In the early days of his second term, President Trump issued a series of executive orders (EO) that were aimed at reshaping the landscape of both federal and private sector policies. Two specifically targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives:

  1. EO 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” directs the termination of all DEI-related mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities within federal agencies. It further calls for the termination of “equity-related” grants or contracts and requires agencies to report all employees in DEI positions to the Office of Management and Budget.
  2. EO 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” impacts the private sector, directing the attorney general to develop a strategic enforcement plan, identifying key private entities for civil rights investigations, recommending regulatory actions, and proposing potential litigation to curb DEI practices deemed discriminatory under the Trump administration’s interpretation of federal law. It also requires federal contractors and grant recipients to eliminate DEI programs that involve race- or sex-based preferences and certify that they do not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable federal anti-discrimination laws as a condition of receiving government funding.
Continue Reading Court clarifies that DEI executive orders are temporarily blocked for all federal agencies

In a recent published decision, the California Court of Appeal delivered a blow to plaintiffs seeking to avoid arbitration of claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) by concluding that all PAGA actions, however framed, necessarily include individual and representative claims. Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., 107 Cal. App. 5th 1001 (2024). Accordingly, a plaintiff cannot evade enforcement of an agreement that requires arbitration of individual PAGA claims by framing his or her claim as exclusively representative.

Continue Reading Court rejects use of the “headless” PAGA action strategy to avoid arbitration

From 6 April 2025, new rules will give eligible employees a statutory right to paid time off if their baby requires neonatal care. This time off is in addition to their other statutory rights, such as maternity, paternity, adoption and shared parental leave, and it will be important for employers and employees to understand how the new right works. This blog explains the upcoming changes, considers issues arising and describes how employers can prepare and manage the impact.

What’s happening?

At the moment, parents whose babies need neonatal care do not have any specific rights over and above the right to maternity, paternity, adoption or shared parental leave (as may be applicable to them). After years of lobbying by charities for premature and sick babies, this is about to change with an additional right to paid neonatal care leave, allowing affected parents to take extra time off to support their family in these difficult circumstances. The government estimates that the new rules will benefit 60,000 new parents.

Continue Reading Neonatal care leave and pay: what UK employers need to know about the new statutory right

As the Trump administration continues to swiftly issue executive orders and take other actions to implement President Trump’s agenda, employers should stay tuned as the administration’s actions may soon implicate the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).

By way of background, the PWFA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employee limitations relating to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical protections. Last year, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its final rule implementing the PWFA, which went into effect on June 18, 2024. The final rule has been the subject of several legal challenges with respect to requiring workplace accommodations for “purely elective abortions.” The cases challenging the final rule currently remain pending.

Continue Reading Anticipating President Trump’s impact on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Increases to minimum wage

Effective January 1, 2025, the minimum wage rate in Illinois increased by $1 per hour from $14.00 to $15.00. The minimum wage for tipped workers and youth workers (under 18) working fewer than 650 hours per calendar year was raised to $9.00 per hour and $13.00 per hour, respectively.

Pay transparency posting requirements take effect

An amendment to the Illinois Equal Pay Act (IEPA) requires employers with 15 or more employees to include “pay scale and benefits” information in every job posting for a position that will be “physically performed, at least in part, in Illinois” or for a position that will be physically performed outside of Illinois but that reports to a “supervisor, office, or other work site in Illinois.” Employers must also provide such information to third parties engaged to make job postings and inform all current employees of externally listed opportunities for promotion within 14 days of posting. In addition to posting requirements, employers must maintain records of job postings and pay and benefits information for five years and are prohibited from retaliating against employees or applicants who exercise their rights under the amendments to the IEPA.

Continue Reading Key workplace changes for Illinois employers in 2025

On December 13, 2024, we wrote on several policies implemented by the Biden administration that were likely to be rolled back, qualified, or reversed entirely once Donald Trump officially took office. On January 20, 2025, the day of President Trump’s inauguration, the Trump Administration began doing just that, beginning with, among other things, an executive order that directly rebuffs guidance recently issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding harassment and misgendering in the workplace.

Continue Reading Analyzing President Trump’s executive orders on harassment: Implications and reactions

In the last week, the Trump Administration issued numerous executive orders related to immigration policy. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and other authorized agencies will likely initiate more administrative inspections (i.e., inspections of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification) and worksite enforcement actions. Employers should review their operations and prepare for possible government visits.

Continue Reading Immigration enforcement underway: Preparing for I-9 inspections and site visits 

In only his first week in office, Trump has already dismantled DEI programs within the government, revoked a 60-year old order requiring federal contractors to develop affirmative action programs, and signaled to private-sector employers that their DEI programs are next.  

Continue Reading Analyzing President Trump’s executive orders on DEI: Implications and reactions

Over the past several years, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has made several attempts to regulate the U.S. workplace. This includes, perhaps most notably, the FTC’s May 2024 rule attempting to ban virtually all existing and future non-compete agreements nationwide (though, at least for now, that rule has been sidelined by the courts). Against that backdrop, on January 16, 2025, the FTC and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) jointly issued Antitrust Guidelines for Business Activities Affecting Workers.

The guidelines, which replace the 2016 Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals, examine how the FTC and DOJ assess the legality, under federal antitrust laws, of certain business practices affecting U.S. workers. To that end, the guidelines highlight the following five examples of business practices that the FTC and DOJ consider “potential violations of the antitrust laws”:

Continue Reading Labor mobility remains in the limelight – FTC and DOJ take another swing at regulating the U.S. workplace

On January 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Fourth Circuit’s decision in E.M.D. Sale, Inc. v. Carrera, and ruled that the “preponderance of evidence” standard, and not the higher “clear and convincing evidence” standard favored by the Fourth Circuit, is the correct burden of proof in cases involving whether an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This decision has a notable impact for employers defending misclassification claims brought under the FLSA and resolves a split in the circuits on this issue.

Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court resolves circuit split on burden of proof dispute for FLSA exemptions