Labor & Employment Developments Blog

From resume screening bots to AI tools that assess facial expressions in interviews, artificial intelligence is rapidly changing how employers make decisions about candidates and employees. Artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision systems (ADS) are reshaping the entire employment lifecycle, from the moment a job posting goes live to the day of separation.

On July 4, 2025, President Donald Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” into law. Among its sweeping provisions are two significant changes for wage and hour compliance that employers should be aware of: the creation of federal income tax deductions for employee tips and certain overtime compensation. Both changes are poised to impact businesses and workers beginning in the 2025 tax year and lasting until 2028

On May 20, 2025, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) updated its Site-Specific Targeting (SST) inspection program. The SST inspection program is OSHA’s primary planned inspection initiative for non-construction workplaces with 20 or more employees. The updates are expected to increase on-site inspections in highly regulated sectors, such as warehousing, transportation, distribution, and healthcare. For non-construction workplaces, this update marks a significant shift in how OSHA prioritizes enforcement, relying more heavily on employer-reported injury and illness data or the lack thereof.

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court lowered the bar for majority-group plaintiffs – ruling they are not required to meet a higher standard to bring reverse discrimination claims. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs. that members of majority groups alleging employment discrimination under Title VII need not meet a higher evidentiary standard. This decision invalidates the “background circumstances” rule previously applied by the Sixth Circuit, which required that majority-group plaintiffs demonstrate specific evidence suggesting their employer is an unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.

Understanding the scope and requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has been an ongoing challenge for employers. A recent court decision has added to this complexity by clarifying the interpretation of what it means to be a “qualified individual” under the ADA. In Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, the Second Circuit noted that the ADA was intended to offer broad protections to individuals with disabilities, and thus, should be interpreted accordingly. The Court held that an employee may still be considered a “qualified individual” entitled to reasonable accommodation under the ADA even if she can perform the essential functions of her job without reasonable accommodation. Thus, an employer is expected to provide reasonable accommodations to enhance an employee’s job performance in general. Providing reasonable accommodations are not tied to a person’s otherwise inability to perform the essential job functions.

As we previously reported, in April 2024 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its final regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). Among other things, the rule stated that employers may be required to accommodate employees for abortion, treating it as a pregnancy-related condition.

On April 23, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” directing federal agencies to effectively end the use of “disparate impact” liability in enforcing anti-discrimination laws. This order marks a significant shift in how employers must assess their employment policies and practices, as well as how those policies and practices impact employees.

Over the course of the last year, employers have faced increased claims from employees testing what constitutes an actionable adverse action under the anti-discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Emboldened by the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024), employees have alleged that common employment practices from performance improvement plans (“PIPs”) to negative performance reviews left them “worse off,” and thus, constitute actionable adverse employment actions under Title VII. These claims have caused many employers to reconsider their past practices and policies. 

Classifying a worker as an independent contractor rather than an employee can be one of the more complicated—and risky—decisions an employer can make, as misclassification can lead to serious legal and financial consequences. Once again, however, the proper standard for classifying a worker under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) is in flux.

Immigration enforcement by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has recently increased. Taking a proactive approach could help employers prepare to face immigration enforcement actions, such as raids or I-9 audits, and mitigate employer risks. The first step is for employers to understand and familiarize themselves with the differences between ICE audits and raids.