Trump’s Executive Order on AI and Pediatric Cancer Creates New EB-2 NIW Opportunities
On September 30, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed the Executive Order “Unlocking Cures for Pediatric Cancer with Artificial Intelligence,” establishing AI-driven pediatric cancer research as a national priority. The Order directs federal agencies and private partners to accelerate research and empower clinicians and researchers with the tools to translate data into improved diagnoses, treatment, and cures.
In the context of U.S. immigration policy, this development opens new opportunities for professionals seeking classification under the EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW) and other employment-based categories. By affirming the national importance of work in AI, medical research, data science, and biotechnology, the Order provides strong policy support for applicants seeking to demonstrate eligibility under the EB-2 NIW.
Understanding the Executive Order
Pediatric cancer remains the leading cause of disease-related death among children in the United States, with incidences increasing significantly over the past four decades. Traditional treatment has seen limited progress, highlighting the need for new and innovative approaches.
To address this, the Executive Order calls for the use of artificial intelligence to drive advancements in pediatric cancer care. It builds on federal efforts, such as the Childhood Cancer Data Initiative (CCDI), which collects and integrates pediatric cancer data to accelerate breakthroughs, and it encourages greater collaboration between public and private sectors.
The Order mobilizes agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission to accelerate AI-driven medical research and infrastructure.
Key Provisions of the Executive Order
The Order directs federal agencies to:
Invest in AI-Driven Biomedical Innovation: Enhance research infrastructure and accelerate AI integration in cancer data analysis.
Fund Research with National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Centers: Prioritize projects involving predictive analytics, multi-omics research, and therapeutic optimization.
Advance Data Sharing and Interoperability: Improve access to privacy-protected clinical datasets to support research and clinical trial recruitment.
Promote Public-Private Collaboration: Encourage biotechnology firms, digital health companies, and AI startups to contribute tools and solutions.
Strengthen U.S. Leadership in Health Technology: Position the United States as a global center for AI-enabled medical discovery.
How the Executive Order Supports EB-2 NIW Petitions
The EB-2 NIW allows foreign nationals with advanced degrees or exceptional ability to self-petition for permanent residency without requiring an employer sponsor or labor certification. Petitioners must demonstrate that their work serves the national interest of the United States. In recent years, the “national importance” element has become the area USCIS most consistently challenges in these petitions, requiring substantial documentation and strategic argumentation to overcome increased scrutiny.
The new Executive Order provides a new, powerful avenue to define the national importance of the work of professionals in AI, Data Science, Oncology Research, Biotechnology, and other related fields. It establishes clear and direct policy evidence that:
AI research and applications in healthcare are strategic national priorities.
Pediatric cancer innovation is a public health objective of the United States.
AI and data science professionals, not only medical doctors, contribute to national healthcare goals.
There is a national interest in attracting and retaining advanced researchers and AI innovators.
Fields Strengthened by the Executive Order
The Executive Order has implications across numerous professional fields, offering a powerful pathway to articulate and align their work with the national policy priority.
Field
Examples
Artificial Intelligence
Machine learning researchers, AI engineers building healthcare tools
Biomedical Research
Cancer biologists, immunotherapy and drug discovery scientists.
Health Data Analytics
Bioinformaticians, clinical data scientists, data architects.
Medical Innovation
Digital diagnostics developers, AI-enabled imaging specialists.
Clinical Practice
Pediatric oncologists, hematology researchers.
Computational Sciences
Predictive modeling experts, cloud computing in healthcare.
Biotechnology
Translational researchers, precision medicine developers.
Professionals in these fields can align their EB-2 NIW petitions with the Executive Order by demonstrating how their work can contribute to advancing AI innovation and data science to improve pediatric oncology diagnostic, treatment and cure in line with the goal of the Order.
EB-2 NIW Strategy: Building a Strong Legal Case
While the Executive Order sets the policy context, working in the implicated fields alone does not automatically establish the requisite national importance. Petitioners must still establish eligibility under the three-prong framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar: (1) the proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance, (2) the petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor, and (3) it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements.
While the Executive Order provides a favorable policy backdrop for demonstrating national importance of the work related to advancing pediatric oncology care through AI, it is still crucial to present clear and detailed plans and strategies for implementing this work.
Defining a Clear, Specific and Innovative Proposed Endeavor
USCIS frequently denies NIW cases when the proposed endeavor is broad or vague. Under this Executive Order, general statements like “I will use AI to improve cancer research” are not enough. The petitioner must describe a specific, credible plan of work that aligns with the U.S. priorities. Examples include:
Developing AI tools to improve early diagnosis of pediatric brain tumors
Designing predictive analytics to optimize pediatric chemotherapy dosing
Building data platforms facilitating nationwide pediatric cancer trials
Developing machine learning tools for rare childhood cancer genomics
Petitioners should be able to describe what they will do, how they will do it, and why it represents an advancement in a field recognized as a U.S. national priority in a detailed yet concise manner.
Demonstrating Record of Success with a Broad Impact
Recent USCIS trends place increasing emphasis on whether the petitioner has a demonstrated record of success that has contributed to the broader advancement of their field. While the list below does not represent rigid requirements, strong evidence of broad impact may include:
Published, peer-reviewed research demonstrating impact on the field
Adoption or replication of Proven AI or data science models by others in the healthcare field
Roles held in collaborative or interdisciplinary initiatives related to pediatric oncology or AI in healthcare
Presentations or invited talks at conferences
Letters from recognized experts in AI, oncology, or medical research attesting to the influence and the widespread dissemination of the work
Presenting Concrete Plans for Advancing the Proposed Endeavor in the U.S.
USCIS has increasingly focused on the feasibility and scalability of the proposed endeavor. Petitioners must present credible, detailed plans showing how their work will be implemented and scaled within the United States. Examples of strong evidence of concrete plans include:
A clear, step-by-step plan for collaborating with U.S.-based institutions and organizations in the field of developing AI or data solutions to advance oncology research
Letters from institutions and organizations in the field expressing interest in collaborating with you to develop AI solutions that advance oncology research
Specific mechanisms for broad dissemination of your work such as professional presentations and open-source initiatives
Resource support from institutions and organizations demonstrating the feasibility of expanding the work
Recognition by U.S. experts or professional organizations through letters validating your ability to contribute to the advancement of the fields in the United States
Key Takeaways
The Executive Order has explicitly recognized AI-driven innovation and health data modernization as national priorities. In the immigration context, the Order establishes a powerful policy backdrop that opens a new strategic pathway for EB-2 NIW petitioners working at the intersection of medical research, AI and data science by providing a clear framework for demonstrating national importance in these fields.
As the United States advances its leadership in medical innovation, it will increasingly rely on researchers, engineers, physicians, bioinformaticians and technologies capable of delivering measurable impact. The Order’s integration of AI, health data, and biomedical research makes interdisciplinary expertise a strategic advantage, positioning such candidates as valuable to U.S. national interests.
Those developing AI solutions that improve patient outcomes, accelerate cancer discovery, or advance the integration of health data can now benefit from both a national mission and policy environment that recognize the significance of their work.
Employer Protection Against the Safety Responsibilities of Workers with Overseas Activities—Part 2
Tools for Companies to Implement Preventive Measures, Ensuring Compliance With Protection Obligations and Related Responsibilities
The need for worker protection has as reference figures the Head of the Prevention and Protection Service, the occupational health company doctor (OHCD), and the corporate functions that manage the company’s work activity abroad, also making use of qualified external support on the subject of risk assessment, personal safety, or medical emergencies with the need for medical repatriation to Italy.
The ”Travel Risk Management-Guide for Organizations” (ISO 31030:2021), is a key reference for companies operating globally. This standard provides a structured framework for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks associated with business travel, enabling organizations to take proactive preventive measures and ensure timely action in the event of an incident or emergency.
ISO 31030 is the essential guide outlining the critical factors to be considered in both risk analysis and the planning and implementation of prevention and management strategies.
This configures in travel risk management (TRM), a process resulting from a clear and detailed understanding of the factors that can influence the dynamics of risk management, broadly divided into two categories: so-called “external” risks and “internal” risks.
“External” risks include: the political, socioeconomic, religious, and legal environment of the destination country; the level of crime; the quality and reliability of transportation and communications; environmental factors; potential health risks; and the quality of the healthcare and housing system. “Internal” risks include: types of business travel; technical and human resources available for risk management; internal processes; corporate governance; organizational structure, roles, and responsibilities.
The path indicated by TRM enables companies to have detailed policies to define corporate strategies for (i) TRM and adoption of procedures for risk prevention and mitigation; (ii) definition of roles and responsibilities, as well as staff training programs. In this way, a clear corporate system of reference is built, enabling the company to protect the health and safety of its employees during missions abroad.
In these activities, the company profiles that manage safety and health protection, provided for by Legislative Decree 81/08—RSPP, OHCD, dedicated company functions—can avail themselves of consulting support from public or private facilities of proven competence and professionalism, which assist them in the assessment and management of risks related to working abroad.
A further application tool is represented by the September 2024 Guidelines of the Italian Society of Occupational Medicine (SIML), which focus on the articulated and specific aspects of health protection of Italian workers abroad and the mention of application tools that enable companies to fulfill their regulatory obligations punctually.
The “Professional Orientation Document for the Competent Physician: Practical-Management Aspects for Workers Abroad” represents a milestone in harmonizing scientific knowledge and experience and makes available indications on the health protocols to be adopted, consistent with international best practices and the company’s protection needs.
The document provides the health contribution to the process of risk assessment for work activity in critical geographical areas, highlighting the relevance of factors that can determine damage to the health of the worker working in that context and absent in the national territory (climate, infection vectors, general hygienic conditions). This is the aspect that requires the employer to extend its position of guarantee even regarding the “specific” risks of working abroad and, ultimately, to integrate the prevention measures adopted in the national territory of Italy.
The perimeter outlined by ISO 31030 and the SIML Guidelines makes available to employers and safety professionals the compliance parameters to be followed to structure an effective TRM policy aimed at minimizing travel-related health and safety risks for workers. These parameters are now commonly recognized internationally and represent a solid reference for the company to assess liability in case of litigation.
From Country Risk Assessment to Workers Health Surveillance: Implementation of the TRM Plan and Application Model
The risk assessment for working abroad, supported by the methodological indications of the SIML guidelines and ISO 31030, considers the geographical area and the country of destination with all its variables (climate, infection vectors, level of health care, geopolitical stability) and thus defines the so-called “country risk.” It follows with a progressive pathway for the health surveillance of personnel i.e., periodic medical checks according to country- or destination-specific health protocols, based on the parameters identified by the risk assessment.
It is necessary to identify within the company, with the support of the OHCD, functions of reference for the management of expatriate workers, which allow to manage the organization of the “TRM prevention system”, as suggested by the International Labor Office back in 1985.
Footnotes
ISO 31030:2021 guidelines;
Italian Society of Occupational Medicine Guideline: “Professional Orientation Document for the Competent Physician: Practical-Management Aspects for Workers Abroad” – 2024;
Proceedings of the 86th National Congress of Occupational Medicine – Pisa 2024, Italian Journal of Occupational Medicine and Ergonomics (GIMLE) 253–254.
Dr. Vincenzo Nicosia and Professor Paolo Bianco contributed to this article
Poland Takes Next Steps Towards Implementing Pay Transparency Directive
On 25 November, the Polish government published the principles that will form the basis of its new legislation implementing the outstanding provisions of the Pay Transparency Directive. Readers of our blog will be aware that Poland has already published legislation to implement the transparency provisions in the Directive (see our previous blog) and these will come into force from 24 December 2025.
Poland will be implementing the Directive in a standalone piece of legislation rather than by making changes to the Polish Labour Code. As expected, it is clear that the aim of the legislators is not to go beyond the minimum requirements set out in the Directive and to implement it largely “as is”. In other words, as appears to be the case in many other European member states, there will be no “gold-plating” of this Directive.
Below is what we know so far about the new legislation:
Categories of worker: All employers (irrespective of size) will be required to have salary structures in place that allow them to determine whether employees are performing comparable work. Four basic criteria must be used for these purposes: skills, effort, level of responsibility and working conditions, but employers will also be able to use additional criteria, provided they are objective and gender neutral. As highlighted below, a failure to carry out this exercise will put employers at risk of fines.
Transparency of pay setting: Employers will be obliged to make any criteria for setting individual salaries, salary levels and pay progression easily available to employees. Employers with fewer than 50 employees will only be required to provide information about pay progression upon request from an employee.
Right to information: Employees will have the right to information about their own individual salaries as well as the average salary levels of other employees performing the same work or work of equal value.
Pay gap reporting obligations: Employers with at least 100 employees will be obliged to carry out gender pay gap analysis and reporting will be done using tools provided by the Central Statistical Office.
Employee representatives: Employers will be obliged to cooperate with trade unions and employee representatives in relation to joint pay assessments and when undertaking steps to remedy any gender pay gaps of 5% or more. These new employee participation rights reflect current practices in Poland, i.e. an employer must deal with a trade union (if it exists) and, if not, elected employee representatives. It is not yet clear whether employee representatives will have any other information and/or consultation rights.
Fines: Fines for non-compliance will range from PLN 2,000 to PLN 60,000 and will be payable where an employer (or a person acting on their behalf) fails to: assess the value of individual job positions or types of work; provide employees with access to information about the relevant pay criteria; provide employees with certain pay information upon request; prepare a gender pay gap report or perform a joint pay assessment; take remedial action to remedy a gender pay gap. Fines will also be payable if an employer includes provisions in an employment contract which seek to prevent an employee from disclosing the amount of remuneration they receive.
We are now waiting for the draft legislation to assess the specific obligations imposed on employers, but no date has yet been given as to when this will be published for consultation.
The CCPA and Automated Decision-Making Technologies (ADMT)
As artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI, becomes increasingly woven into our professional and personal lives—from personalized travel itineraries to reviewing resumes to summarizing investigation notes and reports—questions about who or what controls our data and how it’s used are ever present. AI systems survive and thrive on information and that intersection of AI and privacy elevates the need for data protection.
Recent regulations issued by the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) begin to erect those protections. Among its various provisions, the CCPA now specifically addresses automated decision-making technologies (ADMT), attempting to bring transparency and consumer rights to, among other things, push back on algorithms making significant decisions about them.
As a starting point, it is important to define ADMT. Under the CCPA, it means any technology that processes personal information and uses computation to replace human decision-making or substantially replace human decision-making. For this purpose, “replace” means to make decision without human involvement. To be considered human involvement, a human must:
know how to interpret and use the technology’s output to make the decision;
review and analyze the output of the technology, and any other information that is relevant to make or change the decision; and
have the authority to make or change the decision based on their analysis in (B).
CCPA-covered businesses that use ADMT to make “significant decisions” about consumers have several new compliance obligations to navigate. A “significant decision” is defined as a decision that has important consequences for a consumer’s life, opportunities, or access to essential services. CCPA regulations define these decisions as those that result in the provision or denial of:
Financial or lending services (e.g., credit approval, loan eligibility)
Housing (e.g., rental applications, mortgage decisions)
Education enrollment or opportunities (e.g., admissions decisions)
Employment or independent contracting opportunities or compensation (e.g., hiring, promotions, work assignments)
Healthcare services (e.g., treatment eligibility, insurance coverage)
These decisions are considered “significant” because they directly affect a consumer’s economic, health, or personal well-being.
When such businesses use ADMT to make significant decisions, they generally must do the following:
Provide an opt-out right for consumers.
Provide a pre-use notice that clearly explains the business’s use of ADMT, in plain language.
Provide consumers with the ability to request information about the business’s use of ADMT.
Businesses using ADMT for significant decisions before January 1, 2027, must comply by January 1, 2027. Businesses that begin using ADMT after January 1, 2027, must comply immediately when the use begins.
Businesses will need to examine these new requirements carefully, including how they fit into the existing CCPA compliance framework, along with exceptions that may apply. For example, in the case of a consumer’s right to opt-out of ADMT, a business may not be required to make that right available.
If a business provides consumers with a method to appeal the ADMT decision to a human reviewer who has the authority to overturn the decision, opt-out is not required. Additionally, the right to opt-out of ADMT in connection with certain admission, acceptance, or hiring decisions, is not required if the following are satisfied:
the business uses ADMT solely for the business’s assessment of the consumer’s ability to perform at work or in an educational program to determine whether to admit, accept, or hire them; and
the ADMT works as intended for the business’s proposed use and does not unlawfully discriminate based upon protected characteristics.
Likewise, the right to opt-out of ADMT is not required for certain allocation/assignment of work and compensation decisions, if the business:
uses the ADMT solely for the business’s allocation/assignment of work or compensation; and
the ADMT works for the business’s purpose and does not unlawfully discriminate based upon protected characteristics.
As many businesses are realizing, successfully deploying AI requires a coordinated approach to achieve more than getting the desired output. It includes understanding a complex regulatory environment of which data privacy and security is a significant part.
IRS Guidance on Claiming the New Tax Deduction for Tips and Overtime Pay
Takeaways
For tax years 2025 -2028, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) allows employees to take an above-the-line tax deduction on qualified overtime pay and qualified tips.
On November 21, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released IRS Notice 2025-69, which explains how individual taxpayers can calculate and claim these deductions for the tax year 2025, even if their employer does not provide any separate documentation identifying which portions of overtime or tip income may qualify for the deduction.
Related Links
IRS and Treasury Guidance
IR-2025-82 (IRS announces no changes to individual information returns or withholding tables for 2025 under the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act)
IR-2025-92 (Treasury, IRS issues guidance listing occupations where workers customarily and regularly receive tips under the One, Big, Beautiful Bill)
IR-2025-110 (Treasury, IRS provide penalty relief for tax year 2025 for information reporting on tips and overtime under the One, Big, Beautiful Bill)
IRS Notice 2025-62 (Relief from Certain Penalties Related to Information Reporting Required in Connection with No Tax on Tips and Overtime)
IR-2025-114 (Treasury, IRS provide guidance for individuals who received tips or overtime during tax year 2025)
IRS Notice 2025-69 (Guidance for Individual Taxpayers who received Qualified Tips or Qualified Overtime Compensation in 2025)
Jackson Lewis Resources:
Federal OBBBA Round-Up: What Employers Need to Know Now – Jackson Lewis
OBBBA’s Tips + Overtime Tax Break: Reclassification Considerations, Reporting Requirements, Industry Impact + More – Jackson Lewis
IRS 2025 Penalty Relief: A Break for Employers under OBBBA’s Tax Reporting for Tips and Overtime
Background
Employer reporting obligations: The OBBBA requires employers to report on Form W-2 both
the portion of an employee’s pay that is qualified overtime compensation, and
the portion constituting qualified tips along with the employee’s qualifying tip-earning occupation.
However, under IRS Notice 2025-62, the IRS announced that it generally will not be enforcing these separate reporting obligations for the 2025 tax year. Formal W-2 reporting changes will begin in 2026.
Article
IRS Notice 2025-69 provides examples and calculation methods for determining deductible amounts of qualified tips and qualified overtime when the employer does not provide a separate accounting. Furthermore, the Notice grants transition relief from the restriction limiting the tip deductions to only those tips received in a “specified service trade or business.”
Even though separate reporting is optional in 2025 and the Form W-2 has not yet been revised for the new tax reporting obligations, the IRS still encourages employers to provide this information voluntarily, such as by posting on an online portal, providing additional written statements, or using Box 14 of Form W-2 to show qualified overtime pay. Employers that do not provide such additional information should anticipate employee inquiries during the 2025 tax filing season and consider proactive communication and support.
Stay Ahead of the Curve- Essential Employment Law Updates for Retailers in 2026
In today’s rapidly evolving legal landscape, staying informed about changes in employment laws is crucial for employers. Recent updates across the nation have introduced significant shifts that impact workplace policies, employee rights, and compliance requirements. Whether you are managing a small boutique or overseeing a large chain of stores, understanding these changes is essential to maintaining a compliant workplace.
Quick Hits
California and New York are implementing stringent measures to curb “stay or pay” contracts.
A Florida appellate court ruled the state’s open carry ban unconstitutional, allowing open carry throughout the state.
Maryland issued final regulations for its mini-WARN Act, which includes provisions for remote employees.
New pay transparency laws in New Jersey, California, Delaware, and Washington require employers to disclose pay and benefits information in job postings, with violations resulting in warnings and civil penalties.
Stay-or-Pay Contracts in Flux
Significant changes in employment law are on the horizon, particularly concerning “stay or pay” contracts, and retailers must stay alert. These agreements require employees to reimburse their employers for benefits like sign-on bonuses or educational and training expenses if they leave the job within a specified period. Such contracts are increasingly facing scrutiny.
Spearheading this movement are California and New York, which have introduced stringent measures to curb the use of such contracts. California’s newly enacted law (Assembly Bill 692), effective January 1, 2026, is one of the strictest bans on employment-related debt, aiming to prevent employers from using repayment agreements that can deter workers from changing jobs. New York has also proposed a similar law (Bill A564C), which is currently awaiting the governor’s signature. These state-level initiatives emerge as federal regulators, including the Federal Trade Commission and National Labor Relations Board, have retreated from efforts to regulate these contracts nationwide under the new administration.
What implications does this hold for retailers? Many retailers depend on high‑volume hiring and frequently use sign‑on bonuses, onboarding training, and certification programs to prepare associates for the floor. Repayment provisions that once helped to reduce early attrition may be restricted or even unenforceable in key markets.
Florida’s New Open Carry Law
On September 10, 2025, a Florida appellate court ruled that the state’s open carry ban is unconstitutional. This ban made it unlawful for individuals to openly carry firearms or electric weapons, with some limited exceptions. The recent ruling effectively allows open carry throughout Florida, even though it technically only applies to the counties within the First District Court of Appeals. Following the ruling, the Florida Attorney General advised that open carry should be considered lawful statewide, and the Florida Sheriffs Association instructed deputies not to enforce the prior ban, except in specific prohibited areas such as government buildings, schools, and places where conduct is inconsistent with permitted open carry.
This decision does not prevent private employers from prohibiting open carry in the workplace, nor does it change existing laws that permit employees to store secured firearms in their vehicles. Retailers can still control the presence of weapons in the workplace and prohibit weapons on their properties, with violations potentially resulting in charges of armed trespass. However, the decision may complicate the enforcement of these policies due to increased media attention, political contention, potential reluctance from front-line employees, and public pressure through social media.
In response, retailers should consider several strategic actions when implementing or reaffirming policies related to firearms. These include clearly notifying employees and the public about the policies, particularly any prohibitions on carrying firearms, and ensuring these notifications are prominently displayed. It is also important to outline expectations and provide comprehensive training to employees, especially those on the front lines, to help them understand how to enforce these policies safely and effectively.
Maryland Enacts New Mini-WARN Act
Maryland recently issued final regulations for its mini-WARN Act, which requires employers with at least fifty employees provide sixty days’ written notice before making significant reductions in operations. These reductions are defined as either relocating a part of the operation or shutting down part of a workplace that affects at least 25 percent of the workforce or fifteen employees, whichever is greater.
Initially, the notice provisions were voluntary, but they became mandatory in 2020, with enforcement delayed until the final regulations were issued. These regulations, now in effect, closely align with federal WARN Act requirements and include specific provisions for remote and telework employees. However, unlike the federal WARN Act, Maryland does not recognize an exception for unforeseeable business circumstances.
Employers must notify all affected employees, unions, the State Dislocated Worker Unit, and the chief elected official of the political subdivision where the workplace is located, with penalties for non-compliance. Before any reduction in force, retailers operating in Maryland should consult with legal counsel to determine whether they meet the necessary thresholds, including considerations for remote employees assigned to Maryland locations.
EEOC Is Back in Business
With the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) quorum restored, employers can expect more high-profile investigations, broad data requests, and litigation targeting hiring, promotion, compensation, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programming, and accommodations.
Recent developments at the EEOC, aligned with the administration’s policy priorities, suggest an acceleration of cases targeting DEI programs focused on race and sex, along with a renewed prioritization of religious rights in the workplace. While commissioner charges (including leaked charges) increased during the period when the EEOC lacked a quorum and could not officially act, employers can anticipate an uptick in high-profile investigations, public prelitigation demands with broad data requests, and systemic lawsuits.
On November 6, 2025, President Donald Trump named Andrea R. Lucas as chair of the EEOC. The next day, the U.S. Senate confirmed Brittany Bull Panuccio as commissioner of the EEOC, restoring a quorum of three commissioners.
As the newly configured EEOC advances the president’s America First agenda, employers may want to reevaluate their DEI programming to ensure that initiatives are grounded in individualized, job-related criteria. Employers should consider reviewing their policies that address gender identity, access to facilities, and pronoun usage to ensure compliance with current federal, state, and local law. Furthermore, employers may want to reassess selection procedures, testing methods, and artificial intelligence tools for validation and defensibility, as well as audit accommodation and leave policies in alignment with potential revisions to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
Employers may also want to prepare for increased attention to claims alleging religious discrimination, majority discrimination, or national origin discrimination and ensure that documentation and training support nondiscriminatory decision-making.
A Flurry of New Pay Transparency Laws
Employers looking to hire workers in New Jersey will need to comply with the state’s new pay transparency requirements. The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development issued proposed regulations under the New Jersey pay transparency law on September 15, 2025, which provide some (though not complete) clarity about the law’s pay and benefit disclosure requirements. The law, which went into effect on June 1, 2025, has two broad requirements (along with several exceptions): (1) an employer must disclose pay and benefits information in postings for “new jobs and transfer opportunities,” and (2) an employer must give notice of “promotional opportunities” to current employees in the affected department.
In October, California’s governor signed legislation (Senate Bill 642) that sets the statute of limitations for civil actions alleging violations of the state’s pay transparency requirements at three years, with a six-year “look-back” period to obtain relief for existing violations. In addition, the new law defines the “pay scale” that employers must disclose in job postings as a “good faith estimate” and expands the definition of “wages” to include all forms of compensation, including stocks and stock options.
On September 26, 2025, Delaware’s governor signed into law legislation (House Substitute No. 2 for House Bill No. 105) requiring employers in Delaware to include wage or salary ranges and information on benefits offered in job postings, making it the latest state to enact a pay transparency law. Employers found to have violated this law will receive a “written warning” for a first offense and could face civil penalties ranging from $500 to $10,000 for each subsequent violation.
The Washington State S+upreme Court recently ruled that job applicants can sue for violations of the state’s pay transparency law without needing to prove they applied for the job in good faith or were otherwise “bona fide” applicants. In Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, the plaintiffs brought a class action against a retailer that did not disclose pay information in job postings. In a 6-3 majority decision, the state’s high court held that an individual does not have to show that they are a “bona fide” or “good faith” job applicant. Instead, the court found that a job applicant is any individual who “submits a formal application or request for a job,” regardless of the applicant’s subjective intent to obtain employment.
Employers in these states may wish to carefully review their existing and future job postings to ensure compliance with state pay transparency laws.
Staying up to date with evolving employment laws is essential for retailers to ensure compliance. As regulations continue to change—particularly in areas such as “stay-or-pay” contracts, firearm policies, and mini-WARN laws, retailers must remain vigilant and proactive. By understanding and adhering to these legal requirements, retailers can mitigate risks, avoid penalties, and maintain a positive reputation with both employees and customers.
DOL–EEOC Partnership Expands Coordinated Enforcement on National Origin Discrimination Under ‘Project Firewall’
On November 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced a formal partnership with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Project Firewall to intensify enforcement against employers engaging in unlawful national origin discrimination, including hiring practices that disadvantage American workers.
The DOL’s announcement comes on the heels of new EEOC anti-American bias educational materials and underscores federal agencies’ enhanced data sharing, aligned enforcement tools, and coordinated guidance to deter discriminatory hiring, particularly where job postings or screening practices may prefer nonimmigrant visa holders (such as H-1B) over qualified U.S. workers.
Quick Hits
The EEOC, the DOL, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are coordinating efforts related to national origin discrimination and anti-American bias.
As part of Project Firewall, the DOL and EEOC plan to share data, align enforcement tools, and facilitate referrals addressing discriminatory hiring and potential H‑1B program abuses.
Given this coordination, employers may see and potentially should anticipate inquiries or involvement from more than one agency investigating alleged national origin discrimination or anti-American bias.
The new formal partnership builds on the EEOC’s recent technical assistance and educational updates, which emphasize that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects all workers—including American workers—from national origin discrimination.
That one-page guidance from the EEOC states that potential business rationales, such as labor costs, customer preferences, or stereotypes, do not justify discriminatory practices. Additionally, the EEOC’s one-pager and updated national origin resources flag several high‑risk areas: visa‑status preferences in job ads (e.g., “H‑1B only” or “H‑1B preferred”); disparate treatment in application and promotion processes that make it harder for U.S. workers to advance; and retaliation or harassment tied to national origin. Notably, the EEOC’s recent materials previewed a multiagency enforcement posture—now reinforced by the DOL’s Project Firewall announcement.
Project Firewall operationalizes that multiagency approach by facilitating information sharing “as permitted by law,” clarifying employer obligations, and aligning enforcement pathways so that potential Title VII violations can proceed in tandem with DOL actions addressing H‑1B misuse and related program compliance. The partnership also involves the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), signaling a whole-of-government focus on practices that may prefer foreign workers or visa holders over qualified Americans.
Next Steps
In light of the federal enforcement agency coordination, employers may wish to assess how their recruiting and hiring practices reference or rely on visa status, particularly where postings or screening criteria could be perceived as favoring nonimmigrant visa holders. Employers might also consider reviewing their practices against the themes noted in recent EEOC technical assistance and determining whether conducting attorney-client privileged audits of selection, promotion, and pay practices can help ensure practices are neutral, job-related, and applied consistently. Training appropriate stakeholders on Title VII’s protections as they relate to national origin, as well as creating and maintaining contemporaneous documentation of merit-based and legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, can assist in responding to agency questions that may arise.
California Court of Appeal Affirms Strict Prevailing Wage Standards
On November 18, 2025, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, issued a published decision in Anton’s Services Inc. v. Hagen, affirming administrative findings and penalties against a contractor for misclassifying workers, failing to pay prevailing wages, and violating apprenticeship requirements on public works projects. The decision does not make any new law, but it provides an important reminder on the strict enforcement of California’s Prevailing Wage Law and apprenticeship statutes, particularly concerning the importance of using the correct worker classification for the type of work performed. The decision also clarifies the standards for judicial review of administrative determinations.
Quick Hits
On November 18, 2025, the California Court of Appeal affirmed penalties against Anton’s Services for misclassifying workers and failing to comply with prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements on public works projects.
The court’s decision highlights the strict enforcement of California’s Prevailing Wage Law, emphasizing the necessity of correct worker classification and adherence to apprenticeship statutes.
The ruling clarifies that judicial review of administrative wage and penalty assessments is limited to the administrative record and governed by the substantial evidence standard.
Background
The case arose from two public works projects in San Diego County for road improvement and slope restoration. Anton’s Services was retained as a subcontractor on the slope restoration project, and its scope of work included “clearing and grubbing” the slope. The contractor was cited by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) for misclassifying workers under the “Tree Maintenance” classification rather than the higher-paid “Laborer (Engineering Construction)” classification, failing to pay prevailing wages, and not complying with statutory apprenticeship requirements. The DLSE issued civil wage and penalty assessments for both projects, which the contractor challenged through administrative and judicial proceedings.
Key Holdings
Worker Misclassification and Prevailing Wage Obligations. The court upheld the administrative finding that the contractor misclassified workers on both projects. The work performed—primarily clearing and grubbing as preparatory construction activity—was found to be incidental to construction and thus subject to the “Laborer” classification, not “Tree Maintenance.” The court rejected arguments that certain tree-related work was outside the scope of construction or that a change order altered the classification analysis. The decision emphasizes that work incidental to a public works construction project must be classified and compensated in accordance with the applicable prevailing wage determination, regardless of the contractor’s licensing or invoicing practices.
Penalties and Liquidated Damages. The court affirmed the imposition of penalties under Labor Code section 1775 for failure to pay prevailing wages, finding no evidence of a good-faith mistake or prompt correction by the contractor. The court also upheld the assessment of liquidated damages under section 1742.1, clarifying that wages remain “unpaid” for purposes of liquidated damages until actually paid to workers or deposited with the Department of Industrial Relations, even if funds are withheld by the prime contractor and transmitted to the awarding body. The court declined to create an exception to the statutory scheme based on the withholding of funds under section 1727, emphasizing the Legislature’s clear intent and the plain language of the statutes.
Apprenticeship Requirements. The decision affirms findings that the contractor failed to (a) submit contract award information to an applicable apprenticeship program before commencing work, (b) employ the required ratio of apprentices to journeypersons, and (c) request dispatch of apprentices from appropriate committees. The court rejected arguments that self-training or prior approval excused compliance, and noted the existence of an irrebuttable presumption of knowledge of apprenticeship requirements where the contractor had prior violations or was notified by contract documents. Penalties for “knowing” violations were upheld under Labor Code section 1777.7.
Scope and Standard of Judicial Review. The court reiterated that judicial review of administrative wage and penalty assessments is limited to the administrative record and governed by the substantial evidence standard. Arguments relying on extra-record evidence or unsupported by the record were deemed forfeited.
Key Takeaways
Contractors on California public works projects must ensure proper worker classification and payment of prevailing wages for all work incidental to construction, regardless of how work is described or invoiced.
Strict compliance with apprenticeship requirements—including notice, employment ratios, and dispatch requests—is mandatory, and prior violations or contractual notice may establish knowledge for penalty purposes.
Liquidated damages for unpaid wages will be imposed unless the contractor pays workers or deposits the full assessment with the Department of Industrial Relations within sixty days, regardless of any withholding by the prime contractor.
Judicial review of administrative wage and penalty assessments is highly deferential, limited to the administrative record, and will not consider new evidence or arguments not raised below.
The Anton’s Services decision underscores the importance of diligent compliance with prevailing wage and apprenticeship laws on public works projects and the significant consequences for misclassification and related violations.
Protecting Your Investment: When Partner Misconduct Becomes Shareholder Oppression
If December is approaching, that means holiday party season is approaching. Ah, yes. Male and female employees, usually with no spouses present … and copious amounts of alcohol. What could possibly go wrong?
Countless attorneys write blogs and articles about the pitfalls of drunken holiday festivities from a sexual harassment and liability angle. That is not the purpose of this article. Instead, my focus is on the impact of such conduct to a minority business owner. What if the offending holiday party occurs in a small, closely held business and you are that minority owner? What if you are just as disgusted by your business partner’s behavior as the females in the office are (or at least almost as disgusted)? You were not the one made to sit on his lap, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have legal rights.
In New Jersey, shareholder “oppression” by the majority shareholder(s) could give you legal remedies including a potential forced buyout. If boorish behavior is happening at the holiday party, or – worse – on a day-to-day basis in the office, your company is a potential defendant in a lawsuit. Doesn’t that jeopardize your investment? If your investment is put at risk, that could be considered shareholder oppression by a court.
Having your company, and your investment, placed at risk occurs in many more contexts than potential liability for sexual harassment. A majority owner who discriminates racially has harmed not only his victim, but you and your investment, as well. The company is now a potential defendant in a lawsuit that you know may have merit. If the plaintiff wins – as he or she should – you could lose everything. Yet you have done nothing wrong (other than your choice of business partner). Even a majority owner who cheats on the corporate tax returns is subjecting the company to penalties – or worse. Superficially, you might benefit from paying less in taxes, but if the company is prosecuted for tax fraud, aren’t you and your investment harmed?
In other words, there are several ways in which your investment could be put in jeopardy by drunken comments, actions, or simply improper and illegal behavior that are not directed at you, but at others. The harm to one who is discriminated against or harassed is obviously more insidious, and the fact that you complain should not be viewed as belittling or downplaying such harm to others. But you shouldn’t have to feel as if you are playing on the wrong team, and you shouldn’t have to hope your business partner’s conduct doesn’t cost you your entire investment.
If you and your business partner are no longer aligned in what is morally acceptable behavior, and you want your values to be better represented by the company you own, you may be able to force the issue.
California Court of Appeal Affirms Dismissal of PAGA Claims Based on Prior Settlement and Claim Preclusion
On November 19, 2025, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, issued a published decision in Brown v. Dave & Buster’s of California, affirming the dismissal of a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action brought by a former employee against her employer. The court held that a prior settlement in a related PAGA action released the plaintiff’s claims and that her subsequent lawsuit alleging substantially identical claims was barred by claim preclusion, a legal doctrine that prevents parties from relitigating claims that have already been decided by a court in a final judgment.
In this era of runaway PAGA litigation, several California employers are facing multiple or serial PAGA claims alleging the same or substantially the same allegations, and this case provides needed support to help ensure that PAGA claims that are settled and released will be effective in barring later-filed claims for the same claim period.
Quick Hits
On November 19, 2025, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a PAGA action in Brown v. Dave & Buster’s of California, Inc., holding that a prior settlement barred the plaintiff’s claims under the doctrine of claim preclusion.
The court found that the settlement in a 2019 action, which covered the same alleged Labor Code violations, constituted a final judgment on the merits and involved the same parties or those in privity.
The court emphasized that substantial compliance with PAGA’s pre-filing notice requirements is sufficient, and minor technical defects do not defeat claim preclusion.
Background
Lauren Brown, a former employee of Dave & Buster’s of California, Inc., filed a representative PAGA action in June 2019, alleging violations of various Labor Code provisions, including failure to provide meal and rest periods, vacation pay, wage statements, and off-the-clock work. Dave and Buster’s had previously faced multiple PAGA actions from other employees, including an earlier-filed case that ultimately resulted in a global settlement (Andrade v. Dave & Buster’s Management Corp., Inc.) covering the same alleged violations and the same employer entities.
The trial court found Brown’s case to be “substantially identical” to the earlier action and stayed proceedings to avoid conflicting rulings. Following approval of the Andrade settlement, which included a release of claims for all aggrieved employees and covered the same Labor Code violations, Dave and Buster’s moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the settlement barred Brown’s claims under the doctrine of claim preclusion.
Key Holdings
Claim Preclusion Applies to PAGA Claims Released in Prior Settlement. The appellate court affirmed that claim preclusion barred Brown’s PAGA claims. The Andrade settlement constituted a final judgment on the merits, involved the same parties or those in privity, and encompassed the same causes of action. The court emphasized that PAGA’s statutory scheme is designed to promote judicial economy by requiring all claims based on the same alleged violations to be resolved in a single action.
Substantial Compliance With PAGA’s Pre-Filing Notice Requirement. Brown argued that the prior settlement should not bar her claims because the earlier plaintiff (Jessica Andrade) failed to strictly comply with PAGA’s sixty-five-day waiting period for amended claims before filing her operative complaint. The court rejected this argument, finding that Andrade’s notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) substantially complied with statutory requirements and fulfilled the purpose of affording the agency an opportunity to investigate.
No Standing for Post-Settlement Violations. The court also rejected Brown’s argument that she had standing to pursue claims for violations occurring after the date of the prior settlement, noting that her employment had ended years before and that PAGA standing does not extend to violations occurring after the plaintiff’s employment.
Judicial Approval and Agency Acceptance. The court observed that the LWDA was notified of the settlement and did not oppose it, and that the trial court’s approval of the settlement was valid and binding. The Supreme Court of California has rejected efforts by subsequent PAGA plaintiffs to object to settlements reached by other aggrieved employees acting on the state’s behalf.
Key Takeaways
PAGA settlements that release claims for all aggrieved employees and are judicially approved will bar subsequent representative actions based on the same alleged Labor Code violations.
Substantial compliance with PAGA’s pre-filing notice requirements is sufficient; minor technical defects, such as filing an amended complaint before the expiration of the sixty-five-day waiting period, do not defeat claim preclusion.
PAGA plaintiffs lack standing to pursue claims for violations occurring after their employment ends or after a prior settlement has been approved.
Judicial review will defer to the administrative record and the terms of the prior settlement, and subsequent plaintiffs cannot relitigate released claims or object to approved settlements.
The Brown decision underscores the importance of comprehensive settlement agreements in PAGA actions and the significant preclusive effect such settlements have on future representative claims arising from the same alleged violations. Employers facing multiple PAGA actions may want to ensure that settlements are properly noticed, encompass all relevant claims, and are judicially approved to achieve finality and avoid duplicative litigation.
The State of Employment Law: Rhode Island and Massachusetts Have Special Laws Regarding Work on Holidays
While many of us get most or all federal holidays off work, these days off are generally not mandated by law. Federal law does not require private employers to provide days off for holidays, and many employers are open for business on some or even all holidays. Likewise, there is no federal law that requires holiday premium pay for those who are required to work on a holiday. However, two states have unique laws regarding holiday work.
Rhode Island requires premium pay at a rate of time and a half for most employees if they are required to work on New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Juneteenth, Independence Day, Victory Day, Labor Day, Indigenous Peoples/Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, or Christmas. This holiday premium pay requirement does not apply to doctors, dentists, attorneys, accountants, supervisory employees, hotel and restaurant workers, and a few other groups of employees.
Massachusetts does not require premium pay, but its Blue Laws place restrictions on when employees can work on holidays. Retail workers are not allowed to work on Columbus Day (before noon), Veterans Day (before 1 pm), Thanksgiving, or Christmas unless the police have granted their employer a permit. Businesses can operate without a permit on New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Juneteenth, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day (after noon), and Veterans Day (after 1 pm), but retail employees have the right to refuse to work on those dates. Businesses may operate without restriction on Martin Luther King Day, President’s Day, Evacuation Day, Patriots’ Day, and Bunker Hill Day. Manufacturers face similar restrictions under the Blue Laws, but their schedule is slightly different. No work without a permit is allowed on Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day (before noon), Veterans Day (before 1:00), Thanksgiving, and Christmas.
Non-English Minnesota Paid Leave Notices Available
The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry has posted sample employee notices regarding the state’s new Paid Leave program in Hmong, Somali and Spanish. Employers with workers whose primary language is not English have been waiting for these documents so that they can meet the Dec. 1, 2025, deadline for notifying Minnesota employees about the new law going into effect in 2026.
Employers will want to remember that they also have to obtain each employee’s acknowledgment that the notice was received by Dec. 1, 2025.
The Hmong, Somali and Spanish notices can be found at Employer Resource Toolkit | Minnesota Paid Leave