Labor & Employment Developments Blog

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.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159 ”Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” directing the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to ensure that foreign nationals comply with their duty to register with the government under section 262 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and providing that failure to comply with the registration requirement is treated as a civil and criminal enforcement priority.

Under the INA, all foreign nationals 14 years of age or older who were not registered and fingerprinted ...

April marks Workplace Violence Awareness Month, a time dedicated to emphasizing the risks of workplace violence and necessary steps for prevention. This month serves as a crucial opportunity for employers to reassess their workplace violence policies, ensure compliance with evolving laws and regulations, and minimize liability.

On March 19, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department of Justice issued guidance addressing unlawful discrimination related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) in the workplace. Although DEI is not defined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it has recently come under significant scrutiny. This guidance was released two days after the EEOC sent correspondence to certain large law firms requesting information regarding DEI-related employment practices.

On March 17, 2025, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) Acting Chair, Andrea Lucas, sent letters to 20 large law firms requesting information concerning each firm’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) related employment practices.   These letters follow a March 6 executive order issued by President Trump which directed the EEOC to look at “large, influential, or industry leading law firms” for “compliance with race-based and sex-based non-discrimination laws.”

On January 22, 2025, Ohio Senators Louis W. Blessing (R-Colerain Township) and William P. DeMora (D-Columbus) introduced Senate Bill 11 (“SB 11”), which aims to prohibit certain post-employment agreements in the state of Ohio. If passed, this bipartisan bill would place Ohio among the minority of states with such legislation. As state lawmakers consider this departure from Ohio’s current stance of enforceability of these agreements, there are four key provisions employers should be aware of:

On March 10, 2025, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissent following the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari for Ronald Hittle v. City of Stockton, California, 604 U.S.  ___ (2025), a religious discrimination case involving a fire chief terminated after attending a leadership conference at a church. In his dissent, Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, questioned whether it is time for the Court to revisit the longstanding McDonnell Douglas framework used in employment discrimination cases. 

In his first fifty days in office, President Trump has taken numerous actions to consolidate the power of the Executive Branch. Shortly after taking office, he dismissed heads of multiple Executive Branch agencies and asserted that agency leaders must align with his Administration’s objectives.  While President Trump’s authority to replace many Executive Branch officials is unquestioned, his authority to remove appointees to independent agencies is less clear.