On July 28, 2025, the United States Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) issued a memorandum endorsing federal employees expressing their religious beliefs in the workplace. Specifically, OPM Director Scott Kupor instructed government agencies to “allow personal religious expression by Federal employees to the greatest extent possible unless such expression would impose an undue hardship on business operations.” Although this memorandum does not directly contemplate any new direction for private employers, it raises questions about whether this guidance signals impending changes in the private sector. What Does This Mean for the Federal Workplace? The OPM memorandum directs federal employers to permit religious expression in the workplace to the same extent as other non-religious, private expression. Stated otherwise, the OPM is encouraging federal employees to fully express their religious beliefs. This is a unique policy stance that has not been observed in recent memory. The OPM offered a handful of “categories” to demonstrate what religious conduct should be permitted, including: Display and use of items used for religious purposes or religious icons Expressions by groups of federal employees Conversations between federal employees Expressions among or directed at members of the public Expressions in areas accessible to the public The OPM memorandum clarifies that the “undue hardship” exception remains but avoids discussing it in much detail. Absent evidence to the contrary, it is expected that the OPM will utilize the standard endorsed by the Supreme Court in 2023. Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279 (2023). In Groff, the Supreme Court held that “undue hardship is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business,” “tak[ing] into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of an employer.” What Type of Belief Is “Religious” According to the OPM? Notably, the OPM memorandum defers to traditional Title VII analyses for determining what would constitute a “sincerely held religious belief” warranting protection. The EEOC has been abundantly clear that protections are not just reserved for traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism, but rather a realm of “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.” Further, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is not a court’s role to determine the reasonableness of an individual’s religious beliefs, and that “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.” In sum, the best practice for federal employers is to take a broad approach to defining religion in the workplace to avoid any semblance of discriminatory conduct, so long as the expression of these beliefs does not constitute a true “undue hardship.” What About Private Employers? While this memorandum does not apply to private employers, Title VII does. Thus, it raises serious questions about whether the EEOC will follow suit by taking inspiration from the new OPM memorandum. In the past, the EEOC has issued guidance cautioning private-sector supervisors from engaging in religious expression that might reasonably appear coercive due to their supervisory role. The OPM’s memorandum, however, takes a different stance, explaining supervisors should not be treated any differently than non-supervisors on the basis of their workplace roles. It is expected this change of tune will work its way into the private sector sooner rather than later, whether it be through EEOC guidance or private employer policy changes attempting to mimic OPM guidance. Another possibility on the horizon could include whether the federal government issues similar requirements for all federal contractors, which would drastically increase the impact of expansion of religious expression. As with everything in the practice of law between different administrations, time will tell. What Should Private Employers Do Next? As these changes are implemented at the federal level, private employers should take a look in the mirror to see whether their current policies and procedures align with current guidance on religious expression in the workplace. For assistance in reviewing internal policies and procedures on religious expression in the workplace, be sure to contact your Polsinelli attorney.

What You Need to Know: OSHA’s Updated SST Plan Targets High-Risk Workplaces Using New Data: The revised Site-Specific Targeting (SST) Inspection Plan now relies on injury data from OSHA’s Injury Tracking Application (ITA), focusing on high-hazard, non-construction establishments with 20+ employees. Key Changes Include More Inspections and Industry Focus: The plan expands the number of inspections and emphasizes industries with high injury rates, while dropping “record-only” inspections for sites mistakenly flagged. Proactive Compliance Strategies Are Essential: Companies should prioritize accurate record-keeping, comprehensive safety training, internal audits and building a strong safety culture to ensure compliance and readiness for surprise inspections. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has recently updated its Site-Specific Targeting (SST) Inspection Plan, a critical development for companies across various industries. This blog will cover the SST Plan, its recent changes, and practical steps to ensure compliance and readiness for inspections. Site-Specific Targeting Inspection Plan Explained The SST Inspection Plan is OSHA's primary method for targeting high-hazard, non-construction workplaces with 20 or more employees. The Plan uses data from the OSHA Data Initiative (ODI) to identify establishments with high rates of injuries and illnesses. By focusing on these sites, OSHA aims to reduce workplace hazards and improve safety standards. Key Changes in the Updated SST Plan There are three important changes that the updated SST Plan introduces: Data Utilization: The new plan places greater emphasis on data from the OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA) to identify establishments for inspection. This shift underscores the importance of maintaining accurate and timely injury and illness records. The SST Plan will select establishments for OSHA inspection based on data from Form 300A for the period 2021 to 2023. Increased Inspections: The updated plan expands the scope of inspections, potentially increasing the number of establishments subject to review. This change highlights the need for companies to be prepared for inspections at any time. But there is some good news: now, if an establishment is targeted in error, OSHA won't continue on with a "record-only" inspection. Rather, it will just leave the premises. Focus on High-Risk Industries: The SST Plan now prioritizes non-construction industries with historically high rates of workplace injuries and illnesses. HR professionals and those involved with safety initiatives in these sectors should be particularly vigilant in ensuring compliance with OSHA standards. Advice for Companies To navigate the updated SST Plan effectively, companies should consider the following strategies: 1. Maintain Accurate Records Accurate record-keeping is as crucial as ever under the new SST Plan. Companies should ensure that all injury and illness records are up-to-date and accurately reflect workplace incidents. This includes regular audits of OSHA 300 logs and ensuring that all required documentation is readily available for inspection. 2. Enhance Safety Training Investing in comprehensive safety training programs is essential. HR professionals should work with safety officers to develop training sessions that address specific workplace hazards and promote safe practices. Regular training not only helps prevent accidents but also demonstrates a company's commitment to safety, which can be beneficial during an OSHA inspection. 3. Conduct Internal Audits Regular internal audits can help identify potential safety issues before they become problems. HR professionals should collaborate with safety teams to conduct thorough inspections of the workplace, ensuring compliance with OSHA standards. These audits can also serve as a valuable tool for preparing for potential OSHA inspections. 4. Foster a Safety Culture Creating a culture of safety within the organization is perhaps the most effective way to ensure compliance with OSHA standards. Companies should encourage open communication about safety concerns and involve employees in safety planning and decision-making. Recognizing and rewarding safe practices can also motivate employees to prioritize safety in their daily activities. The Importance of Compliance Compliance with OSHA's SST Plan is not just about avoiding fines and penalties; it is about ensuring the safety and well-being of employees. By understanding the updated SST Plan and implementing the strategies outlined above, companies can play a pivotal role in creating a safer workplace. What the New SST Inspection Plan Means for Employers The updated SST Inspection Plan represents a significant shift in OSHA's approach to workplace safety. For companies, this means taking proactive steps to ensure compliance and readiness for inspections. By maintaining accurate records, enhancing safety training, conducting internal audits, and fostering a safety culture, companies can not only meet OSHA's requirements but also create a safer, more productive work environment. Polsinelli understands the complexities involved with OSHA compliance and is committed to helping employers meet their obligations efficiently and effectively. If you have questions about OSHA compliance, contact Will Vail, Harry Jones, Shivani Bailey, or your Polsinelli attorney.

Around the world and across the United States, we see so many languages spoken. People around the world communicate in thousands of different languages. Given the wide origins of workers and companies with international operations, the question arises: to what extent should employers accommodate language needs, as in translating handbooks, policies, notices, or memos? Legally, the answer is murky: states and foreign jurisdictions adopt varying approaches. For example, in the United States, there is a varied patchwork of federal law that can apply requiring notices in languages besides English, while we have some states (Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, Missouri, etc.) that do not have any requirements for translating employment-related documents. In contrast, states like Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, and Washington encourage employers to provide translation or guidance for employment-related documents, while states like New York, Illinois, Virginia, and Massachusetts require notices and posters in languages besides English. Finally, some states like Tennessee, Colorado, Texas, and California have more specific laws and case law on requirements for translating employment-related documents. For employers with international operations, the answer will significantly vary based on an employee’s location. Some countries (like Australia and Switzerland) do not have any requirements, while many countries in Latin America, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Singapore, etc. have recommended or preferred languages. Other countries like Israel, Denmark, India, South Africa, and Japan have requirements that employers ensure employees understand employment-related documents or that a document in a specific language will prevail in a dispute. However, many countries, such as Belgium, Canada, France, Romania, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, China, etc., do have specific language requirements, and some of them are based on regions within countries. It is clear that there is a lot of variety across the United States and around the world on whether employers must translate workplace documents. Employers should tread carefully with languages for employment documents, especially in light of ever-changing statutes across countries. Polsinelli is monitoring these requirements around the world. Contact our International Employment Law group for assistance with employment document translation in jurisdictions around the world, including those that may not have been discussed in this summary.

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the U.K. Bribery Act 2010, along with dozens of trade treaties and conventions, forbid consummated (and attempted) improper or unethical payments to government officials or prospective parties to commercial deals by you or your employees or agents. Generally speaking, the FCPA can apply to prohibited conduct anywhere in the world and extends to publicly traded companies and their employees. The FCPA carries with it the prospect of $25 million in fines and 25-year jail terms, but these can be stacked higher. The U.K. law, including its penalties, are even more stringent. Both laws prosecute individuals, but can also punish employers for facilitating such payments. The reach of the FCPA and the U.K. Act is wide and deep, given how difficult it is to avoid “taking action” in the U.S. or in nations linked to the British Commonwealth.  And employers may expose themselves to risk for not training their workforce and requiring third parties to act with integrity. Beyond the need to book every expense accurately, there is a larger and more compelling need to avoid conflicts of interest, report outside interests, win business fairly, and have an anti-corruption culture.  In addressing these important points, employers must consider any number of questions, including: Who is a government official? What is a bribe in various contexts? How much value is “too much”? What about sports event tickets? What about places where “everyone does it that way”? What if we didn’t know the local broker did that? The good news is there is a specific set of actions and documents which can put an employer in much better stead if an agent or employee “goes rogue.” Drawing from real world and practical dilemmas, Polsinelli attorneys can help your leadership teams build better recognition of when an offer crosses the line, react before the line is crossed, lead towards candor, and draft policies and procedures for reporting and correcting questiona

Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently signed two new bills, effective September 1, 2021, which will arm employees with new tools and protections for asserting sexual harassment in the workplace claims. Here is what Texas employers need to know: The definition of an “employer” has expanded. Currently, an employer must have 15 or more employees to be covered by the Texas Labor Code’s anti-sexual harassment laws. As of September 1st, Senate Bill 45 (Tex. Lab. Code § 21.141), will define an “employer” as a person who (1) employs “one or more employees;” and (2) “acts directly in the interests of an employer in relation to an employee.” First, the new definition means that all employers, including those with only one employee, could be held liable for damages as a result of sexual harassment claims. Second, supervisors, managers, and co-workers may also be named as defendants in sexual harassment lawsuits and held personally liable for damages. This is a major change because it creates the potential for individual liability against the alleged harasser (which previously only arose within the employment context when there was a common law claim for assault). As a result, far more Texas employees are now able to sue for unaddressed sexual harassment than before, in state court, and removing cases to federal court will be more difficult. It is also conceivable that the plaintiff’s bar will attempt to argue that independent contractors, vendors, clients, and other third-parties may qualify as “employers” under this new statute. This underscores the importance of employer’s not only reviewing their own internal policies and procedures, but also their vendor and service agreements with contract partners. The definition of “sexual harassment” is more detailed. The new law provides a clear, detailed, description of prohibited behavior. Specifically, sexual harassment is defined as “an unwelcome sexual advance, a request for sexual favor, or any other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature if: (a) submission to the advance, request, or conduct is made a term or condition of an individual’s employment, either explicitly or implicitly; (b) submission to or rejection of the advance, request, or conduct by an individual is used as the basis for a decision affecting the individual’s employment; (c) the advance, request, or conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance; or (d) the advance, request, or conduct has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” This definition gives employers further direction when analyzing employee behavior and investigating complaints. Employers must act quickly after receiving a complaint of sexual harassment. Employers should always take sexual harassment complaints seriously and investigate allegations immediately. However, in light of the recent #MeToo movement and influx of sexual harassment claims, Senate Bill 45 (Tex. Lab. Code § 21.142) appears to intensify the pressure on employers to look for concerning employee activity and act swiftly upon receipt of a sexual harassment complaint. The new law specifically provides that an unlawful employment practice occurs if an employee is subjected to sexual harassment and the “employer or employer’s agents or supervisors (1) know or should have known that the conduct constituting sexual harassment was occurring; and (2) fail to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Although immediate and appropriate corrective action is not defined, which makes it difficult to predict how the courts will interpret and apply the new language, employers should avoid any delays in addressing concerns and complaints. Employers often rely on the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense to defend their actions by establishing that the company took reasonable care to prevent harassing behavior and prompt corrective action when presented with complaints about a supervisor in federal court. This new Texas law appears to codify those expectations of employers and their agents in the workplace. Employees have more time to file charges of discrimination for sexual harassment. Historically, Texas employees who believe they have been subjected to unlawful employment practices (e.g., discrimination based on race, nationality, color, age, etc. or retaliation) have 180 days from the date of the alleged event to file a charge of discrimination with the Texas Workforce Commission. House Bill 21 (Tex. Lab. Code § 21.201(g)) extends that time to 300 days. The change in Texas is consistent with the broader national shift to expand protections against sexual harassment. In short, the speed and accuracy of investigations, as well as effective remedial measures, are more important than ever. Employers should also review their employee handbooks, policies, and procedures to ensure the language appropriately reflects the new laws. Polsinelli attorneys will continue to monitor further developments related to these amendments and provide updates. If you have any questions about the changes, including the potential impact on your company’s operations, contact your Polsinelli attorney.