Photo of Cindy Schmitt Minniti

Cindy Schmitt Minniti

Subscribe to Cindy Schmitt Minniti's Posts
Contact:Read more about Cindy Schmitt Minniti

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

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 

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

Workers’ compensation claims are typically an issue about which employers think only in the context of physical workplace injuries. In New York State, however, that may soon be poised to change. On January 1, 2025, the states Workers’ Compensation Law will permit all workers to file claims for mental injury premised upon extraordinary work-related stress. Governor Hochul signed the amendment under A5745 (the Amendment) reiterating New York state’s ongoing effort to support mental health in the workplace.Continue Reading New York amends workers’ compensation law to include mental injury

As we previously reported, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) final rule on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) went into effect on June 18, 2024. The final rule provides guidance on how the EEOC will interpret and enforce the PWFA, including with respect to conditions that may qualify for accommodation, examples of what constitutes an accommodation, and clarification on the process through which employers and employees engage in the interactive process to obtain an accommodation.

Legal challenges to the final rule

The final rule has been the subject of several legal challenges. Recently, a U.S. District Judge in Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction that partially blocks the provision in the final rule requiring workplace accommodations for “purely elective abortions.” In the final rule, the EEOC takes the position that a person’s choice to have (or not have) an abortion qualifies as a medical condition that falls under the PWFA’s purview. The constitutionality of the final rule was challenged by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi, along with four religious organizations.Continue Reading EEOC’s final rule on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in flux

“Under an amendment to the state labor law that took effect June 19, 2024, New York employers must now provide up to 30 minutes of paid lactation break time “each time such employee has reasonable need to express breast milk.” The amended law – which previously only required business to provide reasonable unpaid break time for such purpose – does not cap the amount of paid lactation breaks to which an employee is entitled and guidance issued by the New York State Department of Labor suggests that employees may be entitled to multiple paid lactation breaks in a given day, so long as the employee “reasonably need[s]” the break. Employers must also allow employees to use existing paid break or meal time for breast milk expression in excess of 30 minutes.Continue Reading Changes to New York employment law: Paid lactation breaks now in effect

As we posted yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has at long last issued its final regulatory rule banning virtually all existing and future U.S. non-compete agreements. In this series, we will unpack some of the more nuanced questions surrounding the final rule. Although the series is generally applicable, today’s post is particularly geared toward private equity firms and financial institutions.

How does the sale-of-business exception work?

One of the exceptions to the final rule is that it does “not apply to a non-compete clause that is entered into by a person pursuant to a bona fide sale of a business entity, of the person’s ownership interest in a business entity, or of all or substantially all of a business entity’s operating assets.”

This language is fairly similar to an exception included in the FTC’s January 2023 proposed non-compete rule – however, there is an important change in the final rule. Specifically, the proposed rule included an exception for certain non-compete agreements between the seller and the buyer of a business that applied only to a substantial owner, member, or partner, defined as an owner, member, or partner with at least 25 percent ownership interest in the business entity being sold. In the final rule, however, the FTC has dropped the 25 percent ownership interest requirement.Continue Reading Unpacking the FTC’s ban on U.S. non-compete agreements: Impact on private equity and financial institutions

As we discussed in an October 2021 article regarding the future of restrictive covenant agreements in the U.S., President Biden in July 2021 directed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to explore potential ways to limit the use of non-compete agreements. In January 2023, the FTC followed through on the President’s directive by proposing a regulatory rule that would effectively ban such agreements.

And on Tuesday afternoon, more than 15 months after publishing the proposed rule and after receiving more than 26,000 public comments on the January 2023 proposal, the FTC at long last unveiled and approved its final non-compete rule (the final rule) in a party line 3-2 vote.Continue Reading BREAKING: FTC bans virtually all existing and future U.S. non-compete agreements

On Wednesday April 17, 2024, the US Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al. issued a precedential ruling that will likely pave the way for more employee discrimination claims under Title VII. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Title VII prohibits discriminatory job transfers even if they do not result in a “materially significant disadvantage” to the employee. The Court clarified that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must establish “some harm” with respect to the terms and conditions of employment, but that such harm “need not be significant.”Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court clarifies standard for job transfer discrimination under Title VII