Takeaways

  • The DOL will no longer seek liquidated damages during investigations unless a court orders them following a lawsuit.
  • The DOL will disregard the 2024 independent contractor rule and revert to longstanding common-law standards.
  • The Opinion Letter Program has been reinstated, offering employers clearer compliance guidance under the FLSA.

It’s been just over 100 days under the new Administration. We have a new Secretary of Labor, and we’re on the cusp of most of the other nominees for key DOL positions being confirmed by the Senate. Even with some key posts unfilled, during this short period, a number of key shifts in DOL enforcement policy have occurred. Here is a summary of just a few.Continue Reading 3 Important DOL Wage and Hour Enforcement Changes Employers Should Watch

Takeaways

  • The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a heightened standard for reverse discrimination claims under Title VII.
  • This decision, combined with Muldrow, lowers the bar for employees to bring discrimination lawsuits.

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which rejected a heightened standard for pursuing reverse discrimination claims under Title VII. Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII alleging that she was discriminated against for being heterosexual when she was denied a promotion and then demoted in favor of homosexual coworkers. Ames applied for a newly created and open position within the Ohio Department of Your Services (“ODYS”). Not only did Ames not receive the job, she was subsequently demoted to her prior position with a reduced salary. The ODYS hired a lesbian woman for the position Ames sought. It then hired a gay man to replace Ames in her program leadership position after she had been demoted.Continue Reading Reverse Discrimination Claims Are Easier To Pursue After SCOTUS Decision

Takeways

  • Texas is considering HB 2466, a statewide ban-the-box bill that would restrict when employers can ask about criminal history.
  • The bill applies to public employers and private employers with 15 or more employees, but excludes certain regulated positions.
  • If enacted, HB 2466 would take effect September 1, 2025, requiring updates to hiring policies and practices.

In March 2025, House Bill 2466 (HB 2466), also known as the “Ban the Box” law, was referred to the House Workforce Subcommittee. If passed and signed into law, HB 2466 would take effect September 1, 2025, and prohibit employers from asking about an applicant’s criminal history on initial job applications; instead covered employers would consider criminal history only after the applicant has been found to be “otherwise qualified” and has been given a conditional job offer or invited for an interview. Excepted from HB 2466 are positions for which consideration of criminal history record information is required by law—including law enforcement, healthcare, childcare, and financial services. HB 2466 applies to private employers with at least fifteen employees and public employers. The protections of HB 2466 would not extend to independent contractors, gig workers, or freelance labor.Continue Reading Texas Considers Statewide Ban-the-Box Law: What Employers Need to Know

Takeaways

  • President Trump issued a record-breaking number of executive orders in his first 100 days, many of which significantly impact labor and employment law.
  • New DEI-related executive orders require employers—particularly federal contractors—to certify compliance with anti-discrimination laws and may trigger increased scrutiny of hiring practices.
  • Federal agencies are moving away from the “disparate impact” theory of liability, signaling potential shifts in how employment discrimination cases are litigated and defended.
  • Leadership changes at the EEOC and NLRB have left both agencies without quorums, limiting their ability to enact new rules or pursue major litigation.

On November 5, 2024, President Donald J. Trump achieved something that many did not think possible when he was elected to a second, non-consecutive term to be the President of the United States. In his campaign, President Trump promised to reshape the federal government and aggressively influence and change many areas of law with executive action. Subsequently, President Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders (“EOs”) that cover a multitude of legal, administrative, and other areas of law. One area in which the EOs have had a direct impact is in the labor and employment field.

Since President Trump took his second oath of office, he signed and implemented more than 140 EOs in the first 100 days of his presidency—a number that eclipses all previous records, including former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s record of 99 EOs in the first 100 days set in 1933. Many of President Trump’s EOs are still in effect, while other of these second-term EOs are facing numerous challenges in the U.S. federal court system.

Below is a summary of the most impactful EOs issued during President Trump’s first 100 days in office related to labor and employment law, along with a brief analysis on how they may impact private employers, companies, and individual workers in the employment sphere. All private employers and their human resource teams should familiarize themselves with these changes to ensure compliance with applicable federal laws, in addition to any additional U.S. local or state laws.Continue Reading The First 100 Days of President Trump’s Second Presidency: Re-Shaping Federal Employment Policies

Takeaways

  • A federal court ruled that Oregon’s labor peace agreement requirement for cannabis businesses is preempted by the NLRA.
  • This decision could prompt legal challenges to similar laws in other states.

In an ironic turn of events this week, the application of federal law benefited state-licensed cannabis businesses in Oregon—and potentially nationwide. Those involved with the cannabis industry often view federal law as an impediment to cannabis businesses, given the ongoing federal illegality of cannabis and the extremely burdensome federal tax obligations created by Section 280E of the tax code. However, the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) and the body of federal case law that has sprung up around it worked to nullify an Oregon ballot initiative that would have improperly restricted licensed cannabis operators from discussing the pros and cons of unionization with their workforces.Continue Reading Federal Labor Law Preempts State’s Attempt to Regulate Union Activity in Cannabis Industry

UPDATE

Texas’s S.B. 1318 was signed into law. As a result, restrictive covenants entered into or renewed on or after September 1, 2025, for the following healthcare practitioners in Texas must comply with the new law:

  • Physicians;
  • Dentists;
  • Nurses; and
  • Physician assistants.

To comply with the law, new covenants related to the clinical practice must:

  1. provide for a buyout in an amount that is not greater than the practitioner’s total annual salary and wages at the time of termination of the practitioner’s contract or employment;
  2. expire not later than the one-year anniversary of the date the contract or employment has been terminated; and
  3. limit the geographical area subject to the covenant to no more than a five-mile radius from the location at which the health care practitioner primarily practiced before the contract or employment terminated.

These provisions must be clearly and conspicuously stated by using bold face type, capital letters, or contrasting colors so that a reasonable person would notice them.

Physician non-competes are subject to the additional provisions of the Act discussed below.

Takeaways

  • SB 1318 would expand non-compete limitations on physicians, dentists, nurses, and physician assistants.
  • Restrictive covenants would be limited to one year in duration and a five-mile geographic scope.
  • If enacted, the law would take effect September 1, 2025, and apply only to new or renewed agreements, prompting employers to review and revise their current contracts.

A significant proposal that would limit non-compete agreements for physicians, dentists, nurses, and physician assistants in Texas is headed to Governor Abbott’s desk. Senate Bill 1318 (SB 1318), authored by Senator Charles Schwertner seeks to balance employer protections with workforce mobility and patient care.

For healthcare employers, the legislation will require substantial changes to new non-compete contracts in Texas.Continue Reading UPDATED: Texas Reshapes Non-Competes for Healthcare Workers: What Employers Need to Know

Takeaways

  1. The duty to initiate arbitration may fall on the party seeking redress, even if they opposed arbitration in court.
  2. Arbitration policies must be interpreted in conjunction with the broader arbitration agreement, not in isolation.
  3. Clear and precise drafting of arbitration agreements and policies is essential to avoid procedural confusion and litigation delays.

The Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal published an opinion shedding light on the commonly raised dispute of which party bears the burden of initiating arbitration proceedings after an order compelling arbitration. The case, Arzate v. Ace American Insurance Company, delves into the nuances of the interpretation of arbitration clauses and contractual agreements, ultimately clarifying which party is expected to take the first step in the arbitration process. As employers increasingly rely on arbitration to resolve disputes, understanding the outcome and effect of Arzate is crucial to ensuring clarity in future agreements and policies.Continue Reading Arbitration Obligations for Employers: A Decision on the Duty To Initiate

Takeaways

  1. This decision strengthens the enforceability of arbitration agreements in PAGA cases.
  2. Employers can now compel arbitration even when plaintiffs attempt to bring only “non-individual” PAGA claims.
  3. The ruling helps prevent plaintiffs from bypassing arbitration through creative pleading tactics.

Some employers with California operations may have missed a very significant California Court of Appeal decision issued on December 31, 2024.Continue Reading Good News for California Employers: California Court Upholds Arbitration in PAGA Disputes

Takeaways

  1. Starting July 1, Los Angeles will gradually increase the minimum wage for airport and hotel workers.
  2. Eligible employees will also receive a healthcare benefit payment.
  3. LAX concessionaires with 50 or fewer employees may be eligible for a hardship exemption.

Starting in July of this year and continuing through 2028, Los Angeles is poised to implement incremental increases to its minimum wage for airport and hotel workers, impacting businesses throughout the city. The new wage adjustments are part of ongoing efforts to address the anticipated increase in tourism for the FIFA World Cup in 2026, Super Bowl LXI in 2027, and the Summer Olympics in 2028 and ensure fair compensation for workers impacted by these impending events.Continue Reading Attention L.A. Employers: Minimum Wage Increases Ahead for LAX and Los Angeles Hotel Workers

Since inauguration, the Trump Administration has targeted Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) and Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (“DEIA”) programs across both public and private sectors. The administration’s stated goal is to eliminate what it describes as unlawful employment and contracting practices in the public and private sectors.Continue Reading Navigating the New Framework: Strategies for Compliance Amid the New Administration’s DEI Rollbacks