Labor & Employment Developments Blog

Doing business in California has always been a daunting task for employers because of California’s onerous regulations for employers. Now that we are nearly two months into 2026, it is important to ensure you are complying with the most recent regulations.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has voted to rescind its anti-harassment guidance that previously stated misgendering employees could constitute unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision marks a significant rollback of Biden-era workplace protections for LGBTQ+ employees and continues a broader shift in federal enforcement priorities under the second Trump administration.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has eliminated any remaining uncertainty about its 2026 enforcement priorities regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. In a December 18, 2025 interview with Reuters, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas emphasized the EEOC’s position that workplace initiatives using race, sex, or other protected characteristics as “motivating factors” in employment decisions are unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Chair Lucas also clearly signaled that employers maintaining such initiatives can expect to be subject to investigations, enforcement actions, and litigation throughout 2026. This announcement is in furtherance of executive orders issued by President Trump and guidance released by the EEOC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2025, which effectively outlawed the majority of DEI programs.

The United States Department of Labor (DOL) has resolved a long-standing and frequently litigated issue under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA): whether intermittent FMLA leave includes time spent traveling to and from approved medical appointments. In a January 2026 opinion letter, the DOL confirmed that such travel time is FMLA-protected. 

A long-standing federal hiring incentive is coming to an end in 2025. Unless extended by Congress, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (“WOTC”), a program that has provided employers with a predictable tax credit for hiring individuals facing significant barriers to employment, will expire on December 31, 2025.[1] This credit has been part of many employers’ staffing, budgeting, and tax-planning strategies for nearly three decades. Its potential sunset will require employers to evaluate current practices and prepare for changes to their 2026 cost structures.

A recent $24.75 million class action settlement in Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., marks yet another milestone in the ongoing debate over gig-economy worker classification. This settlement serves as a reminder to companies of all sizes that how they classify workers can carry significant legal and financial consequences.

Case Overview

Grubhub recently settled a decade-long class action lawsuit in California, in which a former delivery driver accused it of misclassifying him as an independent contractor rather than an employee. After years of litigation, including multiple appeals ...

Social media has become an unavoidable part of society and an unavoidable issue in the workplace. While online posts may seem personal, a single tweet, post, or comment can quickly escalate into a workplace issue. With more than 70% of Americans active on at least one social media platform, employers should ensure their social media policies are carefully drafted to protect business interests while preserving employee rights.

Recently, a federal court in the Northern District of California issued an important ruling in the closely followed Mobley v. Workday putative class action lawsuit alleging that Workday, a cloud-based software vendor specializing in financial management and human capital management, violated federal discrimination laws. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim Workday’s AI hiring platform screens out applicants over age 40 in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).

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.

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.”