Business, Management, Marketing, Money, Tax, Law, People

Quick Hits The EEOC has proposed rescinding federal EEO reporting requirements, including mandatory annual EEO-1 filings. As of the publication date of this article, the proposed rule has not yet been formally published in the Federal Register and remains subject to public comment. Current reporting obligations remain in effect unless and until the EEOC issues a final rule; the EEOC would retain authority to seek relevant records during investigations. The…

Quick Hits On July 20, 2026, DHS rescinded the 2022 public charge framework and restored broad discretion for officers to weigh all pertinent factors when assessing whether an applicant is likely at any time to become a public charge. The rule takes effect September 18, 2026. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an applicant for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status is inadmissible if, in the reviewing officer’s…

Quick Hits New York City’s final rules for the amended ESSTA align with new requirements that employers provide an additional thirty-two hours of unpaid protected time off immediately upon hire and at the beginning of each calendar year. The final rules clarify that “protected time off” includes both paid and unpaid time for various circumstances, such as caring for a disabled household member or attending legal proceedings related to benefits.…

In Decloedt v. Radnet Management, Inc., the California Second Appellate District affirmed the denial of an employer’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the plaintiff-respondent’s allegations of severe or pervasive sexual orientation harassment by a coworker fell squarely within the EFAA’s exemption from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Quick Hits In Decloedt v. Radnet Management, Inc., the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, held that harassment on the basis…

Quick Hits The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of race discrimination and retaliation claims, ruling the employee failed to establish a prima facie case or overcome the employer’s legitimate business reasons for the elimination of his position.  The court found no evidence of discriminatory animus, noting the employee was not replaced in a discriminatory manner during a company reorganization. Claims of “constructive demotion” were rejected, as the employee did not…

Quick Hits New York State lawmakers have passed a bill that would ban the enforcement of class action waivers in some circumstances and other waivers of workers’ rights under the Human Rights Law. The bill includes exceptions for bona fide settlements, post-employment agreements, and collective bargaining agreements, while also considering federal preemption under the Federal Arbitration Act. The bill has not yet been signed by the governor. On May 13,…

Quick Hits In EEOC v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., the Fifth Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling that Title VII plaintiffs do not need to take steps to reduce their damages for emotional distress. A Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport parts clerk sued SkyWest Airlines for sexual harassment and retaliation, and a Dallas jury awarded her $2 million in punitive damages and $170,000 for emotional harm, an award later reduced to statutory…

Quick Hits Employers with employees in Minnesota must designate and communicate their chosen accrual year for ESST or it defaults to the calendar year. Eligibility is based on a “good faith” determination that an employee will work at least eighty hours per year in Minnesota. Employees—not employers—control whether ESST is used. ESST used for a nonqualifying purpose is not protected and may be subject to discipline in accordance with the…

Quick Hits The Seventh Circuit held that the BIPA clarifying amendments, which limit plaintiffs to “at most, one recovery” per person per method of collection, apply retroactively to pending cases. The court found “the Illinois law of retroactivity is well established, allowing us to predict how the Supreme Court of Illinois would rule with a high degree of confidence.” Because the amendment addresses only the statutory damages available to plaintiffs—not…