The federal contracting landscape for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives is shifting rapidly. On March 26, 2026, President Trump issued Executive Order 14398, directing federal agencies to prohibit “racially discriminatory DEI activities” in federal contracts and across the entire supply chain. To that effect, within 30 days of the EO, federal agencies are directed to incorporate a specific clause in their federal contracts. Read the full update here.

Effective January 1, 2026, numerous state and local government employment laws have taken effect. Below is a non-exhaustive summary of key employment law updates for January 2026. For additional insights, register for the 2026 Employment Law Developments: Key Considerations for Employers webinar here. To navigate each employment law update by state, click here. Please note that the above is a non-exhaustive summary of recent employment law developments. For questions or assistance with employment law compliance in 2026, or to ensure you are informed about the latest updates, please contact your Polsinelli attorney.

What You Need to Know: Washington’s new mini-WARN Act applies to smaller employers with 50 or more full-time employees, unlike the federal WARN Act, which only applies to employers with 100 or more employees. The new mini-WARN Act includes a private right of action and penalties for affected employees against employers who violate the requirements. In addition to applying to smaller employers, the mini-WARN Act has broader notice requirements in comparison to the federal WARN Act and excludes specific employees from being part of mass layoffs. On July 27, 2025, Washington State implemented its own version of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, officially titled the Securing Timely Notification and Benefits for Laid-Off Employees Act, commonly referred to as a "mini-WARN Act." The mini-WARN Act is a state-level law that complements the federal WARN Act.  Washington joins thirteen other states (California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Vermont and Wisconsin) in implementing mini-WARN Acts. WARN Acts provide protections for employees facing layoffs or business closures. Key Aspects of the Act Notice Requirement: Under the mini-WARN Act, employers must provide at least 60 days' notice before a mass layoff or business closing (business closings can be permanent or temporary). This notice must be given to affected employees, the state, and local government officials and must contain very specific information (including anything required by the federal WARN Act, information regarding the site affected, contact information, specifics regarding the layoff or closure, anticipated dates, names and job titles for those affected, and information regarding relocation of operations/roles). The mini-WARN Act provides some limited exceptions for faltering companies, unforeseeable business circumstances, and natural disasters. The mini-WARN Act also has certain exceptions related to sales of business and mass layoff for specific construction projects. Who is Covered: The mini-WARN Act applies to employers with 50 or more employees in the state of Washington. This is a broader scope than the federal WARN Act, which only covers employers with 100 or more employees. The mini-WARN Act applies to mass layoffs or business closings affecting 50 or more full-time employees, which is similar to the federal WARN Act; however, the “single site of employment” requirement is different in the mini-WARN Act. Under the federal WARN Act, employee counts are based on separations at a single site of employment for both mass layoffs and business closures. Under Washington’s new mini-WARN Act, the “single site of employment” requirement is only applicable to business closings. In other words, the mini-WARN Act will apply to mass layoffs affecting multiple sites if the total layoffs accumulate to 50 or more. Additionally, of note, under the mini-WARN Act, employees are any people employed in the state of Washington by an employer. Employee Protections: By providing 60 days’ notice of a job loss, the mini-WARN Act aims to give employees time to prepare for job loss, seek new employment, or pursue retraining opportunities. The mini-WARN Act also protects employees currently on leave under Washington Paid Family and Medical Leave law by preventing an employer from including such an employee in a mass layoff. Penalties for Non-Compliance: Employers who fail to comply with the notice requirements may face penalties, including up to 60 days of back pay and benefits for each day of violation for each affected employee, $500 per day in penalties, and attorneys’ fees. Employers should familiarize themselves with the new requirements to navigate this evolving landscape effectively. As the mini-WARN Act takes effect, it is crucial for businesses to review their policies and procedures to ensure compliance, especially prior to layoffs, closures, and reductions in work. For questions and assistance regarding the Washington mini-WARN Act, other state mini-WARN Acts, or the federal WARN Act, please 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.

Key Takeaways The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 Report filing opened on May 20, 2025, with a submission deadline of June 24, 2025, and no extensions being granted. Employers must select a workforce snapshot from October 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024. Filing is mandatory for private employers with 100 or more employees, federal contractors with 50 or more employees and certain affiliated private employers. As anticipated, 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 Report filing officially opened May 20, 2025, on the EEO-1 Data Collection website. The EEOC has expressed that, as part of cost savings, the filing period for EEO-1 data will be shorter than in the past. Specifically, employers will have a deadline for submission of June 24, 2025. It is important to note that no extensions will be granted this year, making timely compliance essential. In addition to the shorter time period for submission, there are additional changes to the 2024 EEO-1 reporting as discussed here. Filing Requirements The EEO-1 Report is a mandatory annual data collection that requires certain employers to submit demographic workforce data, including data by race/ethnicity, sex and job categories. The following entities are required to file: Private employers with 100 or more employees; Federal contractors with 50 or more employees; and Private employers with fewer than 100 employees who are affiliated through centralized control or ownership with other entities, totaling 100 or more employees. To complete their report, employers must select a workforce snapshot from any pay period between October 1, 2024, and December 31, 2024, for both full-time and part-time employees. Compliance Assistance Polsinelli understands the complexities involved in the EEO-1 reporting process and are committed to helping employers meet their obligations efficiently and effectively. If you have questions about EEO-1 reporting, contact Erin Schilling, Shivani Bailey or your Polsinelli attorney.

Key Takeaways The 2024 EEO-1 Report is expected to open May 20 pending approval of the instruction book and justification. The EEO-1 is expected to eliminate the option to report non-binary employees. Employers should confirm how their system collects data on the sex of employees to comply with binary-only gender reporting. On April 15, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) submitted its 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 Instruction Booklet and justification to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), containing potential changes that may impact employers. This booklet indicates that 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 reporting will begin on Tuesday, May 20, 2025, with the deadline to file on Tuesday, June 24, 2025. The 2024 report will cover employee data from the payroll period between October 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. These reporting dates remain tentative as OIRA must approve the booklet, which can take 30-60 days from the date of submission. Final dates will be posted on the EEO-1 reporting page. Understanding the EEO-1 Reporting Requirements The EEO-1 is an annual requirement that certain employers submit demographic workforce data, including information on race, ethnicity and sex by job group. The EEO-1 report is required for employers with 100 or more employees and employers with less than 100 employees who are related to other entities, such that combined, there are over 100 employees. Changes are Expected to the 2024 EEO-1 Executive Order 14168: Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government could have an impact on EEO-1 reporting, particularly concerning the recognition of sex. Executive Order 14168 reinforced the federal government's stance on recognizing only two sexes—male and female. In recent reporting periods, employers were instructed to report non-binary employees by footnote. EEOC is seeking approval to remove the option for employers to voluntarily report on employees who have self-identified as “non-binary” in order to comply with Executive Order 14168. This change would mean that the booklet’s instructions on “Reporting by Sex” would be restated to: “The EEO-1 Component 1 data collection provides only binary options (i.e., male or female) for reporting employee counts by sex, job category, and race or ethnicity.” What Employers Should Do Now? To ensure compliance with the new EEO-1 reporting requirements, employers should review and update their data collection processes. This includes auditing current systems to ensure they can accommodate the reporting of sex as needed. Employers should also stay informed about any updates or clarifications issued by the EEOC regarding the implementation of these changes. Polsinelli will continue to monitor developments with the EEO-1 report. If you have questions about EEO-1 reporting, contact Erin Schilling, Shivani Bailey or your Polsinelli attorney.

On March 20, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released two key guidance documents focusing on DEI-related discrimination in the workplace. These documents are written as guidance for employees and outline ways the EEOC believes initiatives could lead to unlawful discrimination, including disparate treatment, reverse discrimination, segregation and harassment. The guidance stresses the importance of regular policy reviews, comprehensive training and legal consultation to navigate DEI-related challenges effectively and remain compliant with Title VII protections. Read the full update. 

On March 14, 2025, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the Trump administration to enforce executive orders (EOs) aimed at restricting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs while litigation continues. These EOs have sparked legal challenges, with the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education arguing they violate constitutional rights. Federal agencies like the Department of Education (DOE), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are actively investigating and issuing guidance to ensure compliance with the new rules, such as prohibiting the use of race in admissions and hiring decisions. Despite this, 14 state Attorneys General have pushed back, asserting that race can still be considered in admissions if it relates to a student’s personal experiences. Organizations, especially federal contractors, should consider carefully reviewing and updating their DEI policies and practices in light of these ongoing legal developments. Read the full update.

Many state and local government employment laws went into effect January 1, 2025. Here is a non-exhaustive list of 2025 employment law updates. Contact your Polsinelli attorney if you have any questions or need assistance regarding employment law compliance for these legal updates. Polsinelli provides this material for informational purposes only. This material is not intended for use as legal guidance. Please consult with a lawyer to evaluate your specific situation. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisement. Copyright © 2025. Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California, Polsinelli PC (Inc) in Florida.

On November 15, 2024, the Office of Federal Contractor Compliance Programs (OFCCP) published its Corporate Scheduling Announcement List (CSAL) online, identifying contractors who will be receiving an audit scheduling letter in the coming year. Contractors were selected based on a variety of considerations, including higher employee count. This CSAL includes 2,000 establishments of supply and service contractors with federal contracts. The list identifies the specific review types that contractors will be subject to, including 1,880 standard establishment reviews, 60 corporate management compliance evaluations, 48 functional affirmative action program reviews, and 12 university reviews. A full copy of the lists can be found here. OFCCP does not make any promises regarding how soon each compliance review will be initiated and has stated it depends on the agency’s workload. Contractors on the CSAL can expect to receive a scheduling letter at any point after the CSAL is posted with some receiving notice quickly and others waiting many months. Contractors will have only 30 days to respond to the scheduling letter once received. Accordingly, the advance notice provided by the CSAL can be a valuable opportunity for contractors to prepare for an upcoming audit, collect the data and documents the contractor will be required to submit to OFCCP within a relatively short period after receipt of the scheduling letter, and identify any potential compliance vulnerabilities that may need to be addressed during the audit process. Contractors named in the CSAL should consider consulting with experienced counsel to assist in preparing for the forthcoming audit scheduling letter and to take advantage of this valuable preparation time. Polsinelli regularly represents federal contractors and subcontractors in OFCCP audits, and is available for consultation with contractors identified in the CSAL. 

On November 13, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a sharply divided decision in Amazon.com Services LLC, overruling yet another decades-old rule and holding that captive-‍audience meetings violate national labor law after being lawful since 1948. Captive-Audience Meetings. A captive-audience meeting occurs when employees are required to attend a meeting where the employer expresses its views on unionization. Under Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”), employers are allowed to express those views so long as there is “no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.” In 1948, the NLRB decided in Babcock & Wilcox Co. that the Act generally does not prohibit captive-audience meetings, even when attendance is compelled through implicit or explicit threats of discipline. The New Ruling. Calling the Babcock & Wilcox rule “largely unexplained” and “flawed as a matter of statutory policy,” the NLRB majority overruled the 76-year-old decision and held that captive-audience meetings and “other similar mandatory employer-employee encounters” are unfair labor practices under Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The majority explained that such meetings “have a reasonable tendency to interfere with and coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 right to freely decide whether or not to unionize” when employees should “be free from such domination.” Under this decision, an employer violates the Act whenever it requires employees to attend a meeting for the employer to express its views on unionization, regardless of whether those expressions support or oppose unionization. What Meetings are Allowed? Under the majority’s decision, a voluntary workplace meeting during work hours is lawful if, reasonably in advance of the meeting, the employer provides and follows through with the following assurances to its employees: The employer intends to express its views on unionization at a meeting at which attendance is voluntary; Employees will not be subject to discipline, discharge, or other adverse consequences for failing to attend the meeting or for leaving the meeting; and The employer will not keep records of which employees attend, fail to attend, or leave the meeting. The Dissent. Member Kaplan, in a lengthy dissent, argued that an employer’s right to hold a captive-audience meeting is supported by the free speech provision in Section 8(c) of the Act, that they are not coercive, and that the majority’s decision unconstitutionally infringes on an employer’s right to free speech. To comply with the NLRB’s majority decision, employers should carefully adhere to the above guidelines for voluntary meetings. For questions and assistance regarding such meetings, please contact your Polsinelli attorney.

On November 8, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a decision in Siren Retail Corp. d/b/a Starbucks, throwing out an almost 40-year-old rule that categorically allowed employers to tell their employees how unionization will impact the employer-employee relationship. The NLRB’s new standard will apply to cases filed after November 8, 2024. The Prior Standard. In 1985, the NLRB decided in Tri-Cast, Inc. that employers may lawfully tell their employees that, when they unionize, their relationship will change, and the employer will no longer be able to address individual grievances once the union is involved. Since that time, Tri-Cast, Inc. has been broadly applied as a categorical rule that explaining the negative consequences of unionization is not an unlawful threat, so long as the employer’s statements are truthful. The Starbucks Case. In Siren Retail Corp., the NLRB criticized the Tri-Cast, Inc. standard because it “categorically immunized nearly any employer statement to employees touching on the impact that unionization would have on the relationship between individual employees and their employer” when such statements “could have a reasonable tendency to coerce employees.” Although the NLRB kept the Tri-Cast, Inc. standard for the Siren Retail Corp. case to avoid an unfair result, it prospectively overruled Tri-Cast, Inc. for all cases filed after November 8, 2024. The “New” Standard. The NLRB’s decision in Siren Retail Corp. effectively tosses out the Tri-Cast, Inc. standard in favor of returning to an even older approach set forth in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1969. Under the Gissel rule, an employer’s statements concerning the potential impact of unionization are evaluated on a case-by-case basis and must be “carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact to convey an employer’s belief as to demonstrably probable consequences beyond his control.” But if, under that case’s circumstances, the statement implies that the employer will act differently “solely on his own initiative for reasons unrelated to economic necessities,” then the statement will be considered an unlawful threat. What Should Employers Do Now? The “new” standard requires an employer’s statements to be not only substantiated with facts beyond the employer’s control but also carefully worded. Because it involves a case-by-case analysis, employers will not have certainty about the risks and legality of their communications. As such, it will be critical for employers to vet communications to employees about unionization efforts with experienced counsel. For questions and assistance regarding your statements to employees and how to comply with this new standard, please contact your Polsinelli attorney.

Many state and local government employment laws go into effect this summer. Here is a non-exhaustive list of mid-year employment law updates. To hear a discussion on what you need to know from 2024 and more information about complying with these changing laws, regulations, and rulings, we invite you to register here for a webinar on September 26 from 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM ET. Contact your Polsinelli attorney if you have any questions or need assistance regarding employment law compliance for these legal updates.

On June 7, 2024, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) released its first Corporate Scheduling Announcement List (CSAL) for fiscal year 2024. Specifically, this list identifies around 500 federal supply and service contractors and subcontractors that will be audited. The CSAL can be found here and the OFCCP answers to CSAL-related questions can be found here. Of the 500 contractors and subcontractors identified, 440 are establishment-based reviews, 30 are corporate management compliance evaluations (CMCE) focused on the contractor’s headquarters, 24 are functional affirmative action plan (FAAP) reviews, and 6 are university reviews. The release of the CSAL does not indicate that audits are beginning but rather, informs contractors and subcontractors that they have been identified for audit. This allows contractors and subcontractors advance notice and can be very helpful in providing time to prepare for the audit, gather data and documents necessary for the audit, and identify any potential issues that may need to be addressed before or during the audit. Before formally initiating an audit, OFCCP sends contractors and subcontractors a Scheduling Letter. Scheduling Letters are often issued around 45 days after the CSAL is released, and as such, it can be difficult and rushed for contractors and subcontractors to prepare for the audit. Polsinelli regularly represents federal contractors and subcontractors in OFCCP audits and is available for consultation with contractors and subcontractors identified in the CSAL.

Tuesday, June 4, 2024, is the deadline to submit and certify the 2023 EEO-1 Component 1 Report to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). While the deadline has been extended occasionally in prior years, no such announcement has been made to date. Accordingly, all covered employers should take steps to comply by the deadline. The importance of meeting this annual reporting requirement was further emphasized this week when the EEOC filed suit against 15 employers in various industries across 10 states for failing to submit their EEO-1 Component 1 Reports for past years, including for the years 2021 and 2022. Additional information regarding reporting requirements and whether your company is required to submit and certify can be found here. Polsinelli will continue to monitor developments with EEO-1 reporting and the above-referenced EEOC lawsuits. If you have questions about EEO-1 reporting or need assistance preparing this report, contact your Polsinelli attorney.

As we reported last month, effective January 1, 2024, non-compete agreements in California are unenforceable regardless of where the contract is signed. This means employees who sign non-competes outside California, then move to California and seek new employment in violation of the non-compete, can rely on California law to invalidate the non-compete. Practically speaking, this creates unpredictable challenges for employers with mobile or largely remote workforces. More importantly, AB 1076 makes it unlawful for employers to include a non-compete clause in an employment contract or require an employee to enter a non-compete. Any employer who uses, or attempts to use, a non-compete with employees working in California can now be sued by those employees, and the law entitles the employee to an injunction, damages, and attorneys’ fees in the lawsuit. In addition, by February 14 – next week – employers must provide notice to any current or former employee employed after January 1, 2022, that their non-compete clause or non-compete agreement is void. This notice must be individualized and, in writing, sent to the employee’s last known mailing and email address. Employers who fail to provide the required notice on time may be assessed a civil penalty of up to $2,500 per violation. Members of Polsinelli’s Restrictive Covenant and Trade Secret Practice Group are available to assist employers in mitigating the risks of using non-competes and other restrictive covenants with employees.

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.

Chicago employers will soon need to ensure that they provide leave in accordance with a new Chicago law. Specifically, on December 31, 2023, the Paid Leave and Paid Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance will go into effect in the City of Chicago. This new law will require employers to provide Chicago employees up to 40 hours of paid sick leave to be available for use for specific sick leave purposes AND up to 40 hours of paid leave to be used for any reason each year. By December 31, 2023, employers must have a written policy in place, give notice of the policy to their employees, and post a notice to be provided by the City of Chicago. The Chicago ordinance applies to any employers with at least one employee who work at least two hours in a two-week period in the City of Chicago. Employers can choose for paid leave to accrue throughout the year or front-load the required leave for employees at the beginning of the year. If employees accrue leave throughout the year, each covered employee must accrue one hour of paid sick leave and one hour of paid leave to be used for any reason for every 35 hours an employee works. Under the ordinance, employers may have to pay out unused paid leave available for use for any reason upon separation of employment or transfer of employment outside Chicago, depending on the size of the employer. Specifically, employers with 100 or more employees must pay out accrued but unused paid leave that is available for use for any reason upon separation of employment or if the employee transfers to work outside of Chicago. Employers with 51-100 employees must pay out up to 16 hours of this leave through January 1, 2025. After January 1, 2025, these employees will have to pay out all accrued but unused paid leave available for use for any reason. Employers with 50 or less employees have no pay out requirements. Additionally, the pay out requirements do not apply to accrued but unused paid sick leave. Further, Chicago employees must be allowed to rollover up to 80 hours of accrued but unused paid sick leave and 16 hours of general paid leave at the end of the year. If you have questions or would like assistance preparing paid leave policies, contact your Polsinelli attorney.

On October 31, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will open the 2022 EEO-1 Component 1 Report for employers to report the race, ethnicity and gender of their employees (by job category) with a due date on December 5, 2023. Of note, the relevant data should be gathered based on an employer’s workforce from October 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022. This reporting is mandatory for private sector employees with 100 or more employees, employers with less than 100 employees who are related to other entities so there is a combined employee count over 100 employees may be required to report and certain federal contractors with 50 or more employees. The EEOC is in the process of releasing numerous resources to assist employers in reporting, including the Filer Support Message System that will open on October 31, 2023, the Instruction Booklet released on September 6, 2023, and the Data Upload Specifications which is anticipated to be released on September 13, 2023. At this time, there are no known changes to the substance of what employers must report but the actual report may look different and likely will be streamlined; however, that is only for the 2022 EEO-1 Reporting and is subject to change in the following years. Polsinelli will continue to monitor developments with the EEO-1 report. If you have questions about EEO-1 reporting, contact your Polsinelli attorney.

Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana) issued an en banc decision in Hamilton v. Dallas County holding employees no longer have to show they were subject to an “ultimate employment decision” in pleading Title VII discrimination claims. Previously, Title VII discrimination claimants in the Fifth Circuit had to establish an “ultimate employment decision” such as hiring, firing, granting leave, promoting, or unfairly compensating employees. Now, plaintiffs need only allege discrimination affecting “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” This brings the Fifth Circuit standard in line with many other circuits, including the Fourth, Sixth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits. Hamilton involved a Dallas County policy allowing male detention center officers to have full weekends off while female officers were not. The Fifth Circuit was not persuaded that this sex-based scheduling policy was acceptable under Title VII’s statutory text. Hamilton broadens the types of personnel actions providing the basis for a cognizable Title VII discrimination claim in the Fifth Circuit. However, the Court did not define a particular standard for “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” other than reminding us that “de minimis workplace trifles” are not enough. At the very least, this decision serves as a worthwhile reminder that “[n]owhere does Title VII say, explicitly or implicitly, that employment discrimination is lawful if limited to non-ultimate employment decisions.” Employers with operations in the Fifth Circuit should review their policies to ensure (1) they are consistent with the new standard and (2) they are being neutrally applied. If you have any questions or need assistance in revising your company’s policies, consult your Polsinelli attorney.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, private sector employers with 100 or more employees and certain federal contractors with 50 or more employees are required to provide demographic information of their workforces—otherwise known as EEO-1 Component 1 reporting. This includes data such as sex, race, ethnicity, and job categories. The 2022 reporting period has been delayed. It is currently scheduled to open in the fall of 2023—with no date set in stone. The EEOC is in the process of doing a three-year renewal of EEO-1 Component 1 reporting with the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) which is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. While the Biden administration has expressed support for collecting compensation data with the EEO-1 report, EEOC has made clear on the EEO-1 Component 1 page that it is not making changes to the EEO-1 Component 1 data collection categories.  Rather, EEOC is seeking to update how the data is collected from employers and to reduce the burden of this collection on employers, including no longer requiring “multi-establishment filers” to submit separate reports based on the size of establishments. While EEOC has not announced a deadline for 2022 EEO-1 Component 1 reporting, required employers and contractors should continue ensuring they are collecting the necessary demographic data to be ready for the deadline. Once a deadline is determined, it will be posted on the EEO-1 Component 1 page, and employers should note that the actual reporting process may look different (and may be less burdensome) if the OMB approves changes to the data collection methods. If you have questions about required notices, contact your Polsinelli attorney.

On June 29, 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (along with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. the University of North Carolina, et al.), bringing an end to a near decade long legal battle regarding affirmative action at universities. The Court struck down affirmative action policies that provide a “plus” or a “tip” to applicants based on race, holding instead that the Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (applicable to federally-funded programs) require colorblindness. As it relates to private-sector employers, the decision is only indirectly applicable because such employers are generally not subject to the Constitution’s equal protection clause and are governed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, rather than Title VI.  Generally speaking, Title VII case law does not permit the use of race in employment decision-making in the same fashion as universities have used race in admissions decisions.  However, the decision’s strong language regarding the application of Title VI’s language – which is nearly identical to Title VII’s – to affirmative action programs that arguably seek to benefit certain minority groups, will likely bleed over into Title VII case law. Despite the decision, however, affirmative action is not banned, so long as it is not a quota or determining factor.  Employers may continue to focus their affirmative action efforts on increasing the pipeline of qualified applicants from underrepresented groups.  Employers are not required to abandon their ongoing DEI efforts, but should be mindful of the potential for discrimination claims (which may include reverse discrimination claims). It would be prudent to review your company’s DEI commitments and initiatives, along with hiring policies, to ensure they are encouraging diversity while not crossing the line into discrimination.  This is particularly true given the publicity the Supreme Court’s decision has generated. Polsinelli has experience advising employers on crafting compliant affirmative action programs.  If you need assistance with such programs, or have any questions about the decision, including the potential impact on your company, or need assistance in reviewing your initiatives and policies, contact your Polsinelli attorney.