment in AI research, establishing national AI research institutes, and issuing regulatory guidance for AI development in the private sector. The first Trump Administration later established guidance for federal agency adoption of AI within the government. 

The current EO gives the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, in coordination with agency heads they deem relevant, 180 days—until July 22, 2025—to prepare an AI Action Plan to replace the policies that have been rescinded from the Biden Administration. 

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.