Labor & Employment Developments Blog

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 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. 

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 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. 

Last week, President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Labor, former Oregon Congresswoman Lori Chávez-DeRemer, appeared before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions for her confirmation hearing. Her nomination was something of a surprise as Chávez-DeRemer, the daughter of a lifelong Teamster, was known for taking more union-leaning stances during her short stint in Congress. For example, as a member of the House, Chávez-DeRemer was one of three Republicans to support the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. The PRO Act sought to expand labor protections and weaken “right-to-work” laws, which allow employees to opt-out of participation in or paying dues to unions that represent workers at their place of employment.