The current administration has reached the 100-day mark, and employers have faced sweeping changes and major policy shifts—but not everything has moved at the same pace. While DEI programs and workplace AI have faced significant revisions, other areas, such as the NLRB, have been marked by board member disputes and ongoing court battles, adding layers of uncertainty.

This week’s key topics include:

• DEI program scrutiny,
• independent agency challenges,
• rescinded policies from past administrations, and
• AI workplace guidance.

In this special episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys unpack these significant changes and provide actionable insights for navigating the regulatory and compliance chaos.

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw388

Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/

Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com

This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

This week, we’re covering the relaxation of state-level non-compete rules, the recent block of Executive Order 14173’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-related certification requirement, and a federal appeals court’s decision to pause a challenge to the Biden-era independent contractor rule.

Non-Competes Eased in Kansas and Virginia

Kansas has enacted a law permitting non-competes while setting requirements for non-solicit provisions. Additionally, effective July 1, 2025, Virginia will prohibit non-compete agreements for non-exempt employees.

Federal Contractor DEI Rule Blocked

In a lawsuit brought by Chicago Women in Trades, a federal judge paused a rule from Executive Order 14173 requiring federal contractors to certify that they don’t operate DEI programs that violate anti-discrimination laws, citing unclear definitions of “illegal” DEI programs

Independent Contractor Rule in Limbo

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit paused a challenge to the 2024 independent contractor rule, allowing the U.S. Department of Labor time to consider revising or replacing it. For now, the Biden-era rule remains in effect.

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw387

Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/

Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com

This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

With presidential power over independent federal agencies entering uncharted territory, SCOTUS may soon revisit its 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision, which limits a president’s ability to fire members of independent federal agencies—such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—without cause. SCOTUS could choose to:

• reaffirm Humphrey’s Executor,
• overturn the case entirely (potentially politicizing agency functions), or
• define “for cause” and allow terminations only under stringent circumstances.

Former Acting Attorney General of the United States and Epstein Becker Green attorney Stuart Gerson explores how a shift in this precedent could impact employers, industries, and the balance of federal power.

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw386

Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/

Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com

This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.