Labor & Employment

Presidential Proclamation Announces New Entry Restrictions on Nationals of 19 Countries

On June 4, 2025, the president published the Presidential Proclamation: Restricting The Entry Of Foreign Nationals To Protect The United States From Foreign Terrorists And Other National Security And Public Safety Threats. Effective June 9, 2025, the proclamation restricts entry into the United States for nationals of 19 countries based on national security concerns, with a number of exceptions.
A. Countries Subject to a Full Entry Ban (Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Visas, Subject to Exceptions)
Nationals of the following 12 countries are barred from entering the United States under all visa categories, including both temporary (nonimmigrant) and permanent (immigrant) visas:

Afghanistan
Myanmar (Burma)
Chad
Republic of the Congo
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Haiti
Iran
Libya
Somalia
Sudan
Yemen

This includes business and tourist visas (B-1/B-2), employment-based visas (e.g., H-1B, L-1), student and exchange visas (F, J, M), and immigrant visa applications. Individuals from these countries will not be eligible for any U.S. visa, unless an exception applies.
B. Countries Subject to a Partial Entry Ban (Certain Visa Types Restricted, Subject to Exceptions)
For the following seven countries, entry is suspended under specific nonimmigrant visa categories, and in some cases, visa validity will be shortened, with consular officers instructed to “reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued”:

Burundi
Cuba
Laos
Sierra Leone
Togo
Turkmenistan
Venezuela

The affected visa categories include:

B-1 (business visitors)
B-2 (tourists)
B-1/B-2 (combined use)
F (academic students)
J (exchange visitors)
M (vocational students)

In addition, the Department of State will update visa reciprocity schedules to reflect shortened visa validity for certain classifications and nationals of these countries.
C. Exemptions and Clarifications
The following categories of individuals are not subject to the restrictions:

Individuals with valid U.S. visas issued before June 9, 2025
U.S. lawful permanent residents (green card holders)
Dual nationals traveling on a passport from a non-designated country
Holders of valid A, C-2/C-3, G, or NATO visas
Participants in major international sporting events, such as the World Cup or Olympics (as determined by the State Department)
Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or permanent residents, with valid IR-1, CR-1, IR-2, CR-2, or IR-5 immigrant visas and evidence of the family relationship
Foreign nationals entering on adoption-related immigrant visas, including IR-3, IR-4, IH-3, and IH-4
Recipients of Afghan Special Immigrant Visas
Individuals fleeing persecution in Iran, specifically ethnic and religious minorities issued immigrant visas
Asylees and individuals with withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture
Individuals granted a discretional exception by the attorney general (for DOJ-related proceedings) or the secretary of state (if deemed in the national interest), in coordination with the secretary of homeland security

Employer Considerations

Review Your Workforce: Identify any employees, candidates, or international assignees who are nationals of the affected countries.
Advise Against International Travel Where Relevant: Affected individuals currently in the United States should consider avoiding international travel until further guidance is available, especially if they hold visas that may now be restricted.
Evaluate Ongoing Visa Applications: Any pending visa applications involving nationals from the listed countries should be reviewed to assess risk and determine next steps.

Stay Informed: Additional guidance from the Departments of State and Homeland Security, including waiver procedures and updates to visa reciprocity tables, may be forthcoming.

Oregon Employment Law: Key Legislative Changes for 2025

Takeaways

Significant employment law changes, taking effect at various points between May 1 and Sept. 30, will impact employers for the rest of 2025 and beyond.
Employer compliance and training efforts will be affected in the following areas: Workplace accommodations, agency interaction, professional employer organizations, unemployment and paid leave programs, and anti-discrimination protections.
Employers and legal counsel should review the changes carefully and update internal policies, training programs, and compliance protocols.

Beltway Buzz, June 6, 2025

The Beltway Buzz™ is a weekly update summarizing labor and employment news from inside the Beltway and clarifying how what’s happening in Washington, D.C., could impact your business.

Senate Republicans Want Legislative Priorities Passed in June. All eyes are on the U.S. Congress this week as Republicans in the U.S. Senate roll up their sleeves and get down to working on their version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. President Donald Trump has stated that he wants to sign the bill by July 4, which gives Senate Republicans roughly four weeks to pass the bill—an ambitious timetable. As a reminder, because Republicans are using the reconciliation legislative process, they can pass this bill on their own in the Senate, without the need to convince Democrats to vote in favor of the bill.
Buzz readers know that we are watching closely the status of the “no tax on tips and overtime” provisions in the House-passed reconciliation bill, particularly since the Senate passed the No Tax on Tips Act (S.129). Already at least one Republican senator has expressed concern over the U.S. House of Representatives version’s language on tips, because it would benefit certain workers over others, even when they earn the same amount of money. The Buzz is also watching to see if the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, which was included in the House bill, will survive the reconciliation process in the Senate. The REINS Act is, in a way, the opposite of the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which we’ve often examined: while the CRA allows Congress to disapprove regulations after they’ve been finalized, the REINS Act would require Congress to affirmatively approve of regulations before they can be finalized.
SCOTUS Rejects Heightened Evidentiary Standard for Majority Group Plaintiffs. In a unanimous decision this week, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a plaintiff from a majority group does not have to demonstrate additional “‘background circumstances” at the initial phase of his or her case. Aaron Warshaw has the details, including how the decision may play out amidst the administration’s current scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
President Trump Issues Travel Ban. On June 4, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation entitled, “Restricting The Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.” Effective June 9, 2025, the proclamation “fully restrict[s] and limit[s] the entry of nationals” from the following twelve countries:

Afghanistan,
Burma,
Chad,
Republic of the Congo,
Equatorial Guinea,
Eritrea,
Haiti,
Iran,
Libya,
Somalia,
Sudan, and
Yemen.

The proclamation further institutes partial limitations and restrictions on the entry of nationals from the following seven countries:

Burundi,
Cuba,
Laos,
Sierra Leone,
Togo,
Turkmenistan, and
Venezuela.

These restrictions apply to both immigrant and nonimmigrant visas and “only to foreign nationals of the designated countries who:

are outside the United States on the applicable effective date of this proclamation; and
do not have a valid visa on the applicable effective date of this proclamation.”

A variety of exceptions are provided, including for lawful permanent residents of the United States, international athletes, immediate family immigrant visas, adoptions, and others. Whitney Brownlow and Ashley Urquijo have the details.
SCOTUS Allows CHNV Rescission to Proceed. On May 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States stayed a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to block the Trump administration’s rescission of the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) humanitarian parole program. The ruling removes parole protections and work authorization for approximately 532,000 individuals while the legal challenge to the administration’s termination decision continues to work its way through the courts. In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (who was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor) wrote that the Court’s ruling “undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.” Whitney Brownlow and Derek J. Maka have the details. Evan B. Gordon and Daniel J. Ruemenapp wrote previously about what the removal of work authorization for covered individuals means for employers.
DOL Launches New Opinion Letter Landing Page. This week the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced the launch of its opinion letter program. The program will provide compliance assistance to stakeholders with questions regarding federal laws overseen by the Wage and Hour Division, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Employee Benefits Security Administration, the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (which will also “provide compliance assistance resources through its new MSHA Information Hub, a centralized platform offering guidance, regulatory updates, training materials and technical support”). According to the announcement,
Opinion letters provide official written interpretations from the department’s enforcement agencies, explaining how laws apply to specific factual circumstances presented by individuals or organizations. By addressing real-world questions, they promote clarity, consistency, and transparency in the application of federal labor standards.

The DOL’s new opinion letter landing page is here. Opinion letters were a longstanding practice of the agency until the Obama administration, which replaced them with “Administrator’s Interpretations.” The program was resuscitated during President Trump’s first administration but used sparingly during the Biden administration. John D. Surma has the details on Deputy Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling’s announcement of the program.
Budget Time! It is the time of year when the administration offers its budget to Congress in anticipation of the 2026 fiscal year (FY), which commences on October 1, 2026. Agency budget justifications are aspirational in nature, but can help guide Congress towards some final numbers, particularly in the current political climate, where Republicans control Congress and the White House.

Department of Labor. The DOL is requesting a FY 2026 budget of $8.6 billion, about $5 billion less than enacted in the current fiscal year. The budget proposes to completely shut down the remaining functions of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, transferring enforcement of the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act to Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, and enforcement of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). T. Scott Kelly, Christopher J. Near, and Zachary V. Zagger have the details on the Trump administration’s proposal to eliminate OFCCP.
EEOC. The Commission is requesting $435 million in FY 2026, about $20 million less than enacted in the current fiscal year. As part of the “Chair’s Message” section of the budget submission, Acting Chair Andrea Lucas makes the EEOC’s FY 2026 priorities clear:

the agency substantively will focus on relentlessly attacking all forms of race discrimination, including rooting out unlawful race discrimination arising from DEI programs, policies, and practices; protecting American workers from unlawful national origin discrimination involving preferences for foreign workers; defending women’s sex-based rights at work; and supporting religious liberty by protecting workers from religious bias and harassment and protecting their rights to religious accommodations at work.

National Labor Relations Board. The Board is requesting $285.2 million in FY 2026, about $14 million below the FY 2025 enacted budget of $299.2 million. The anticipated savings largely come from “staff attrition” of ninety-nine employees, which would bring the NLRB staff to 1,152.

Remember that this is all just the administration’s ask. Ultimately, Congress retains the power of the purse and will set agency spending levels (and would have to authorize the transfer of Section 503 responsibility to the EEOC).
“Our Next Item Up for Bid … IRS Commissioner.” The Senate Committee on Finance has advanced the nomination of Billy Long to be Internal Revenue Service (IRS) commissioner. Long, a Republican, represented Missouri’s 7th congressional district from 2011 to 2023. Prior to his career in politics, Long was an auctioneer and owned his own auction company. He was no slouch, either. Long was named “Best Auctioneer in the Ozarks” for seven years in a row and is a member of the National Auctioneers Association Hall of Fame. During a congressional hearing in 2018, Long famously employed a mock auction chant to drown out a protestor until she was escorted out. Assuming he gets confirmed by the Senate, maybe Long can use his fast-talking skills to speed up those IRS audits.

Breaking—Supreme Court Unanimously Lowers Bar for “Reverse Discrimination” Claims: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services Redefines Title VII Litigation

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark, unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. ___ (2025) on June 5, 2025, fundamentally altering the landscape for “reverse discrimination” claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ruling eliminates the long-standing “background circumstances” requirement for majority-group plaintiffs, significantly lowering the threshold for such claims and signaling a new era of risk considerations for employers.
Case Background: A New Lens on Disparate Treatment
Petitioner Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, served in various roles at the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. In 2019, Ames applied for a newly created management position but was passed over in favor of a lesbian woman. Shortly thereafter, Ames was demoted from her program administrator role, which was subsequently filled by a gay man. Ames brought suit under Title VII, alleging that her sexual orientation was the reason for both the denied promotion and a subsequent demotion.
Both the District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Ames’s claims, applying the familiar framework for disparate treatment cases based on circumstantial evidence under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Critically, the lower courts required Ames—as a member of a “majority group”—to meet an additional evidentiary hurdle: she had to show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Because Ames could not provide such evidence, her claims were dismissed at summary judgment.
The Supreme Court’s Decision: A Uniform Standard for All Plaintiffs
The Supreme Court, in a sweeping opinion authored by Justice Jackson, unequivocally rejected the “background circumstances” rule. The Court held that Title VII’s text protects “any individual” from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin—without regard to whether the plaintiff is a member of a majority or minority group. The Court emphasized that Congress did not authorize courts to impose special, heightened requirements on majority-group plaintiffs. Instead, all Title VII plaintiffs must be held to the same, “not onerous” prima facie standard articulated in McDonnell Douglas: showing that they applied for a position for which they were qualified, were rejected, and that the circumstances give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. See Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).
The Court’s opinion also criticized the proliferation of inflexible, judge-made evidentiary rules in employment discrimination litigation, warning that such doctrines distort the statutory text and create unnecessary confusion for litigants and courts alike. In a notable concurrence, Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Gorsuch) went further, questioning the continued utility of the McDonnell Douglas framework itself and highlighting the risks posed by judicially created doctrines that lack textual support.
Implications: A New Era for Reverse Discrimination Claims and Employer Risk
The Ames decision is a watershed moment for Title VII litigation. By eliminating the “background circumstances” requirement, the Court has lowered the bar for majority-group employees (e.g., white, male, heterosexual, or Christian plaintiffs) to bring discrimination claims. This change is likely to result in a uptick in so-called “reverse discrimination” lawsuits, particularly as the current administrative and regulatory climate, including recent policy shifts at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), appears increasingly receptive to such claims.
Employers should anticipate heightened litigation risk from majority-group employees and should take immediate steps to review and, if necessary, revise their internal employment policies, training, and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the need for employers to ensure that anti-discrimination practices are applied consistently and neutrally, regardless of the group status of the complainant. The concurring opinion’s pointed critique of DEI programs further signals that such initiatives may face additional scrutiny in the courts.
Key Takeaways for Employers and HR Professionals

Uniform Standard: All Title VII plaintiffs, regardless of majority or minority status, are now subject to the same prima facie standard under McDonnell Douglas.
Increased Litigation Risk: The lowered threshold is expected to encourage more majority-group employees to pursue “reverse discrimination” claims, increasing potential exposure for employers.
Scrutiny of DEI Initiatives: The decision, especially the concurring opinion, aligns with current Trump executive orders and places DEI programs under a sharper legal microscope, raising the stakes for compliance and risk management.
Policy Review Recommended: Employers should consult with counsel to conduct a privileged review of employment policies and DEI practices to ensure compliance with the new legal landscape.

Conclusion
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services marks a pivotal shift in Title VII jurisprudence, opening the door to a broader array of discrimination claims and signaling a more skeptical judicial approach to judge-made evidentiary barriers and DEI initiatives. Employers should act now to assess their risk and ensure their practices are aligned with this new, more exacting standard.

McDermott+ Check-Up: June 6, 2025

THIS WEEK’S DOSE

Senate Begins Work on Reconciliation. Democrats prepared to file points of order to exclude certain provisions under the Byrd rule, while Republicans discussed key health provisions.
White House Sends Congress $9.4 Billion Rescissions Package. The package requests that Congress rescind $900 million in global health funding.
Senate HELP Committee Reviews Reauthorization of Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Program. Discussion focused on layoffs at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and how the agency can expedite over-the-counter medication development.
House Begins FY 2026 Appropriations Markups. The Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related Agencies met to mark up its fiscal year (FY) 2026 bill.
HHS Releases FY 2026 Budget in Brief. The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) budget in brief requests $94 billion in discretionary funding, a $31 billion decrease from FY 2025.
CMS Rescinds 2022 EMTALA Abortion Guidance. The agency noted that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) guidance did not reflect the current administration’s priorities.
FDA Declines to Appeal Ruling on LDT Regulation. A federal court previously struck down the laboratory-developed test (LDT) final rule, and the FDA declined to appeal within the given 60-day window.
Fired HHS Employees File Class Action Lawsuit. The federal case alleges that firings were based on incorrect personnel records.

CONGRESS

Senate Begins Work on Reconciliation. The Senate returned from its Memorial Day recess to begin consideration of HR 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the House-passed reconciliation package. Senate Majority Leader Thune (R-SD) aims to have a modified bill on the floor the week of June 23, 2025, with the goal of getting a final bill to President Trump’s desk by July 4, 2025. This week’s work occurred mostly behind the scenes. Senate committees of jurisdiction are not expected to hold markups; instead, committees of jurisdiction will release titles of the bill within their jurisdiction. The process started this week. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation released its language that modifies the House’s artificial intelligence (AI) provisions, removing the 10-year state ban on AI regulation and amending funding language so that states would only be eligible for AI development grants if they do not enforce state laws regulating AI models. The Senate Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over Medicaid, taxes, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), will likely be the last committee to release updated text. Majority Leader Thune noted that the Finance Committee title could be released as soon as next week.
Majority Leader Thune can lose no more than three Republicans to pass the bill. This week, more Republicans came out in opposition to certain Medicaid provisions, including the moratorium on provider taxes. Sens. Collins (R-ME), Murkowski (R-AK), Moran (R-KS), and Hawley (R-MO) are among those with concerns. On the conservative side, Sens. Paul (R-KY), Johnson (R-WI), Lee (R-UT), and Rick Scott (R-FL) continued to voice strong opposition unless the bill does more to cut federal spending and reduce the deficit. There has also been discussion about potentially including Medicare Advantage reforms to increase savings, although no explicit policies have been presented publicly. Senate passage will likely require a delicate balancing act, and afterward the bill must pass the House again. President Trump met this week with Senate Finance Committee Republicans, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Oz is holding meetings in the Senate to hash out concerns and attempt to reach policies that can unite Republicans. The process to scrub the bill of provisions that don’t meet the Byrd rule is also ongoing. Republicans met with the Senate Parliamentarian this week, and Democrats likely will follow soon. (For a full explainer on the Byrd rule, read our +Insight).
On June 4, 2025, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released updated estimates for H.R. 1. CBO estimates that the bill would increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion. This figure is based on a $1.2 trillion reduction in federal spending offset by a $3.6 trillion decrease in revenue. CBO estimates that 10.9 million individuals would be uninsured in 2034. Of those, 7.8 million would lose Medicaid coverage, with others mainly losing coverage from changes to the ACA. CBO estimates that the ACA changes would result in gross benchmark premiums for ACA plans decreasing by an average of 12%. At the request of Senate Democrats, CBO released additional analysis that provides further details on health insurance loss and estimates that failure to extend the enhanced advance premium tax credits as part of H.R. 1 would lead to an additional 5.1 million Americans being uninsured in 2034.
White House Sends Congress $9.4 Billion Rescissions Package. The package asks for more than $9 billion of previously appropriated funding to be rescinded and is largely focused on foreign aid and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The package includes recissions of funding from health programs within the US Department of State and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). It requests rescission of $500 million in global health USAID funding that focuses on equity, family planning, and reproductive health within child and maternal health, HIV, and infectious disease activities. It also requests rescission of $400 million of President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) funding. Congress has 45 days to act. Approval of the rescission package only requires a simple majority in the House, which will likely consider it next week. In the Senate, Appropriations Chair Collins (R-ME) has already stated concerns about PEPFAR cuts and noted her committee’s intention to examine the package.
Senate HELP Committee Reviews Reauthorization of Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Program. During the hearing, Democrats focused on how workforce reductions at the FDA will impact agency operations, while supporting the development of over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. Republicans advocated for a more streamlined and efficient transition from prescription drugs to OTC medications, emphasized the need for regulatory oversight of international facilities, and encouraged use of an online dashboard to track the FDA’s progress. Jacqueline Corrigan-Curay, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, expressed her commitment to working with Congress to streamline the transition from prescription drugs to OTC medications.
House Begins FY 2026 Appropriations Markups. The House Appropriations Committee began subcommittee markups this week to discuss spending bills for FY 2026. The Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related Agencies held its markup, during which it advanced its bill to the full committee by a party line vote. During the markup, Republicans stated that the bill would help reduce the federal deficit, while Democrats criticized the bill for cutting funding for the FDA and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The full schedule of subcommittee and full committee markups can be found here.
ADMINISTRATION

HHS Releases FY 2026 Budget in Brief. Late on May 30, 2025, HHS released its budget request for FY 2026, known as a budget in brief. Some agencies and divisions within HHS also released congressional justifications that provide more information on funding requests. Additional justifications from other agencies and divisions are said to be forthcoming. The budget in brief follows the earlier release of the “skinny” budget and provides more detail on HHS priorities, including the agency’s restructuring. The document only includes discretionary funding requests and does not include legislative proposals that would impact mandatory programs such as Medicare or Medicaid. Administration officials indicate that mandatory funding requests are unlikely to be released before reconciliation is complete.
Highlights for HHS discretionary funding requests include:

$95 billion for HHS, a $31 billion decrease from FY 2025.
$14 billion for the new Administration for a Healthy America (AHA), which HHS estimates to be a $6 billion cut from current funding levels for all the programs that will be transferred to AHA. The budget in brief includes an overview of the programs from the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health that would be part of AHA.
$3.1 billion for FDA, a $409 million cut compared to FY 2025.
$4.1 billion for CDC, a $550 million cut compared to FY 2025.
$27.5 billion for NIH, a $17 billion cut compared to FY 2025.

The budget notes that NIH would cap indirect cost rates for grants at 15%, a policy that NIH pursued earlier this year, is subject to ongoing litigation, and is likely to face scrutiny from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

$3.5 billion for CMS, a $673 million cut compared to FY 2025.

Read more in our +Insight.
CMS Rescinds 2022 EMTALA Abortion Guidance. The Biden administration released the HHS guidance in July 2022 in the wake of the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision that left regulation of abortion to the states. The now-rescinded guidance stated that EMTALA protects healthcare providers’ clinical judgement and any action they take to provide stabilizing care for emergency medical conditions, including ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or preeclampsia. In a press release, CMS noted that it will continue to enforce EMTALA, including in emergency medical situations where the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child are at risk, and indicated that the agency will rectify any legal confusion on this issue.
COURTS

FDA Declines to Appeal Ruling on LDT Regulation. In late March 2025, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas struck down the regulation finalized in May 2024 under the Biden administration that gave the FDA the authority to regulate LDTs. The district court found that the rule violated the Loper Bright standard because the FDA exceeded its statutory authority. The FDA was given a 60-day window to appeal the decision, which it declined to do. Therefore, the final rule remains without force. Although the FDA did not issue a statement on its decision, it follows previous actions by the Trump administration to limit agencies’ regulatory power outside of statutory authority. Read more about the March court decision here.
It remains to be seen if the Trump administration will take a new approach to LDT regulation or if lawmakers will re-introduce the VALID Act, which received bipartisan support in previous session of Congress and would require the FDA to regulate LDTs and other in vitro diagnostics.
Fired HHS Employees File Class Action Lawsuit. In yet another challenge to the HHS reductions in force, seven former HHS employees filed a case in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit claims that the personnel files used to justify firings had errors and inaccuracies, which HHS Secretary Kennedy has attributed to siloed human resources departments across the agency. The lawsuit notes that most employees fired during the April 2025 reduction in force could be eligible for this class action.
QUICK HITS

FDA Begins Agency-Wide AI Tool Use. FDA employees are using the generative AI tool Elsa in various internal projects, including clinical protocol reviews and scientific evaluations. The tool was launched before the original deadline of June 30, 2025, and FDA will expand the tool over time.
HHS Announces Heads of ASTP, OCR. Thomas Keane, MD, a radiologist, will serve as the assistant secretary for technology policy (ASTP) and national coordinator for health information technology. Paula Stannard worked for HHS during the first Trump administration and will serve as director of the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR).
FBI Opens Tipline for Reports of Gender-Affirming Care for Minors. The tipline seeks reports of any hospitals or clinics performing gender-affirming care for minors and follows HHS tips for whistleblowers.
CMS Announces Health Technology Initiatives. In line with CMS’s request for information on the healthcare technology ecosystem, the initiatives include building an interoperable national provider directory and modernizing Medicare identification processes.
House Passes SUPPORT Act Reauthorization with Bipartisan Support. The legislation would modify HHS substance use and mental health disorder programs and reauthorize various grant programs through FY 2030. It passed by a vote of 366 – 57, with the nays mostly from Freedom Caucus Republicans and Energy and Commerce Democrats.
James O’Neill Confirmed as HHS Deputy Secretary. The Senate confirmed O’Neill by a 52 – 43 party line vote. Once sworn in, he will be second in command at HHS.
House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Questions AI Use in MAHA Report. Acting Ranking Member Lynch (D-MA) requested information from HHS Secretary Kennedy by June 16, 2025, to assess whether the agency used AI to write the recently released MAHA report.
GAO Releases Report on Diagnostic Testing for Pandemic Threats. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report summarizes insights from a roundtable of 19 experts. GAO recommends that HHS develop and periodically update a national diagnostic testing strategy for infectious diseases and establish a national diagnostic testing forum.
NIH Requests Information on Agency AI Strategy. NIH requests information about specific topics and notes that there is a need for a unified, Office of the Director-level AI structure to build synergy across program silos, improve transparency, and accelerate research and development. Comments are due July 15.
CMS Rescinds Biden-era Medicaid SOGI Data Guidance. The now-rescinded guidance aimed to help states with collecting sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) information in Medicaid applications. The rescission notes that CMS no longer intends to collect this data from states.

NEXT WEEK’S DIAGNOSIS

Both chambers of Congress will be in session next week, with work on reconciliation expected to continue in the Senate. The Senate Appropriations Committee will discuss the NIH FY 2026 budget, and the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee will examine US-made medicine and domestic supply chains. The House Committee on Appropriations will consider the Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related Agencies appropriations bill that advanced from the subcommittee this week.

Title VII Lawsuit in Utah Federal District Court Challenges Employee’s Firing After Making Online Posts

An in-house attorney recently sued his former employer in a Utah federal district court for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging he was unlawfully fired after posting social media remarks criticizing gender-affirming care for transgender people and opposing a Utah nonprofit organization that advocates for LGBTQ+ rights.

Quick Hits

A former employee in Utah recently brought a federal lawsuit, claiming he was fired for criticizing on social media a LGBTQ+ rights nonprofit that partnered with his employer.
The gay Christian employee is alleging sex, sexual orientation, and religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The case is in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

On May 22, 2025, a former employee for a Utah-based software company sued the company for discrimination and retaliation after he was fired a few months after he posted comments on social media criticizing gender-affirming care for transgender people and critical of Equality Utah’s policy positions. Equality Utah is a local nonprofit that supports LGBTQ+ rights.
The plaintiff, a gay Christian man, worked as in-house counsel. He alleged the software company discriminated against him based on his religion, sex, and sexual orientation, and retaliated against him for invoking nondiscrimination protections.
In February 2023, the plaintiff posted remarks on his social media account opposing Equality Utah’s positions regarding gender-affirming care for transgender children. The software company had earned a business equality leader certification from Equality Utah and partnered with the organization for trainings on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). A leader at Equality Utah complained several times to the plaintiff’s employer about his social media comments on the plaintiff’s personal social media account and his account as president of the Utah Log Cabin Republicans.
In October 2023, the company fired the plaintiff, citing poor performance.
The plaintiff’s federal complaint alleges sex discrimination and religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but did not assert a claim under Utah’s Antidiscrimination Act.
Utah’s Antidiscrimination Act prohibits Utah employers from taking adverse employment action against employees for “lawful expression or expressive activity outside of the workplace regarding the [employee’s] religious, political, or personal convictions, including convictions about marriage, family, or sexuality, unless the expression or expressive activity is in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer.” The state law permits workers to express “religious or moral beliefs and commitments in the workplace in a reasonable, non-disruptive, and non-harassing way.”
The case raises questions about what employers can include in their social media policies and how such policies may be enforced. While the free speech rights in the U.S. Constitution do not give private employees free rein to say whatever they want on their personal social media accounts, other laws such as Title VII and their state law equivalents may provide protection. In some circumstances, employers may lawfully discipline or fire employees for disparaging the employer or using offensive language on social media, particularly if the post includes references to the company name or logo.
But at the same time, under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), private employees have the right to discuss wages and the terms and conditions of employment, which may include religious discrimination or sex discrimination in the workplace. This case is also a good reminder that even within a protected category, there may be conflict in viewpoints, and employers may want to be prepared to respond to such disagreements.
Next Steps
Employers may want to develop and distribute to employees a well-crafted social media policy that respects employees’ legal rights, including protections under state and federal law, and that also maintains workplace standards and protects business interests.
Employers that are developing or updating their social media policies may want to consider the following key principles and tips:

Including in the written policy specific examples of acceptable and unacceptable commentary and conduct.
Making it clear that employees must not use the company’s name, branding, or position themselves as speaking on behalf of the company without authorization.
Applying and enforcing the social media policy consistently with all employees in order to prevent claims of discrimination or retaliation.
Periodically reminding employees and managers about the social media policy.
Training supervisors and managers about what constitutes protected activity under the NLRA.
In Utah, taking care not to take adverse action against employees for lawful expression outside the workplace involving religious, political, or personal convictions, including matters such as marriage, family, or sexuality, unless the expression directly conflicts with the employer’s essential, business-related interests.

Supreme Court Eases Burden Of Proof In “Reverse Discrimination” Claims (US)

On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 23-1039, reviving a lawsuit brought by a heterosexual female employee who alleged she was discriminated against by her employer in favor of less qualified gay candidates. The decision conclusively establishes that the evidentiary burden in so-called “reverse discrimination” cases is identical as in cases brought by members of minority race, gender, and sexual orientation groups.
Marlean Ames worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for 15 years, rising from executive secretary to Program Administrator. In 2019, Ms. Ames applied and interviewed for a newly created management position in the agency’s Office of Quality and Improvement, but the Department hired a lesbian instead. A few days later, Ms. Ames received word that, not only was she not getting the promotion she hoped for, but she was also being demoted to her original secretarial position and stripped of the pay raise that had accompanied her promotion. The agency then filled Ms. Ames vacant former role with a newly hired candidate, a gay man.
Ms. Ames sued the agency under Title VII, alleging she was denied the promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation—heterosexual—but she lost at the trial court and again at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The federal appellate court concluded that Ms. Ames failed to meet her prima facie burden of proving discrimination because she had not pointed to “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” The Sixth Circuit reasoned that, as a straight woman, Ms. Ames was required to prove additional facts to establish reverse discriminatory bias “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima facie case.” Like the Sixth Circuit, the Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits also imposed a heightened evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs as compared to minority-group plaintiffs at the prima facie stage; other Circuits did not. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve the Circuit split.
Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson opined that the Sixth Circuit’s “additional ‘background circumstances’ requirement is not consistent with Title VII’s text or our case law construing the statute.” Noting that Title VII makes it unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual … because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” the Court concluded that Title VII’s protections apply to every individual without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group. In other words, “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”
The Court reminds employers and courts alike that a plaintiff’s burden at the prima facie stage is neither “rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic.” Having adduced sufficient evidence that she was qualified for the positions she held and sought and that she was treated less favorably than others not sharing her sexual orientation, Ms. Ames satisfied her modest prima facie burden. At that stage, the trial court should have considered whether her employer could credibly rebut her allegations of discrimination with evidence of a legitimate, non-prextual, non-discriminatory reason for its employment decisions. As the lower courts never moved past the prima facie analysis and applied the wrong evidentiary burden even at that early stage, the Court remanded the case for further consideration.
The takeaway for employers is that Ames levels the playing field for majority-group and minority-group Title VII litigants. Employers should not dismiss out of hand claims by male employees alleging more favorable treatment of women or of white employees alleging more favorable treatment of people of color, nor should courts seek that “something more” that would prove the employer to be an outlier that discriminates against the majority. The Supreme Court has spoken unanimously: all claims of discrimination are subject to the same evidentiary burden, regardless of the plaintiff-employee’s majority-group status.

Judge Rules Thousands of Venezuelan TPS Beneficiaries Remain Work Authorized; Group Focuses on DHS Venezuela, Haiti TPS Decision

On June 2, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cannot invalidate Venezuela Temporary Protected Status (TPS) documents, including work authorization documents, issued pursuant to the Biden Administration’s Jan. 17, 2025, 18-month extension of Venezuela TPS. This ruling applies to documents received by beneficiaries on or before Feb. 5, 2025, the date of the Federal Register Notice announcing DHS’s decision to terminate the Venezuela TPS program.
Judge Chen pointed to Section 1254a(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which says TPS-related documents can be invalidated only after a termination notice is published.
Judge Chen’s order impacts approximately 5,000 Venezuela TPS beneficiaries.
DHS has not yet responded to Judge Chen’s June 2 ruling in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 19 ruling granting a Justice Department request to lift Judge Chen’s March 31 order halting DHS’s termination of Venezuela TPS.
On June 3, the National TPS Alliance and several Venezuelans asked Judge Chen to set aside DHS’s decision to vacate the Venezuela and Haiti TPS programs, calling the rationale for the terminations “preordained and contrived.” The Alliance contends that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem lacked the authority to terminate the Venezuela and Haiti TPS programs on the basis of a defective registration process and the national interest.
In a court filing, the Alliance said, “Nothing in the record suggests the secretary had any interest in registration issues at all.” Instead, the Alliance maintains, the record indicates that DHS officials “rushed” to draft vacatur and termination notices prior to Secretary Noem’s confirmation.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear oral arguments in July on the merits of Judge Chen’s decision to enjoin termination of the Venezuela TPS program pending the outcome of litigation.

Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Evidentiary Requirement for Majority Groups in Title VII Cases

What You Need to Know:

Equal Protection Under Title VII: On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all individuals, regardless of whether they are in a majority or minority group, reinforcing a plain-language interpretation of the statute.
DEI Implications and Legal Scrutiny: The decision comes amid increasing scrutiny of employer DEI initiatives, highlighting the need for programs to comply with Title VII’s equal treatment requirements for all protected groups.
More Changes on the Way? A concurring opinion questions whether the longstanding McDonnell Douglas standard should govern at summary judgment in Title VII cases, possibly foreshadowing more changes to come.

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected a rule requiring that Title VII discrimination claims brought by “majority-group” plaintiffs meet a heightened evidentiary standard to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. In doing so, the Court held that Title VII applies equally to all groups within its protected classes based on the plain language of the statute that does not differentiate amongst groups. This decision is significant in light of the shifts in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s position on employer diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
In Ames, a heterosexual woman plaintiff alleged that she was denied a promotion and subsequently demoted due to her sexual orientation. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to meet the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule. Plaintiffs who are members of a majority group are required to establish “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Multiple other Circuits similarly imposed heightened evidentiary burdens on majority group plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the background circumstances rule, holding that Title VII’s text does not support imposing a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, delivering the unanimous opinion for the Court, stated that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all individuals; they do “not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.”
While the decision is not necessarily unexpected, the impact of the Ames decision could be heightened given the recent focus on employer DEI initiatives. In recent guidance finding that employer DEI programs that provide benefits to employees based on race or other protected group status may be unlawful, EEOC has similarly expressed that Title VII’s protections and requirements are equally applicable to all protected groups.
Also notable is a concurring opinion issued by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. In addition to noting their agreement with the majority, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch questioned the lower court’s use of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting standard in awarding summary judgment to the employer. The concurring opinion expressed that requiring employees to meet the McDonnell Douglas standard at the summary judgment stage was an excessive burden, and invited future challenges to the standard’s application.
The Ames decision underscores the importance of treating all employees fairly under Title VII. Further, the decision emphasizes the need to assess workplace programs for vulnerabilities in light of the EEOC’s DEI focus.

Supreme Court Settles Circuit Split on Standard of Proof for “Reverse Discrimination” Lawsuits

On June 5, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion settling a split among the federal appellate courts about the burdens of proof in lawsuits alleging “reverse discrimination,” in which a member of a majority group sues for employment discrimination. The Court held that claims brought by members of a majority class are held to a standard identical to that of claims brought by members of a minority class. See Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services.
The plaintiff in the case, Marlean Ames, is a heterosexual woman who alleged that her employer failed to promote her and ultimately demoted her because of her sexual orientation. She alleged that the roles were filled by a lesbian woman and a gay man. The lower courts dismissed Ames’s lawsuit, holding that she did not provide any evidence of “background circumstances” that would support the “unusual” conclusion that her employer discriminates against the majority.
Under Title VII, to prove an employment discrimination claim, an employee must make a prima facie case, which involves identifying others outside the employee’s protected class (race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.) who were treated more favorably than the employee making the claim. One way to make this showing is to point to evidence that the employee was replaced by someone outside their protected class. While Ames made this showing, the lower courts, following precedent in their circuit, held that this was not sufficient to proceed with her claim, as “reverse discrimination” lawsuits require additional facts.
The Supreme Court’s decision resolved an inconsistency among the lower federal courts. Courts in the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and DC Circuits had held that there was a higher burden for members of a majority class to prevail on an employment discrimination claim. Focusing on the text of Title VII, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected this approach, agreeing with the remaining federal circuits that members of majority and minority classes should be held to the same legal standard.
This decision could have far-reaching implications for employers throughout the country, particularly as businesses grapple with shifting federal regulations and guidance around diversity, equity, and inclusion in hiring practices. In addition to heightened federal scrutiny of such initiatives, individual employees who are members of a majority class now have a clearer legal pathway to relief if they feel they have experienced workplace discrimination. Employers should ensure that they have policies in place to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in the workplace and avenues for employees to report those concerns.

Minnesota State Contractors Must Use New MDHR Two-Part Annual Compliance Report Beginning July 1

In March 2025, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) updated its annual compliance report (ACR) without substantive changes. Two months later, the MDHR has issued a new two-part ACR with significant updates. The new ACR now includes two parts: “Part 1: Year in Review Narrative,” and “Part 2: Data Analysis.” Minnesota contractors must begin using the new two-part ACR effective July 1, 2025. Additionally, the ACR reporting period options now differ based on the date the contractor’s MDHR workforce certificate of compliance was approved.

Quick Hits

Starting July 1, 2025, Minnesota contractors must use the updated two-part annual compliance report (ACR) which includes a year in review narrative and data analysis sections.
The new ACR requires contractors to provide detailed narratives on their compliance efforts and corrective actions, along with structured data reporting on employee movements and training.
Contractors with workforce certificates issued on or after July 1, 2025, can choose from four different reporting periods for their ACR, ending up to three months prior to the certificate approval date.

Part 1: Year in Review Narrative
Section 1: Company Information
This section basically solicits the same information as was requested in the previous ACR. The differences include:

Clarification that the company name must be the name as registered with the Minnesota secretary of state.
The mailing address (if different from physical address) is now also requested.
The job title and email address of the person who prepared the ACR is now requested.
The email address of the senior management official who reviewed the ACR is now requested.

Section 2: Narrative on Good Faith Efforts
In the previous ACR, contractors were required to complete an affirmative action plan (AAP) progress report narrative where they would explain their good faith efforts and action steps taken to address areas of minority and/or female underutilization or ensure continued utilization levels. The new narrative section is more structured and requires the contractor to answer two questions:

“In the past year, we meaningfully implemented our company’s Compliance Plan in the following ways:
In the past year, we meaningfully implemented our company’s Equal Opportunity Statement in the following ways:”

Section 3: Good Faith Efforts for All Companies
In this section, contractors are required to identify the areas in which they determined they were not in compliance with MDHR requirements and detail the corrective action taken in the prior year with respect to their hiring process, current employees, and workplace.
Section 4: Additional Good Faith Efforts for Construction Contractors Only
Construction contractors are required to answer additional questions concerning prime contracts awarded in the prior twelve months and whether timely preconstruction and/or monthly reports were submitted to MDHR. They must also identify areas where they were out of compliance concerning their hiring process, current employees, and workplace, and the corrective action taken to address identified deficiencies.
Part 2: Data Analysis
Contractors still report:

“Total Employees – Beginning of Reporting Period
Total Applicants
Total Hires
Applicants Interviewed
Applicants Tested
Employees Promoted – From
Employees Promoted – To
Employees Demoted – From
Employees Demoted – To
Employees Terminated
Total Current Employees”

The differences involve the definitions of employees transferred out and in, and employees trained. In the prior ACR, transfers were defined as movements out of and into job groups. In the new ACR, the definition of transfers is clarified to include movements out of or into the company’s facilities that are included in the ACR.
The old ACR requested data on all employees who received company-sponsored training. The new ACR clarifies that contractors are to report all employees who received company-sponsored equal employment opportunity (EEO) training during the reporting period.
Contractors are still required to complete an availability and underutilization analysis (AUA). The instructions for the new AUA require contractors to use 2018 census data and emphasize that contractors are not to adopt quotas. Likewise, the new AUA form no longer includes annual percentage goals.
Change to ACR Reporting Period
Contractors whose workforce certificates are issued before July 1, 2025, may use data up to two months prior to their certificate approval date to complete their ACRs. For example, if a contractor’s certificate was issued on June 1, 2024, the ACR reporting period may be one of the following three periods:

June 1, 2024 – May 31, 2025
May 1, 2024 – April 30, 2025
April 1, 2024 – March 31, 2025

Contractors whose certificate is issued July 1, 2025, or later, may use reporting periods that end up to three months prior to their certificate approval date. For example, a contractor whose certificate is issued July 15, 2025, may use the following four reporting periods to complete the ACR:

July 15, 2025 – July 14, 2026
June 15, 2025 – June 14, 2026
May 15, 2025 – May 14, 2026
April 15, 2025 – April 14, 2026

Conclusion
Beginning July 1, 2025, Minnesota contractors holding an active workforce certificate of compliance must begin using MDHR’s new two-part annual compliance report, which requires a more comprehensive narrative to identify and address compliance deficiencies. Likewise, the definitions and instructions included in the data analysis section of the new ACR help to clarify contractors’ reporting obligations with respect to employee transfers and employees trained, and now require use of 2018 census data for the preparation of the availability and underutilization analysis. Finally, when completing the ACR, contractors whose certificate is issued July 1, 2025, or later, may use a twelve-month reporting period that matches the certification period dates or ends exactly one, two, or three months before the certificate approval date.

Washington Strips Employers of Workers’ Compensation Immunity for Asbestos Claims

On May 29, 2025, the Washington Supreme Court overturned its own precedent, stripping an employer of Workers’ Compensation Immunity for asbestos claims by expanding the Deliberate Injury exception. The court held that mere “virtual certainty” that an injury could result, as opposed to the statutorily required “deliberate intention … to produce injury,” was sufficient to strip immunity in asbestos-related cancer cases. This ruling will likely result in a dramatic increase in liability for employers in Washington State whose employees may have been exposed to asbestos. The opinion also leaves open the potential for expanded liability for other, non-asbestos-related, long latency claims.
BackgroundIn Cockrum v. C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman, Inc., the plaintiff worked at the Alcoa Wenatchee Works aluminum smelter in Wenatchee, Washington, from 1967 to 1997. The facility is known to have contained both chrysotile and amphibole asbestos. Alcoa instituted a medical monitoring program in 1953 to screen their employees for asbestos-related disease, including screening for “pleural plaques … and early mesothelioma.” An internal 1982 memorandum states that “for a number of years, Alcoa has recognized the very serious potential health hazard represented by the various forms of asbestos use in our plant. Exposure to asbestos fibers can lead to asbestosis and various forms of cancer.”
Conversely, the plaintiff’s expert testified that “asbestos-related disease is never certain to result from asbestos exposure” and that this expert was “not aware of any carcinogen for which exposure at a particular dose is medically certain to cause cancer.” Despite this expert testimony, the Washington Supreme Court concluded that, based on these facts, “Alcoa ultimately knew of the harm of asbestos in its facilities prior to and contemporaneous with Cockrum’s exposures,” and that, therefore, the plaintiff had met the knowledge prong of the Deliberate Injury exception to Workers’ Compensation Immunity by way of a newly created multifactor test.
New Non-Exclusive Multifactor TestThe court articulated a new non-exclusive multifactor test for whether the knowledge component of the Deliberate Injury exception can be met: • The employer’s knowledge of ongoing, repeated development of symptoms known to be associated with the development of latent disease over time• The employer’s knowledge of symptoms developing in employees similarly situated to the plaintiff-employee• The timing of such symptoms developing prior to or contemporaneous with the plaintiff-employee’s exposure(s)• Whether the exposure arises from a common major cause within the employer’s control.
After the court considers these non-exclusive factors to establish knowledge, the court must still then perform the second part of the statutory test, determining if the employer disregarded this knowledge to cause an intentional injury to the plaintiff.
The Washington Supreme Court synthesized their new multifactor test down, concluding that “a plaintiff can satisfy the Deliberate Injury exception … if they demonstrate the employer had actual knowledge that latent diseases are virtually certain to occur and willfully disregard such knowledge.” Based on this, the Washington Supreme Court overturned the grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer and remanded the case back to the Superior Court to consider the second prong of the test, whether the employer disregarded their own knowledge by failing to take “known remedial measures within its control.”
TakeawayThis opinion represents a sea change in the potential for Washington employers, long sheltered by immunity, to face significant liability for asbestos disease in their own workforce. We can expect an increase in new filings against previously immune employer defendants, which should have an outsized impact on premises defendants and manufacturers with facilities within Washington State.