Workforce Bulletin

Don’t finalize your 2025 handbooks just yet! On January 2, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a permanent injunction, which had blocked a requirement that New York employers with employee handbooks include a notice against discrimination based on reproductive health care choices. As a result, handbooks covering New York employees must again include such notices.

The notice requirement originates from a series of legislation intended to protect reproductive health rights enacted on November 8, 2019. As we previously reported, one of the bills (A584/S660) added Section 203-e to the New York labor law, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on an employee’s or their dependents’ sexual and reproductive health choices, including their choice to use or access a particular drug, device, or medical service. The law also prohibits employers from accessing such information without prior consent, and directed New York employers with employee handbooks to include a notice of employee rights and remedies. Although the law took effect immediately upon passage, a second bill (S4413) delayed the effective date of the notice requirement until January 2020.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, a few of our labor and employment attorneys share their insights on the key issues and emerging trends shaping the employment law landscape as we move into 2025.

Employment Law in 2025: A Look Ahead

Happy New Year! As we kick off 2025, we’re exploring key legal trends for employers, with a focus on the implications of the incoming Trump administration.

In this episode, attorneys from Epstein Becker Green's Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice discuss their predictions on how these changes could shape the employment law landscape in the year ahead.

On December 23, 2024, President Biden signed two bills intended to ease the burden of reporting under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) for health plan sponsors and health insurance providers.  The new laws also give employers more time to respond to proposed penalty assessments for ACA coverage failures, and establish a statute of limitations for the IRS to make such assessments.

The rise of workplace wearable technology has opened new possibilities for employee efficiencies, safety, and health monitoring. Collecting health-related workplace data, however, may subject employers to liability under nondiscrimination laws.

Yesterday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published a fact sheet addressing potential concerns and pitfalls employers may run into when gathering and making employment related decisions based on health-related information.

Understanding Workplace Wearables

Wearable technologies, or “wearables,” are digital devices worn on the body that can track movement, collect biometric data, and monitor location. Employers have implemented these tools for a multitude of reasons, including tracking and predicting how long certain tasks take employees to promote efficiency. Wearables may also be programmed to recognize signs of fatigue, like head or body slumps, and notice improper form when lifting, which can be critical for workplace health and safety.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we asked a few of our labor and employment attorneys to recap the most significant challenges their clients faced in 2024.

It has been a pivotal year for employers, marked by challenges to federal agency authority, sweeping state-level regulatory changes, and the looming impact of a presidential election poised to reshape labor laws nationwide.

In this episode, attorneys from Epstein Becker Green's Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice reflect on these challenges, address key client pain points, and share their insights on what the future may bring.

In its first merits decision this term, the Supreme Court provided a straightforward application of textualism to demonstrate that in cases challenging administrative action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Congress’s delegation of authority to the agency must be clear. Only in this case, Congress got it right. In future challenges to agency action, counsel and affected parties should take into account the ability of Congress to limit those challenges.

A Unanimous SCOTUS Analysis

As we summarized previously, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court (per Jackson, J.) held in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas that the revocation of an approved visa petition under 8 U.S.C. §1155 by the Secretary of Homeland Security (the “Secretary”) is the kind of discretionary decision that falls within the agency’s purview pursuant to authority that is delegated by Congress. In this case, the Secretary revoked a visa based on a sham-marriage determination, relying on the language of Section 1155 that grants broad authority to the Secretary to revoke an approved visa petition at any time, for “what he deems to be good and sufficient cause.” The revocation was challenged through the agency and then federal courts. At each turn, the agency’s determination was upheld, with the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit both holding that, in the context of enacted legislation outlining the agency’s powers, courts are precluded from reviewing the Secretary’s decision.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, on our Spilling Secrets podcast series, our panelists look back on the top trade secrets and non-compete stories of the year:

This year has been a rollercoaster for trade secrets and non-compete law. We’ve seen major legal battles at both the federal and state levels impacting employers across the nation.

In this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, Daniel R. Levy, Katherine G. Rigby, A. Millie Warner, and Erik W. Weibust recap 2024’s most significant updates, including the Federal Trade Commission’s non-compete ban, the National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel memo, state-level trends, and much more.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we're highlighting several last-minute changes from federal agencies before the Trump administration takes office.

These changes include the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) recent ban on captive audience meetings, a federal judge's decision to vacate the Department of Labor's (DOL’s) overtime rule, and the return of Wage and Hour Division opinion letters.

For business leaders and in-house counsel, establishing clear investigation protocols is vital for protecting corporate integrity and managing risks related to whistleblowing and retaliation.

Epstein Becker Green (EBG) attorney Greg Keating brings over 25 years of experience in litigation and employment law to this compelling one-on-one interview. Known for his pivotal contributions to developing effective investigation protocols, Greg recently led the formation of EBG’s cross-disciplinary Workplace Investigations practice group, which now includes nearly 70 attorneys across the firm’s expansive network.

Whether addressing a minor complaint or responding to a media storm stirred by an ambitious reporter, your whistleblowing investigations can significantly benefit from proactive measures and protocols.

Tune in as Greg is interviewed by fellow EBG attorney George Whipple, to share real-world examples of proactive measures and tactical steps to safeguard corporate reputation—strategies that could mean the difference between effective damage control and long-term duress.

On November 21, 2024, legislation will take effect in South Carolina, making that state the latest jurisdiction to regulate earned wage access (EWA) programs. EWA programs are generally targeted towards lower-wage earners, allowing employees to obtain a portion of their paycheck before the employer’s scheduled payday. While EWA can be a lifeline for employees living paycheck to paycheck, consumer advocates worry that hidden and not-so-hidden fees associated with such programs could increase users’ aggregated debt, to the detriment of their long-term financial well-being.

To combat such concerns, states have begun to implement rules requiring employers and third parties offering EWA programs to abide by certain standards. States differ, however, on whether payroll advances though EWA programs should be treated as loans. Categorizing EWA advances in this way obligates employers and third-party providers to abide by a complex set of banking regulations. Thus, it is important for employers that offer or are considering an EWA program to understand the implications, which vary depending on the states where the employer does business.

How EWA Programs Work

Advances under EWA programs are either provided directly by employers as a benefit to employees or by third-party providers directly to consumers. If an employee opts to advance a portion of their paycheck through an employer-provided program, the employer or payroll provider reduces the subsequent paycheck amount on payday to recover the advance. If an employee enrolls in an EWA through a third-party provider, the provider removes the advanced amount from the employee’s direct deposit account on payday.