On May 30, 2025, the DOL moved to eliminate the OFCCP, shifting key enforcement duties to other agencies. At the same time, the DOL has launched a new opinion letter program, expanding access beyond the Wage and Hour Division.

Employers must navigate these changes while maintaining compliance with federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws. Epstein Becker Green attorneys Kim Carter and Paul DeCamp provide their insights into these shifts and their likely future impact on employers.

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw393

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 cover the striking down of abortion protections for workers and LGBTQ harassment guidance, as well as the beginning of a brief EEO-1 reporting season (concluding on June 24).

Abortion Protections for Workers Struck Down

A Louisiana federal judge vacated portions of a rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that defined abortion as a medical condition and required accommodations.

Federal Court Vacates LGBTQ Harassment Guidance

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has moved to strike portions of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) guidance on workplace harassment against LGBTQ employees. The court ruled that the Biden-era EEOC guidance expanded “the scope of sex beyond the biological binary.”

EEO-1 Reporting Opens with a Tight Deadline

The EEO-1 reporting period is now open. All private employers in the United States with 100 or more employees are required to file, as are federal contractors with 50 or more employees that meet certain criteria. The deadline to file is just weeks away—June 24—so employers are moving quickly.

—

Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app.

Visit our site for this week’s Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw392

Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-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.

EO 14281 poses significant challenges for employers because it seeks to limit disparate impact liability but clashes with established state and local regulations and laws, such as New York City’s law regarding the use of automated employment decision tools. This tension underscores the increasing complexity of managing artificial intelligence (AI)-driven decision-making in the workplace amid shifting legal standards.

This week’s key topics include:

• the scope of EO 14281;
• conflicts between EO 14281 and existing federal, state, and local laws; and
• best practices to mitigate risks in AI employment decisions.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Marc A. Mandelman and Nathaniel M. Glasser unpack these developments and provide employers with practical strategies to stay compliant and address critical workforce challenges.

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw391

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.