• U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Regulatory Agenda: The EEOC is pursuing sweeping changes aligned with the current administration’s deregulatory priorities, including rescission of decades-old guidance on discrimination.
• EEO-1 Reporting Changes: A proposed rule to eliminate EEO-1 and companion reporting requirements is in the public comment stage (comments are due August 24), but employers should maintain current data collection practices pending final action.
• Revisions to Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) Regulations: The EEOC’s regulatory agenda includes plans to revise the PWFA regulations, although it offers little detail beyond reinterpreting the words “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” The EEOC expects to issue its proposed revisions in November.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Ann Knuckles Mahoney breaks down the EEOC’s stated regulatory priorities and what employers should do while changes move through the regulatory pipeline.

Many employers are likely familiar with the annual data collection mandated by the EEOC. The original of these – EEO-1 reports – requires all private sector employers with 100 or more employees and federal contractors with 50 or more employees (if they meet certain fiscal criteria) to submit workforce demographic data, specifying job category, sex and race or ethnicity. Such reports have been mandatory since 1966.

The proposed rule will rescind the requirement to file EEO-1, as well as EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5, and EEO-6 reports. In its reasons explaining the proposed elimination of a 60-year old process of information gathering, the EEOC makes some big claims, going as far as to assert that such data collection might be unconstitutional.

• Severance Agreement Overhaul: The No Severance Ultimatums Act, awaiting Governor Kathy Hochul’s signature, would extend a 21-day review period plus a seven-day revocation period to all employees and require severance agreements to explicitly state that the employee has the right to consult counsel. The legislation would take effect immediately upon signature.
• Trapped at Work Act Amendments: On December 19, 2026, New York’s ban on “stay or pay” promissory notes takes effect. The Trapped at Work Act carves out financial bonuses and wage advances and adds new conditions for tuition repayment agreements. New York joins California and Connecticut in banning certain promissory notes.
• Earned Safe and Sick Time Act Update: Amended Earned Safe and Sick Time Act rules, now in effect for New York City employers, require 32 hours of unpaid protected time off immediately upon hire and set new obligations for employers that use electronic systems to track sick leave balances for departing employees.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week^®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Drew C. Ambrose discusses the No Severance Ultimatums Act and what employers should be doing now to prepare their severance agreements ahead of the governor’s signature.

[1] The others are California, New York, Minnesota, Washington and Oregon. Additionally, on July 13, 2026, Rhode Island enacted such a law, taking effect January 1, 2027.

• EEOC’s New Direction: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has scrapped its two-year-old enforcement priorities and rescinded 40-year-old affirmative action guidance in favor of a federal strategy that deprioritizes disparate impact liability and focuses enforcement on disparate treatment claims.
• State-Level Backlash: Multiple states—including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York—have expanded or maintained disparate impact liability in their civil rights laws, creating direct conflict with federal EEOC priorities.
• AI and Automated Hiring at Risk: The divergence between federal and state regulators leaves employers uncertain about compliance when using facially neutral employment technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI)-driven hiring tools and standardized testing validation.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week^®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Deborah DeHart Cannavino discusses the EEOC’s shift in focus from disparate impact to disparate treatment enforcement and what it means for multistate employers navigating a regulatory patchwork.

• Agencies Lose Their Independence: In Trump v. Slaughter, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are not “independent.” The NLRB’s Board members and General Counsel serve at the President’s pleasure and can be removed at any time, for any reason—or for no reason.
• The Ripple Effect on the NLRB: Although the Slaughter ruling doesn’t affect other positions at the NLRB, it has the potential to have a significant trickle-down effect on those who report to the NLRB’s Board members or General Counsel. This will likely be compounded by the administration’s efforts to remove civil service protections for many positions at the NLRB as well as other agencies.
• A New Circuit Split on the Standard for Section 10(j) Injunctions: Applying the traditional four-part test for the first time since the Supreme Court’s decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit declined to accept an NLRB Regional Director’s contention that irreparable harm would result from an employer’s refusal to bargain, splitting with the Ninth and Fourth Circuits over the standard for granting injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act.

These were the search terms utilized by the federal government to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in federal funding, all while using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to target those funds. In a stunning rebuke of such discriminatory practices, the District Court for the Southern District of New York found in American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald (ACLS), that the record established “beyond any dispute, that the Government used protected characteristics as criteria for identifying grants for termination. DOGE swept in race and ethnicity—including grants concerning Black, Asian, Latino, and Indigenous communities—as well as national origin and immigration status; religion and religious identity (including Jewish, Christian, and Muslim subjects); sex; and sexual orientation, as criteria for grant termination.” The federal government terminated grants involving African, Asian, and South American countries—as well as grants relating to Indigenous Americans and Jewish women—while retaining grants involving Western European subjects.