Labor & Employment Developments Blog

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 ...

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. 

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.

Significant attention has been given to President Trump’s actions regarding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and policies, but the impact of those actions on private sector employees has not been clear. On his first two days in office, President Trump signed multiple executive orders addressing the use of DEI programs in government. One order, Executive Order 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, directed executive agencies to terminate all DEI offices, positions, plans, initiatives, or similar programs. Another order, Executive Order 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, directed all executive departments and agencies to terminate any discriminatory or unlawful preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements. President Trump took this action citing his administration’s position that such policies violate the text and spirit of longstanding federal civil rights laws.

On February 14, 2025, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) acting General Counsel William B. Cowen rescinded several memoranda issued by the former NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. The rescinded memoranda include, GC 21-06 and GC 21-07 addressing remedies to be sought; GC 21-08 on the rights of student-athletes under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA); GC 23-02 on electronic monitoring; GC 23-05 on severance agreements; and GC 23-08 and GC 25-01 on non-compete agreements. The rescission of GC 23-5, GC 23-08 and GC 25-01 is significant for employers that use non-compete agreements in their employment or severance agreements.

On Oct. 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services –a reverse discrimination case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the heightened “background circumstances” rule adopted by the Sixth Circuit for reverse discrimination cases is discriminatory and runs afoul of Title VII. The “background circumstances” rule is an additional requirement imposed by certain circuits for proving discrimination in cases involving members of majority groups – so-called reverse discrimination cases. A plaintiff typically satisfies the “background circumstances” by presenting evidence that a member of the relevant minority group made the employment decision at issue, or with statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of the majority group. Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 87 F.4th 822, 825 (6th Cir. 2023)

This summer, eyes were focused on the Federal Trade Commission and its announced rule seeking to invalidate millions of non-compete agreements across the country. That rule was ultimately struck down in the Court, but federal efforts to invalidate non-compete agreements have continued. As previously covered by this blog, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) took aim at non-compete agreements in May of 2023, announcing her opinion that such agreements could restrict employees’ Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). At that time, the General Counsel directed NLRB field offices to submit cases involving non-compete agreements for further investigation.