EEOC Announces Enforcement Focus on “Illegal Preferences Against American Workers”
On Wednesday, February 19, 2025, Acting Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) Chair Andrea R. Lucas announced the EEOC plans to target employers that “illegally prefer non-American workers,” as well as “staffing agencies and other agents that unlawfully comply with client companies’ illegal preferences against American workers” through increased enforcement of Title VII’s national origin protections.
This latest statement expounds upon the enforcement priorities Lucas laid out in her January 21, 2025, statement, which included “protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination.”
This week, Lucas explained that the EEOC intends to partner with other federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Labor to achieve “enhanced investigation and enforcement” of Title VII protections for American employees.
Notably, the announcement also indicates that the EEOC’s enforcement focus will include non-American employees who are authorized to work in the United States, including “visa holders and other legal immigrants.” Citing a “large-scale problem in multiple industries nationwide,” Lucas stated that the EEOC is committed to not only “decreasing demand for illegal alien workers,” but also “decreasing abuse of the United States’ legal immigration system.”
As Proskauer previously reported, the EEOC still lacks a quorum, which may limit the Commission’s ability to effect Lucas’s agenda, as Commission approval is required before the EEOC initiates a case alleging a systemic pattern or practice of discrimination.
DOL’s Power to Set Salary Minimum for Overtime Exemption Ripe for SCOTUS Review
On February 14, 2025, the Fifth Circuit denied the appellants’ petition for rehearing en banc in Mayfield v. United States Dep’t of Labor—a September 2024 decision holding that the U.S. Department of Labor’s authority to “define” and “delimit” the terms of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) exemptions includes the power to set a minimum salary for exemption.
The dispute in Mayfield dates back to 2019, when the DOL issued a final rule raising the minimum salary required to qualify for most EAP exemptions from $455 per week to $684 per week. Mayfield, a small business owner, challenged the rule, arguing that the DOL lacks, and has always lacked, the authority to define the EAP exemptions in terms of salary level (as opposed to by job duties)—an argument that has been embraced repeatedly by the Texas federal district courts (see here and here). The district court granted the DOL’s motion for summary judgment, and Mayfield appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals held that the DOL was empowered to set a minimum salary for exemption—albeit with some meaningful limitations. Last week’s decision denying en banc review tees the issue up for a certiorari petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not exactly been a big fan of regulatory activism as of late.
In related news, we’re expecting the DOL to drop its pre-Inauguration Day appeal of the November 2024 decision invalidating the 2024 overtime rule. We just can’t see this White House having any interest in continuing to appeal a decision curbing agency rulemaking power and saving American businesses untold billions in new overtime expenses.
DOL Appeal of Decision Invalidating 2024 Overtime Rule Likely on Last Legs
On November 15, 2024, in State of Texas v. United States Dep’t of Labor, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) exceeded its rulemaking authority by issuing a rule in April 2024 raising the minimum salary for exemption as an executive, administrative, or professional (EAP) employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Under the DOL’s rule, the minimum salary for exemption as an EAP employee, with limited exceptions, increased from $684 per week ($35,568 annualized) to $844 per week ($43,888 annualized) effective July 1, 2024. A second increase would have raised the salary threshold to $1,128 per week ($58,656 annualized) effective January 1, 2025. The rule also increased the minimum total annual compensation level for exemption as a “highly compensated employee” (HCE) and provided for automatic triennial increases in the minimum compensation levels for exemption beginning on July 1, 2027. The November 2024 decision declared the DOL’s rule an “unlawful exercise of agency power” and vacated it nationally.
The DOL—represented by the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division—filed an appeal of the decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, notwithstanding that the incoming Trump administration was all but guaranteed to have no interest in appealing a decision curbing agency rulemaking power and saving American businesses untold billions in new overtime expenses. Lo and behold, within 48 hours after Inauguration Day, the government requests a 30-day extension of time, through March 7, 2025, to file its opening brief on appeal “because of the press of other business.” We wouldn’t hold our breath for the Trump Justice Department filing anything more in this case other than a stipulation withdrawing the appeal.
So is the DOL done rulemaking with respect to the minimum salary for exemption? It may be for the next four years, but likely not forever. The Fifth Circuit’s September 2024 decision in Mayfield v. United States Dep’t of Labor held that the DOL’s authority to “define” and “delimit” the terms of the EAP exemptions includes the power to set a minimum salary for exemption—albeit with some meaningful limitations. On February 14, 2025, the Fifth Circuit denied Mayfield’s petition for rehearing en banc. We’ll see if Mayfield tries to take the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.
How to Report Cyber, AI, and Emerging Technologies Fraud and Qualify for an SEC Whistleblower Award
SEC Forms Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit
On February 20, 2025, the SEC announced the creation of the Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit (CETU) to focus on combatting cyber-related misconduct and to protect retail investors from bad actors in the emerging technologies space. In announcing the formation of the CETU, Acting Chairman Mark T. Uyeda said:
The unit will not only protect investors but will also facilitate capital formation and market efficiency by clearing the way for innovation to grow. It will root out those seeking to misuse innovation to harm investors and diminish confidence in new technologies.
As detailed below, the SEC’s press release identifies CETU’s seven priority areas to combat fraud and misconduct. Whistleblowers can provide original information to the SEC about these types of violations and qualify for an award if their tip leads to a successful SEC enforcement action. The largest SEC whistleblower awards to date are:
$279 million SEC whistleblower award (May 5, 2023)
$114 million SEC whistleblower award (October 22, 2020)
$110 million SEC whistleblower award (September 15, 2021)
$104 million SEC whistleblower award (August 4, 2023)
$98 million SEC whistleblower award (August 23, 2024)
SEC Whistleblower Program
Under the SEC Whistleblower Program, the SEC will issue awards to whistleblowers who provide original information that leads to successful enforcement actions with total monetary sanctions in excess of $1 million. A whistleblower may receive an award of between 10% and 30% of the total monetary sanctions collected. The SEC Whistleblower Program allows whistleblowers to submit tips anonymously if represented by an attorney in connection with their disclosure.
In its short history, the SEC Whistleblower Program has had a tremendous impact on securities enforcement and has been replicated by other domestic and foreign regulators. Since 2011, the SEC has received an increasing number of whistleblower tips in nearly every fiscal year. In fiscal year 2024, the SEC received nearly 25,000 whistleblower tips and awarded over $225 million to whistleblowers.
The uptick in received tips, paired with the sizable awards given to whistleblowers, reflects the growth and continued success of the whistleblower program. See some of the SEC whistleblower cases that have resulted in large awards.
CETU Priority Areas for SEC Enforcement
The CETU will target seven areas of fraud and misconduct for SEC enforcement:
Fraud committed using emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning. For example, the SEC charged QZ Asset Management for allegedly falsely claiming that it would use its proprietary AI-based technology to help generate extraordinary weekly returns while promising “100%” protection for client funds. In a separate action, the SEC settled charges against investment advisers Delphia and Global Predictions for making false and misleading statements about their purported use of AI in their investment process.
Use of social media, the dark web, or false websites to perpetrate fraud. For example, the SEC charged Abraham Shafi, the founder and former CEO of Get Together Inc., a privately held social media startup known as “IRL,” for raising approximately $170 million from investors by allegedly fraudulently portraying IRL as a viral social media platform that organically attracted the vast majority of its purported 12 million users. In reality, IRL spent millions of dollars on advertisements that offered incentives to download the IRL app. Shafi hid those expenditures with offering documents that significantly understated the company’s marketing expenses and by routing advertising platform payments through third parties.
Hacking to obtain material nonpublic information. For example, the SEC brought charges against a U.K. citizen for allegedly hacking into the computer systems of public companies to obtain material nonpublic information and using that information to make millions of dollars in illicit profits by trading in advance of the companies’ public earnings announcements.
Takeovers of retail brokerage accounts. For example, the SEC charged two affiliates of JPMorgan Chase & Co. for failures including misleading disclosures to investors, breach of fiduciary duty, prohibited joint transactions and principal trades, and failures to make recommendations in the best interest of customers. According to the SEC’s order, a JP Morgan affiliate made misleading disclosures to brokerage customers who invested in its “Conduit” private funds products, which pooled customer money and invested it in private equity or hedge funds that would later distribute to the Conduit private funds shares of companies that went public. The order finds that, contrary to the disclosures, a JP Morgan affiliate exercised complete discretion over when to sell and the number of shares to be sold. As a result, investors were subject to market risk, and the value of certain shares declined significantly as JP Morgan took months to sell the shares.
Fraud involving blockchain technology and crypto assets. For example, the SEC brought charges against Terraform Labs and its founder Do Kwon for orchestrating a multi-billion dollar crypto asset securities fraud involving an algorithmic stablecoin and other crypto asset securities. In a separate action, the SEC brought charges against FTX CEO Samuel Bankman-Fried for a years-long fraud to conceal from FTX’s investors (1) the undisclosed diversion of FTX customers’ funds to Alameda Research LLC, his privately-held crypto hedge fund; (2) the undisclosed special treatment afforded to Alameda on the FTX platform, including providing Alameda with a virtually unlimited “line of credit” funded by the platform’s customers and exempting Alameda from certain key FTX risk mitigation measures; and (3) undisclosed risk stemming from FTX’s exposure to Alameda’s significant holdings of overvalued, illiquid assets such as FTX-affiliated tokens.
Regulated entities’ compliance with cybersecurity rules and regulations. For example, the SEC settled charges against transfer agent Equiniti Trust Company LLC, formerly known as American Stock Transfer & Trust Company LLC, for failures to ensure that client securities and funds were protected against theft or misuse, which led to losses of millions of dollars in client funds.
Public issuer fraudulent disclosure relating to cybersecurity. For example, the SEC settled charges against software company Blackbaud Inc. for making misleading disclosures about a 2020 ransomware attack that impacted more than 13,000 customers. Blackbaud agreed to pay a $3 million civil penalty to settle the charges. In a separate action, the SEC settled charges against The Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and nine wholly owned subsidiaries, including the New York Stock Exchange, for failing to timely inform the SEC of a cyber intrusion as required by Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity.
How to Report Fraud to the SEC and Qualify for an SEC Whistleblower Award
To report a fraud (or any other violations of the federal securities laws) and qualify for an award under the SEC Whistleblower Program, the SEC requires that whistleblowers or their attorneys report the tip online through the SEC’s Tip, Complaint or Referral Portal or mail/fax a Form TCR to the SEC Office of the Whistleblower. Prior to submitting a tip, whistleblowers should consult with an experienced whistleblower attorney and review the SEC whistleblower rules to, among other things, understand eligibility rules and consider the factors that can significantly increase or decrease the size of a future whistleblower award.
ICE Inspections in the Workplace: What Employers Need to Know
With the increasing activity by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), employers should be aware of their responsibilities and how to interact with ICE agents. Generally, ICE agents may inspect a business for workplace enforcement or to conduct inspections of employee I-9 documentation. It is imperative that employers are aware of how to best prepare and respond to these types of situations.
What Information Should Employers Obtain from ICE Agents During a Workplace Interaction?
If ICE agents visit the workplace, employers should immediately contact counsel regarding next steps. ICE agents are required to identify themselves and present proper documentation regarding the proposed search, to enter nonpublic areas of the workplace.
Here are a few steps to follow if ICE agents appear at your place of business:
Ask the ICE agents to identify themselves with their badge information and a valid subpoena or warrant.
Document each of the ICE agent’s names, the name of the U.S. attorney assigned to the case, and the type of documentation presented for your records.
Ask the ICE agents to inform you of the nature and purpose of their visit.
Ask for a copy of the warrant or subpoena. You do not have to allow ICE agents access to nonpublic areas of the workplace if a proper warrant is not present.
Once you are handed a warrant and documentation from ICE agents, tell the ICE agent that “It is our company’s policy to call our lawyer and I am doing that now.” Contact your legal counsel immediately so that they can review the documents, ensure that the warrant is valid, and whether they should be present during the search.
Do not obstruct or interfere with ICE activities or agents. Do not hide employees or help them evade the search. Do not provide any false information, shred documents, or hide documents.
Create a list of employees present during the raid.
What Parts of the Workplace Can ICE Enter?
ICE is permitted to enter publicly accessible areas of a business without a warrant. However, to enter non-public areas of a business, ICE agents are required to present, upon request, a proper warrant or subpoena. ICE generally operates using either an ICE-issued warrant, or a warrant issued by a state or federal judge in the jurisdiction in which the inspection is occurring. Only a warrant signed by a judge gives ICE agents access to the private areas of a workplace. To determine whether a judicial warrant is valid, ensure that the warrant:
States “U.S. District Court” or a California Superior Court (if in California)
Is signed by a judge
Describes the physical place to be searched
Describes the individuals to be searched or describes the items to be seized, if any
Is dated
Has been issued within the past 14 calendar days
If the warrant is missing any of these requirements, it is invalid, and employers are permitted to refrain from permitting ICE agents from entering private areas of the workplace.
What Can Employers Tell Their Employees To Do During an ICE Inspection?
If ICE agents seek to speak with an employee in the workplace during an investigation, employees do have the right to remain silent and obtain legal counsel.
What Should Employers Do Next?
Employers should have policies in place to ensure a smooth process if ICE agents conduct an inspection at the workplace. Here are some recommendations:
Indicate which areas of the office are considered public and which areas are nonpublic – since ICE can only enter public areas, if there are areas marked “Employees Only,” those are nonpublic, and ICE cannot enter without a valid warrant.
Assign an employee to be the designated representative if ICE agents visit the premises to accompany the agent(s) during an inspection. The employee may take notes or videotape the officer. The employee should note any items seized and ask the officer if copies can be made before the originals are taken. If ICE does not agree, you can obtain copies later.
Ask for a list of items seized during the search. Agents are required to provide you with an inventory of items taken.
Contact counsel for further assistance on next steps.
What Differentiates an ICE Inspection from a Notice of Inspection (NOI)?
Federal law requires that employers have an I-9 form on file for each employee within three days of an employee’s hire date to prove that the employee is authorized to work in the U.S. A Form I-9 investigation is initiated when ICE serves the employer with a Notice of Inspection (NOI) – this should not be confused with a warrant, which is addressed above. Employers are required to deliver notice to their employees within 72 hours of receiving the NOI regarding the inspection.
If ICE serves a NOI, immediately contact counsel. Additionally, employers are entitled to up to three business days to produce their employee’s I-9 forms and, if ICE determines that one or more employees are not authorized to work in the United States, employers have up to 10 days to provide valid work authorization for these employees. The employer must notify any employees who the NOI indicates are not authorized to work in the United States of that determination within 72 hours.
Ultimately, when interacting with ICE, employers should immediately contact counsel to determine next steps and the appropriate course of action.
New York ALJ Upholds Convenience of Employer Rule Despite Employee Working Remotely Out-Of-State During COVID Lockdowns
In yet another challenge to New York’s so-called “convenience of the employer” rule, a New York Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) upheld the application of the rule against a Pennsylvania resident who worked remotely for a New York-based employer during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the Matter of the Petition of Myers and Langan, DTA No. 850197 (Jan. 8, 2025).
The Facts: Richard Myers, a resident of Pennsylvania, worked in New York for the Bank of Montreal (“BMO”) which provides a broad range of personal and commercial banking, wealth management, global markets, and investment banking products and services. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, BMO temporarily closed its New York City office on March 16, 2020 and required employees to find alternative working arrangements. Mr. Myers worked from a BMO disaster recovery site in New Jersey on March 16 and March 17 and worked exclusively from his home in Pennsylvania for the remainder of the year. On his New York State nonresident income tax return, Mr. Myers claimed a refund of $104,182, which the New York Division of Taxation partially disallowed, leading to an audit and subsequent recalculation of his income allocation.
The Decision: The ALJ determined that Mr. Myers’ wages were correctly allocated to New York under the convenience of the employer rule. The rule provides that any allowance claimed for days worked outside New York for a New York-based employer must be based on the necessity of the employer, not the convenience of the employee. While there was an executive order in place requiring businesses to employ work from home policies to the maximum extent possible (the “Executive Order”), the order did not apply to essential businesses, including banks and related financial institutions, such as BMO. The ALJ found that BMO, as an essential business, was not legally mandated to close its New York office, and therefore, Mr. Myers’ remote work from out-of-state was deemed to be for his convenience rather than a necessity imposed by his employer. The ALJ noted that BMO’s decision to close its office did not qualify Mr. Myers’ remote work as a necessity for the company, and there was no evidence or explanation in the record as to why BMO closed its offices.
The Takeaway: The decision underscores the consistent application of the convenience of the employer rule by New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal ALJs, even during the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision highlights the challenges nonresident employees face in proving that their remote work is a necessity for their employer. Unless there is clear evidence that the employer required the employee to work from a location outside New York, the convenience of the employer rule will apply, resulting in the allocation of income to New York. Employers need to be aware of the convenience rule, as well, as they may be required to withhold taxes in the state where the employer’s office is located, even if an employee works remotely out-of-state.
The decision suggests that if BMO were not exempt from the Executive Order as a bank or financial institution, the convenience of the employer rule would not apply, and Mr. Myers would be entitled to a refund. But, as discussed in a prior article I authored regarding application of the convenience rule, even in cases where the employer was not a bank or financial institution and was not exempt from the Executive Order, ALJs have still found that the convenience rule applies.
It remains to be seen whether appellate courts will step in to overrule ALJ decisions and find that when New York offices were closed during an unprecedented world-wide pandemic, employees were not working from their homes merely for their own convenience.
Recent Executive Orders: What Employers Need to Know to Assess the Shifting Sands
In January 2025, President Trump issued a flurry of executive orders. Several may significantly impact employers; the key aspects of these orders are described below, although this is not an exhaustive summary of every provision.
1. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Programs and Affirmative Action Compliance Obligations
The “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” Executive Order contains many provisions that may significantly impact federal contractors and private employers. First, this order revoked Executive Order 11246 (E.O. 11246), which, among other things, required federal contractors to engage in affirmative action efforts, including developing affirmative action plans concerning women and minorities. In addition to revoking E.O. 11246, President Trump’s order requires that the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) immediately cease promoting diversity, investigating federal contractors for compliance with their affirmative action efforts, and allowing or encouraging federal contractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin. Further, the order states that federal contract recipients will be required to certify that they do not “operate any programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.” This order does not impact affirmative action obligations concerning individuals with disabilities and protected veterans.
Second, private sector DEI efforts are also addressed in the order, which effectively states that the President believes such practices are illegal and violate civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. This order further provides that the Attorney General, in coordination with relevant agencies, must submit a report that identifies the most “egregious and discriminatory” DEI practices within the agency’s jurisdiction, including a plan to deter DEI programs or principles (whether the programs are denominated as DEI or not); identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profits, large foundations, select associations and/or education institutions with endowments over one billion dollars; identify “other strategies to encourage the private sector to end illegal DEI discrimination;” and identify potential litigation and regulatory action or sub-regulatory guidance that would be appropriate.
In recent weeks, several corporations have rolled back or limited their DEI programs, presumably in anticipation of, or in reaction to, this order. Notably, the order does not prohibit all DEI policies and initiatives; rather, it impacts only those determined to be discriminatory and illegal, e.g., quotas or explicit preferences for women and/or minorities. Policies focusing on workplace inclusion, broadly defining diversity, and adhering to merit-based hiring may reduce the risk of violating this order.
2. Sex and Gender as Protected Characteristics
The “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” Executive Order redefines federal policy about sex and gender, stating that the federal government will only recognize sex (meaning biological sex – male or female) and not gender. This order directs federal agencies to end initiatives that support “gender ideology”; use the term “sex” not “gender” in federal policies and documents; enforce sex-based rights and protections using the order’s definition of “sex”; and rescind all agency guidance that is inconsistent with the order, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace” (April 29, 2024), among others. This order also mandates that all government-issued identification documents, including visas, reflect the biological sex assigned at birth and seeks to limit the scope of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2020 that held that “sex discrimination” includes gender identity and sexual orientation. This order also directs the EEOC and U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to prioritize enforcement of rights as defined by the order.
3. Artificial Intelligence
In 2023, former President Biden issued an executive order regarding the potential risks associated with artificial intelligence (AI), which resulted in the DOL releasing guidance on May 16, 2024, entitled “Department of Labor’s Artificial Intelligence and Worker Well-being: Principles for Developers and Employers.” On January 23, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order regarding AI entitled “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” which rescinded President Biden’s order. President Trump’s order instructs federal advisors to review all federal agency responses to President Biden’s order and rescind those that are inconsistent with President Trump’s order. Accordingly, the DOL and any other related federal agency guidance, including the 2024 AI guidance issued by the OFCCP, will be rescinded. Employers incorporating such guidance into their policies and practices should respond appropriately. Despite this change in the federal landscape, employers should keep in mind that several states have recently passed laws governing AI use in the workplace, highlighting potential violations under federal and state anti-discrimination laws through AI use.
Below are links to the relevant Executive Orders.
Executive Order 14173 – “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”
Executive Order 14168 – “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”
Executive Order 14151 – “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing”
Executive Order 14179 – “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence”
Remote Work in Puerto Rico: A Legal Update for Global Employers
Puerto Rico has recently relaxed its requirements for remote work, implementing significant changes. The first set of changes occurred in 2022 with the enactment of Law 52-2022. In January 2024, further reforms were enacted with the signing of Law 27-2024 by then-governor Pedro Pierluisi.
Quick Hits
Puerto Rico has relaxed its remote work requirements with Law 52-2022, which exempts foreign employers without a nexus to Puerto Rico from making income tax withholdings for employees working remotely in Puerto Rico, provided certain conditions are met.
Law 27-2024, effective January 2024, clarifies that nondomiciled employees temporarily residing in Puerto Rico are exempt from Puerto Rican employment laws and contributions, with their employment governed by their domiciles’ laws.
Puerto Rico’s new remote work regulations have provided increased flexibility for foreign employers and employees, allowing remote work without the burden of local employment laws and tax obligations, reflecting a global trend toward accommodating remote work arrangements.
Law 52-2022
Law 52-2022 exempts foreign employers without a nexus to Puerto Rico from making income tax withholdings for employees working remotely in Puerto Rico, provided certain conditions are met. These conditions include:
The employer must be a foreign entity, not registered or organized under Puerto Rican laws.
The employer must have no economic nexus to Puerto Rico, meaning no business operations, tax filings, fixed place of business, or sales of goods or services in Puerto Rico through employees, independent contractors, or any affiliates.
Remote workers cannot provide services to clients with a nexus in Puerto Rico and cannot be officers, directors, or majority owners of the employer.
Employers must ensure that Social Security and payroll contributions for employees are filed either through a W-2 in the United States or in Puerto Rico.
If these conditions are met, foreign employers can hire remote workers in Puerto Rico without the obligation of withholding and remitting income taxes to the Puerto Rico Department of the Treasury (Departamento de Hacienda de Puerto Rico).
Law 27-2024
Law 27-2024 addresses which employment laws will govern the employment relationships of remote employees working from Puerto Rico for employers with no business nexus to Puerto Rico, depending on whether the employees are domiciled in Puerto Rico or elsewhere. Law 27-2024 exempts nondomiciled employees temporarily residing in Puerto Rico from Puerto Rican employment laws and contributions. These employees are not entitled to employment benefits under Puerto Rican law, including workers’ compensation, unemployment, or certain disability benefits. The employment relationship will be governed by the employment contract, or if there is no contract, by the laws of the employee’s domicile location. The employer will have no income tax withholding obligations for these employees. If there is any tax obligation, the employee will be the one to file separately.
Domicile Considerations
The concept of “domicile” is crucial in determining the applicable laws. Domicile is based on the employee’s intention to reside in a particular location. Factors such as where the employee’s family, doctors, and children’s schools are located will be considered. If an employee is domiciled in Puerto Rico, and exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), certain requirements apply. The employment relationship will be covered by an agreement between the parties, and Puerto Rican employment laws will not apply unless agreed upon. However, workers’ compensation, short-term disability, unemployment insurance, and driver’s insurance for employees who drive as part of their duties in Puerto Rico will be applicable unless the employer provides similar or greater benefits through private insurance.
Implications for Employers
Foreign employers hiring domiciled employees in Puerto Rico must comply with specific requirements. For example, if short-term disability and unemployment benefits are provided through a private policy or in another state, employers do not need to register with the Puerto Rico Department of Labor or obtain workers’ compensation insurance. However, if these benefits are not provided, employers must register and make the necessary contributions (even when income tax withholdings are not required).
Note: The exclusions and rules apply only to (i) nondomiciled employees and (ii) domiciled employees who are exempt under the FLSA. For domiciled, nonexempt employees covered by the FLSA, all Puerto Rican employment laws will be applicable.
Future Trends in Remote Work
There is a noticeable trend of employers accommodating remote work arrangements. This trend is proliferating globally, allowing employees to work remotely without being subject to local employment laws and tax obligations. Puerto Rico, as a U.S. territory, is at the forefront of this trend, providing increased flexibility for employees to work remotely and for employers to hire remote workers without the burden of compliance with local employment laws and tax obligations. Similar changes are likely to be adopted in other jurisdictions, further increasing the flexibility of remote work arrangements.
Conclusion
The new rules governing remote work in Puerto Rico represent a significant shift in employment law, providing greater flexibility for both employers and employees. As companies continue to adapt to the post-COVID-19 landscape, these changes offer a promising start for more flexible remote work arrangements.
New Jersey Updates Discrimination Law: New Rules for AI Fairness
The New Jersey AG and the Division on Civil Rights’ new guidance on algorithmic discrimination explains how AI tools might be used in ways that violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The law applies to employers in New Jersey, and some of its requirements overlap with new state “comprehensive” privacy laws. In particular, those laws’ requirements on automated decisionmaking. Those laws, however, typically do not apply in an employment context (with the exception of California). This New Jersey guidance (which mirrors what we are seeing in other states) is a reminder that privacy practitioners should keep in mind AI discrimination beyond the consumer context.
The division released the guidance last month (as reported in our sister blog) to assist businesses as they vet automated decision-making tools. In particular, to avoid unfair bias against protected characteristics like sex, race, religion, and military service. The guidance clarifies that the law prohibits “algorithmic discrimination,” which occurs when artificial intelligence (or an “automated decision-making tool”) creates biased outcomes based on protected characteristics. Key takeaways about the division’s position, as articulated in the guidance, are listed below, and can be added to practitioners’ growing rubric of requirements under the patchwork of privacy laws:
The design, training, or deployment of AI tools can lead to discriminatory outcomes. For example, the design of an AI tool may skew its decisions, or its decisions may be based on biased inputs. Similarly, data used to train tools may incorporate the developers bias and reflect those biases in their outcomes. When a business deploys a new tool incorrectly, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the outcomes can create an iterative bias.
The mechanism or type of discrimination does not matter when it comes to liability. Whether discrimination occurs through a human being or through automated tools is immaterial when it comes to liability, according to the guidance. The division’s position is if the covered entity discriminates, they have violated the NJLAD. Additionally, the type of discrimination, whether disparate or intentional, does not matter. Importantly, if an employer uses an AI tool that disproportionately impacts a protected group, then they could be liable.
AI tools might not consider reasonable accommodations and thus could result in a discriminatory outcome. The guidance points to specific incidents that could impact employers and employees. An AI tool that measures productivity may flag for discipline an individual who has timing accommodations due to a disability or a person who needs time to express breast milk. Without taking these factors into account, the result could be discriminatory.
Businesses are liable for algorithmic discrimination even if the business did not develop the tool or does not understand how it works. Given this position, employers, and other covered entities, need to understand the AI tools and automated decision-making processes and regularly assess the outcomes after deployment.
Steps businesses, and employers, can take to mitigate risk. The guidance recommends that there be quality control measures in place for the design, training, and deployment of any AI tools. Businesses should also conduct impact assessments and regular bias audits (both pre- and post- deployment). Employers and covered entities should provide notice about the use of automated decision-making tools.
Putting it into Practice: This new guidance may foreshadow a focus by the New Jersey division on employer use of AI tools. New Jersey is not the only state to contemplate AI use in the employment context. Illinois amended its employment law last year to address algorithmic bias in employment decisions. Privacy practitioners should not forget about these employment laws when developing their privacy requirements rubrics.
Listen to this post
NLRB Acting GC: Student-Athletes Are Not Employees
On February 18, 2025, National Labor Relations Board Acting General Counsel William Cowen rescinded a September 2021 memorandum in which former Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo declared college athletes should be considered employees under the National Labor Relations Act. This was one of many memoranda he rescinded that had been issued by his Biden-administration predecessor.
Acting General Counsel Cowen’s withdrawal of the memorandum is the latest in a series of defeats for pro-employee advocates who had hoped to designate collegiate student-athletes as “employees” under the Act.
The first was the December 2024 withdrawal of an unfair labor practice charge filed by the National College Players Association (NCPA) against the NCAA, the Pac-12 Conference, and a private university in the Los Angeles area. The NCPA’s executive director stated the charge had been withdrawn considering the rise of “name, image, and likeness” (NIL) payments to players, as well as the shift in attitude on the subject under the new Trump Administration.
The second blow to proponents of the concept that student-athletes be deemed “employees” was the January 2025 decision by Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 560 to withdraw its petition to represent an Ivy League university’s men’s basketball players. In February 2024, a Regional Director for the Board took the historic step of determining that the university’s men’s basketball players should be considered employees under the Act. The case was filed in September 2023 after all 15 members of the men’s basketball team signed a petition to join Local 560 of the SEIU. At the time, the Regional Director determined the university’s level of control over the players was sufficient to qualify the players as employees under Section 2(3) of the Act. The Board found that traditional “team” activities, including the university’s ability to control the players’ academic schedules and the team’s regimented schedules for home and away games, weighed heavily in favor of an employment relationship. With the petition withdrawn for now, the university’s basketball players will remain non-unionized.
Given these developments, the window for student-athletes being deemed employees under the Act appears to be closed for the time being. With the uncertainty surrounding NIL and other issues around collegiate athletics, this area of law will need to be monitored for additional developments. In the interim, private collegiate institutions should be aware that they may face charges or petitions filed with the Board. Such filings must be treated seriously in light of the Regional Director decision discussed above.
Jackson Lewis’ Education and Collegiate Sports Group is available to assist universities, conferences, and other stakeholders in dealing with matters before the Board or otherwise involving the appropriate classification of student-athletes.
Privacy Tip #432 – DOGE Sued for Unauthorized Access to Our Personal Information
The Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) staggering unfettered access to all Americans’ personal information is highly concerning. DOGE employees’ access includes databases at the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Treasury.
If you want more information about the DOGE employees who have access to this highly sensitive data, Wired and KrebsOnSecurity have provided fascinating but disturbing accounts.
Meanwhile, New York and other states have filed suit against DOGE, alleging that the unfettered access to the federal databases is a privacy violation. On February 14, 2025, a New York federal judge found “good cause to extend a temporary restraining order” stopping DOGE employees from accessing U.S. Treasury Department databases. However, the next day, another federal judge in Washington, D.C., denied a request to stop DOGE from accessing the databases of the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That means that DOGE employees now have access to the sensitive health and claims information of Medicare recipients, as well as the identities of individuals who have made workplace health and safety complaints. NBC News has reported that “the Labor Department authorized DOGE employees to use software to remotely transfer large data sets.”
Currently, 11 lawsuits have been filed against DOGE over access to sensitive information in federal databases, alleging that the access violates privacy laws. The databases include student loan applications at the Department of Education, taxpayer information at the Department of the Treasury, and the personnel records of all federal employees contained in the database of the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Labor, the Social Security Administration, FEMA, and USAID.
According to a plaintiff, the potential to misuse Americans’ personally identifiable information “is serious and irrevocable….The risks are staggering: identity theft, fraud, and political targeting. Once your data is exposed, it’s virtually impossible to undo the damage.” We will be closely watching the progress of these suits and their impact on the protection of our personal information.
Navigating the H-1B Cap Registration Season: Key Dates and Fee Changes for 2025
As we approach the H-1B cap season for fiscal year 2026, it is crucial for employers and prospective H-1B candidates to stay informed about the registration process, important deadlines, and recent changes.
Key Dates for H-1B Cap Registration
Registration Period: The registration period begins on March 7, 2025, at noon EST, and will close at noon EST on March 24, 2025. During this time, employers must submit the necessary information about their prospective H-1B employees through the USCIS online registration system and pay the required fees.
Lottery Selection: Assuming USCIS receives more registrations than the allotted number of visas available (which happens nearly every year), the agency will conduct a lottery selection. By March 31, 2025, USCIS will notify employers which of their registrants were selected, if any.
Petition Filing: Employers whose registrations are selected will be given a 90-day window to file H-1B petitions starting April 1, 2025. Approved petitions will be effective on October 1, 2025.
Supplemental Lottery Selection: USCIS may conduct supplemental lotteries if the initial round does not meet the annual cap due to withdrawals, rejections, or failure to timely file H-1B petitions. They generally announce the supplemental lottery in late July or early August, with the possibility of additional lotteries if needed. Any registrants who were not selected are automatically considered in the supplemental lottery.
Increased Registration Fee
One of the most significant changes for the upcoming H-1B cap season is the increase in the registration fee. Previously set at $10, the fee has been raised to $215 per registration. This fee is non-refundable, regardless of selection result. Employers should ensure they account for this change when budgeting for the H-1B registration process.
Preparation Tips
Early Planning: Begin gathering the necessary documents and information well before the registration period opens. This includes verifying the eligibility of potential H-1B candidates and ensuring compliance with all legal requirements.
Stay Updated: Keep an eye on USCIS announcements for any changes or updates to the registration process or timeline. This will ensure you are well-prepared to meet all deadlines.
Consider Alternatives: If a registration is not selected in the lottery, explore other visa options, or consider reapplying in the next cap season.
Navigating the H-1B cap registration process can be complex, but staying informed about the important dates and changes can help streamline the experience. By preparing early and understanding the process, employers and candidates can maximize their chances of securing an H-1B visa for the upcoming fiscal year.