Labor & Employment Developments Blog

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.

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.”

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.

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.

Recent executive orders have caused the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to abandon litigation and guidance on LGBTQ+ protections and other areas that were priorities during the Biden administration

Recently, many health care employers and other large corporations have implemented programs requiring their employees to get a flu vaccination. Some legal experts have suggested that these mandates may be problematic for employers.  Specifically, employers may face religious based objections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or disability based objections under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it has filed lawsuits in recent years against employers under Title VII where employees were fired for objecting to a vaccination for sincere religious beliefs.  The EEOC has also stated that a company would likely violate the ADA, if it were to take adverse action against an employee who refused to get a flu vaccination for a disability related reason, such as an allergic reaction to the vaccine.

In a potentially important decision over workplace accommodations in an environment when telecommuting is more common, the Sixth Circuit ruled on April 10 that an employer does not need to permit an employee to work from home when an essential aspect of the employee’s position requires being in the office. 

This Wednesday, December 3, 2014, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Young v. UPS, No. 12-1226, on appeal from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.  The Young case has received significant attention because it asks the Court to directly address the question of what, if any, accommodation is required for a pregnant worker with work limitations under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, incorporated into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 1978, where the employer provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations, such as those affected by on-the-job injuries or a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.