Workforce Bulletin

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.

Is the developer of an AI resume-screening tool an “employment agency” or “agent” subject to liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for its customers’ allegedly discriminatory employment decisions? According to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the answer is yes. On April 9, 2024, the EEOC filed a motion for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae, together with a brief, in Mobley v. Workday, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL, to support plaintiff Derek Mobley’s (“Mobley”) motion to dismiss.

The EEOC’s action is ...

In an earlier article (found here), we discussed how a federal district court’s decision that mere 501(c)(3) status can trigger obligations under Title IX created shock waves throughout the private independent school community. A recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has reversed that decision, holding that tax-exempt status is not federal financial assistance for Title IX purposes.

The plaintiff in Buettner-Hartsoe v. Baltimore Lutheran High Sch. Ass’n (4^th Cir., Mar. 27, 2024) was a student who alleged that she was sexually harassed at ...

With the potential “tendency of many to ‘overshare,’ documenting everything from their breakfast to their favorite Marvel™ villain” on social media, as recognized in at least one court opinion[1], perhaps unsurprisingly, some employers might consider social media to be a valuable source for insight about applicants or employees.  Assembly Bill A836/Senate Bill S2518A (the “Personal Accounts Law”), signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul on September 14, 2023, however, will soon place new limits on New York employers that seek access to an employee’s or ...

As previously noted, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) has invited a great deal of litigation, often resulting in interpretations favorable toward plaintiffs. As a result, we advise employers who use biometric technology in Illinois workplaces to adhere carefully to their obligations under BIPA. While that advice won’t change, employers operating in the health care sector can take some – though not too much – comfort in a recent ruling that limits their exposure under this law.

In Mosby v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, the Illinois Supreme Court delved ...

As we previously reported, on May 8, 2023, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“NJDOL”) published a web page providing guidance in the form of Frequently Asked Questions (the “FAQs”) to assist employers in complying  with the provisions of the Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights (the “Law”). Recently the NJDOL released proposed regulations to implement the Law (the “Proposed Regulations”) that elaborate on many of the Law’s provisions, including its pay equity requirement.  Public comment on the Proposed Regulations will be accepted until October 20, 2023.

In addition to the Proposed Regulations, the NJDOL has also updated its FAQs.

The Supreme Court delivered its highly anticipated consolidated decision yesterday in the two affirmative action cases on its docket, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (collectively, the “SFFA” cases). At issue in the SFFA cases is whether Harvard and the University of North Carolina (“UNC”) violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (and, in turn, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) in their consideration of race in their admissions processes. In answering this question in the affirmative, the Court’s majority opinion significantly restricts – and, some would argue, eliminates – affirmative action programs in higher education.

New Yorkers who employ of domestic workers should note two recent amendments to the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) that went into effect on December 31, 2021, which together extend full protection of the NYSHRL to individuals employed in domestic service in New York.  In addition, beginning on March 12, 2022, employment protections afforded by the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) will apply to all domestic workers.

The first amendment to the state law removed language from the definition of “employee” under section 292(6), which had previously excluded domestic workers from most of the NYSHRL’s protections. Now, the only category of persons excluded from the definition of “employee” are those individuals employed by their parents, spouse, or child. The second amendment repealed section 296-b, which had protected domestic workers from harassment, but not other types of discrimination.