Workforce Bulletin

What employers should know about key developments this week:

• 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Direction: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has scrapped its two-year-old enforcement priorities and rescinded 40-year-old affirmative action guidance in favor of a federal strategy that deprioritizes disparate impact liability and focuses enforcement on disparate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.

“BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color),” “Minorities,” “Native,” “Tribal,” “Indigenous,” “Immigrant,” “LGBTQ,” “Homosexual,” and “Gay.” 

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.

On January 22, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted 2-1 to rescind its “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace” (the “Guidance”), originally issued in 2024.

The rescission prompted federal lawmakers to introduce legislation that – among other things – would amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) to broaden its definition of sex to expressly include sexual orientation, gender identity, sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, and pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. While the elimination of the Guidance does not mean that the EEOC no longer recognizes harassment as a form of discrimination, employers may be wondering how the Guidance came to be rescinded, and what this development means for them.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we look at the potential restoration of a quorum at the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”), the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) deregulatory initiatives, and lessons from a high-profile workplace incident at a Coldplay concert.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we cover the striking down of abortion protections for workers and LGBTQ harassment guidance, as well as the beginning of a brief EEO-1 reporting season (concluding on June 24).

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re underlining the importance of managing election-related tensions in the workplace.

Both political parties have called this the most consequential election in recent history, which means that this morning in your workplace, some employees are celebrating, and others might be feeling hurt, disappointed, or maybe even fearful. What can employers do to help?

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Susan Gross Sholinsky and Michael S. Ferrell outline proactive strategies employers can adopt to prevent potential workplace incidents and describe protections surrounding political speech, as governed by laws like the National Labor Relations Act.

The New York City Council recently amended Sections 8-109 and 8-502 of the New York City Administrative Code, directly affecting employment agreements.  

Under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), employees have one year to file a complaint or claim with the New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYCCHR) for unlawful discriminatory practices or acts of discriminatory harassment or violence. Employees have three years to file a claim of gender-based harassment. The statute of limitations for commencing a civil action under the NYCHRL is three years.

Effective May 11, 2024, the amendments to Sections 8-109 and 8-502 of the NYCHRL prohibit provisions in employment agreements that shorten these statutory periods for filing complaints or claims with the NYCCHR or commencing civil actions under the NYCHRL. Below we outline the key implications of this new law for employers.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently proposed regulations (the “Proposed Rule”) to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for additional conditions relating to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. Issued on August 11, 2023, the Proposed Rule is currently open for public comment, and has, as of this writing, already received more  than 40,440 public submissions responding to the EEOC’s proposal. Many remarks address the fact that the EEOC included ...

On June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to weigh in on whether gender dysphoria can qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), allowing to stand the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Williams v. Kincaid, which extended ADA protection to transgender people experiencing gender dysphoria.  

As the first federal appellate decision of its kind, Williams had — and will continue to have — a significant impact on employers (covered by Title I of the ADA), and places of public accommodations (covered by Title III of the ADA).

Employers subject to the City of Chicago’s Sexual Harassment Ordinance must comply with the updated training requirements by June 30th or risk penalty.  As we previously advised, the amended Chicago Human Rights Ordinance requires all employers with at least one employee working within the geographical boundaries of the City of Chicago to provide the following annual training:

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we unpack the major updates the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) incorporated into its model sexual harassment prevention policy:

The NYSDOL recently released major updates to its model sexual harassment prevention policy. The updates cover issues such as gender identity and remote work. What do employers need to know?

Organizations that successfully create an inclusive and positive culture understand that all of its people have an important role to play in maintaining a harassment-free workplace. Any incident of harassment can affect more than just the parties directly involved, and all employees are responsible for helping to maintain a working environment that is free from harassment, discrimination, and other inappropriate conduct.

Ensuring that employees understand their role as bystanders to potential incidents is vital to creating a safe and inclusive culture, and in some jurisdictions, providing such training is mandatory.

This post will explain what it means to be a “bystander” and review three key reasons why bystander intervention training can help your organization prevent workplace harassment. 

What Is a Bystander?

Whenever a potentially inappropriate interaction between two individuals occurs, any third party who either directly witnesses the behavior or learns of it later becomes a “bystander”—that is, not a target or an offender, but a witness, whether direct or indirect. For example, someone who overhears inappropriately gratuitous commentary directed at a co-worker in an adjoining office could be a direct witness. An indirect witness might be a colleague in whom someone who is feeling harassed confides that they are feeling uncomfortable with a co-worker’s remarks or actions.