Worldwide: Employment and HR

The EEOC has shifted its enforcement priorities to focus on what it terms "DEI-related discrimination" cases, fundamentally changing how employers must approach diversity initiatives.

Federal contractors face new certification requirements under Executive Orders 14173 and 14398, creating three layers of nondiscrimination attestation through SAM.gov, contract clauses, and FAR 52.222-90. Understanding what remains in force and implementing practical compliance steps before signing certifications can help contractors avoid costly violations and ensure their programs align with current federal anti-discrimination law.

A federal appeals court recently ruled that a restaurant worker's request to alternate between sitting for five minutes after every ten minutes of standing was not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. This decision underscores the critical distinction between accommodations that enable employees to perform essential job functions versus those that fundamentally alter the nature of the position itself.

A recent California lawsuit alleges that AI-based employee selection tools discriminated against workers on protected leave and those with disabilities during a reduction in force. The case highlights critical legal risks for employers deploying AI in high-stakes employment decisions, particularly around how AI systems handle productivity metrics for employees who are absent or working under accommodations.

When workforce reductions happen in multiple waves across related corporate entities, how does federal law treat them in the aggregate? The recent Ubisoft layoffs at Red Storm Entertainment in North Carolina illustrate critical compliance questions under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act that every employer must understand before implementing workforce changes.

A federal district court ruling in Tennessee has determined that fully remote employees do not establish a "single site of employment" under the federal WARN Act, creating uncertainty for employers navigating workforce reductions in an increasingly remote-first business environment. With lower courts divided on this issue and no appellate guidance yet available, the legal landscape for WARN Act compliance in distributed workforces remains unsettled and fact-dependent.

The Labor Department faces a regulatory dilemma as it moves to restrict ESG considerations in 401(k) plans while simultaneously seeking to expand access to private-market investments. This tension creates uncertainty for plan sponsors who must navigate conflicting policy objectives, particularly as many private investment strategies inherently incorporate both financial returns and social or environmental goals.

Twenty-two multiemployer pension plans (MEPPs), representing more than 25,000 participants, have filed suit against the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the agency improperly denied them access to billions of dollars in emergency retirement funding.

No retroactive refund required. FAQ Part 74 confirms that employers are not required to provide retroactive rewards or remove tobacco surcharges for the period before a participant completes...

For most businesses, claims filed by current or former employees are inevitable. Companies, especially those with particularly large workforces, must balance various interests when deciding what to do when faced with litigation, or the threat of litigation.

The National Labor Relations Board has reversed a controversial 2023 precedent that protected employee outbursts involving profane and abusive language toward management during protected workplace activities. This significant policy shift restores employers' ability to discipline employees for aggressive conduct, even when engaged in activities like complaining about working conditions, marking a departure from standards that previously forced reinstatement of workers who used extreme profanity against

A federal appeals court recently ruled that a restaurant worker's request to alternate between sitting for five minutes after every ten minutes of standing was not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. This decision underscores the critical distinction between accommodations that enable employees to perform essential job functions versus those that fundamentally alter the nature of the position itself.