Employment

In the wake of President Trump’s “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” Executive Order (the “Executive Order”) (discussed further here), many companies are in the process of revisiting their existing diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs and initiatives to reconfirm their legal viability. Close examination of the Executive Order reveals that the Administration hopes to rely on the False Claims Act (“FCA”) as another statutory weapon aimed at eliminating what it perceives as a scourge of “illegal,” “demean[ing],” and “immoral” DEI programs. The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §3729, is a whistleblower statute intended to prevent companies from defrauding the government. Its inclusion in the Executive Order opens federal contractors and federal grant recipients to the possibility of substantial criminal and/or civil liability where they operate DEI programs deemed to violate the law. We discuss the FCA and its impact under the Executive Order more below.

In a flurry activity, President Trump dismissed the General Counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and the initial acting General Counsel of the NLRB who temporarily filled in the General Counsel role.  President Trump also removed a Biden-appointed NLRB Board member and two Biden-appointed EEOC Commissioners.  These actions are likely to disrupt operations at these agencies, including with respect to any ongoing formal matters and in the dissemination of general guidance and oversight they provide. 

Pay transparency laws have taken the country by storm over the last few years, and 5 additional states (Illinois, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont) have debuted or will debut their own versions in 2025.  These laws aim to close discriminatory-based pay gaps.  This shared goal, however, is one of the only similarities in the now-15 state-specific laws promoting pay transparency.  Among other differences, there are myriad differences among the laws’ employee coverage thresholds, job posting requirements, and remedies, meaning employers must remain hyper-aware of any compliance obligations – some of which may be triggered by merely advertising a remote position that could feasibly be performed in states where the employer does not otherwise have a physical presence.  

Shortly before the Trump Administration started, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued an opinion letter clarifying the “substitution” provision under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) when it intersects with a state or local paid family and medical leave program.

A recent Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) decision signals a pressing need for Canadian employers to review and consider updating their contractual termination of employment provisions. Otherwise, employers are at risk of incurring higher than expected liabilities.

The United States Supreme Court recently held in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera that the “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof applies in determining whether an employee is exempt under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  In issuing its unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court rejected the employee’s argument that the higher “clear and convincing” evidence standard should apply.

ESG Co-chair Jen Rubin hosts a conversation on the challenges and best practices surrounding employee handbooks. This episode is part of a series of conversations designed to help employers navigate workplace changes under the upcoming Trump administration.

President Trump has issued a flurry of wide-ranging executive orders intended to shake up the employment landscape.  One of those orders, entitled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (the “Executive Order”), takes aim at non-compliant DEI programs and policies.  It also creates a momentous change in the federal contractor landscape by revoking Executive Order 11246, which has, for the past sixty years, served as the foundation for non-discrimination and affirmative action requirements in the federal contracting space.  Although the Executive Order’s mandates are vague in many places and raise more questions than they answer, at bottom, the Executive Order appears designed to attempt to effectively stamp out DEI programs and policies in the federal workforce, while putting private sector employers on notice and pushing them to proactively modify, narrow or even end their DEI initiatives.  But as we’ll discuss more below, these developments do not compel private employers to rescind their DEI programs and policies entirely; instead, employers should use the Executive Order as an opportunity to review their existing programs and policies to ensure that they (i) continue to align with their mission and organizational goals, (ii) are legally compliant in light of the change in administration, and (iii) whether subsequently modified or not, thereafter are effectively communicated to stakeholders. 

The most recent amendment to New York’s Workers’ Compensation Law, which went into effect on January 1, 2025, permits any employee to seek workers’ compensation benefits when they experience a “mental injury premised upon extraordinary work-related stress incurred at work.”  

New York employers are – once again – required to provide employees with notice regarding New York’s reproductive health decision making protections.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a lower court’s permanent injunction of a New York law that requires employers to include a notice in their employee handbooks regarding the State’s prohibition of discrimination based on reproductive health choices. 

In July 2024, Massachusetts passed into law An Act Relative to Salary Range Transparency (the “Act”). We previously wrote about this Act in its legislation phase here and provided answers to frequently asked questions here.

ESG Co-chair Jen Rubin hosts an in-depth discussion about mandatory diversity metrics and their relevance following the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision to vacate Nasdaq’s board diversity rules.

ESG Co-chair Jen Rubin hosts a thoughtful discussion on diversity diversions and the future of DEI programs under the new administration.

In the latest episode of the Mintz on Air: Predictions and Practical Policies Podcast, ESG Co-chair Jen Rubin hosts a timely discussion on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Executive Order 11246, and how employers can prepare for the next administration.

A year after announcing its first-in-the-nation effort to increase access to pregnancy-related healthcare, New York’s “paid prenatal leave” law is officially set to take effect on January 1, 2025.  Employers will be required to begin offering New York employees 20 hours of paid leave during a 52-week period to attend to prenatal medical needs, which is in addition to existing sick/safe leave already required in New York.  The New York State Department of Labor recently released an FAQ document to assist employers in implementing this new leave.  We detail some of the most pertinent guidance below.

Ontario introduced Bill 229, Working for Workers Six Act, 2024 on November 27, 2024, the latest in a series of legislation amending employment laws in Ontario. If Bill 229 is passed as is, here are some of the key changes that will affect Ontario businesses.

ESG Co-chair Jen Rubin moderates a forward-looking discussion on what businesses can expect for ESG, clean tech, and energy regulation under the second Trump administration.

Amid a flurry of President-elect Donald Trump’s nominations for cabinet-level positions and his frequent statements about his policy plans, employers are anticipating sweeping changes to employment and immigration laws, regulations, and practices.

On the heels of the election of President-Elect Trump, employers should be on the lookout for potential changes to employment and immigration laws, regulations and practices.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted cert in a hotly contested case addressing the standards of proof applicable to reverse discrimination claims under Title VII.  The case comes on the heels of the court’s decision last term in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Mo., where it lowered the standard to prove that an employee suffered an adverse employment action (now, employees need only show that they suffered “some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment”).  In the next term, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, SCOTUS will turn its attention to so-called “reverse” discrimination and whether members of a majority group will be required to meet a heightened pleading standard to prove their claims.