Labor & Employment Developments Blog

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.

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.