Labor & Employment – Page 6

Update on DHS Efforts to Terminate TPS and Parole Status for Various Immigrant Groups

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been actively working to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Parole status for several immigrant groups, impacting their work authorization and residency status. This update aims to provide human resource professionals with the latest developments and implications for their workforce. Given the whirlwind of activity, employers must constantly monitor the news and the status of their employees on temporary work authorization so they can be sure to not employ individuals who have lost work authorization.
Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
Venezuela: The situation for Venezuelans under TPS has been complex, in part because there were multiple grants of TPS status to Venezuelan nationals at different times with different expiration dates. On May 19, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily paused a federal court ruling that had blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke TPS for Venezuelans. The current legal status for this group is murky. Venezuelans under the 2021 TPS designation can remain in the U.S. and retain their work authorization until September 10, 2025.
Afghanistan: DHS announced the termination of TPS for Afghanistan, effective July 2025. This decision affects approximately 12,000 Afghans who will lose their protection from deportation and work authorization.
Parole Programs
CHNV Parole Program: The Supreme Court recently allowed the Trump administration to terminate the CHNV Parole Program, which had provided temporary protection to over 530,000 individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. This decision means that these individuals are now at risk of deportation and will lose their work authorization. DHS has emphasized that this move is part of a broader effort to enforce immigration laws and prioritize public safety.
Implications for Employers
These changes have significant implications for employers and HR professionals. The termination of TPS and Parole status means that affected employees will lose their work authorization, potentially leading to workforce disruptions. Employers should:

Review Form I-9s: Identify employees who may be affected by these changes and verify their current work authorization status.
Communicate with Affected Employees: Provide clear communication about the changes and determine if those individuals losing one of these immigration statuses have alternative opportunities to retain work authorization.
Plan for Workforce Adjustments: Develop contingency plans to address potential workforce shortages and maintain business continuity.
Get Legal Advice: Work with immigration attorneys to navigate the complexities of these changes and ensure compliance with the rapidly evolving status of the law.

DHS’s efforts to terminate TPS and Parole status for various immigrant groups are creating significant challenges for both the affected individuals and their employers. The legal landscape is literally changing daily. Staying informed and proactive in addressing these changes will be crucial for employers in managing their workforce effectively.

Puerto Rico High Court Confirms Employers Need to Check NLRA Preemption of Local Employment Law Claims

Takeaways

Puerto Rico courts lack jurisdiction over claims involving conduct “arguably” protected or prohibited by the NLRA, even if framed under local laws.
The NLRB has exclusive authority to adjudicate unfair labor practice claims covered by the NLRA — state or local courts must defer unless the NLRB declines jurisdiction.
Employers facing claims related to union activity or retaliation should evaluate NLRA preemption early and coordinate with labor counsel to assert defenses or direct claims to the NLRB.

EU Pay Transparency Directive: ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work or Work of Equal Value’

The European Union’s pay transparency directive (Directive (EU) 2023/970) introduced the principle of “equal pay for equal work or work of equal value,” aiming to eliminate pay discrimination under the obligation that job roles of equal worth receive equal pay, regardless of gender.

Quick Hits

In the EU, pay transparency has been identified as a key obstacle to closing the gender pay gap. Directive (EU) 2023/970 aims to close the gender pay gap and promote fair pay practices by increasing transparency and accountability between employers and employees.
The principle of “equal value” will require employers to undertake an evaluation exercise to determine where equivalence of the respective value of roles may exist across their organisations. Employers may want to consider preparing for this now.
EU member states have a deadline of 7 June 2026 to transpose the directive into national law. Each member state has the autonomy to transpose the directive in its own way, provided the directive’s minimum requirements are met.

What Does ‘Equal Work or Work of Equal Value’ Mean?
Directive (EU) 2023/970 defines equal pay not only for identical roles but also for jobs that contribute comparably to an organisation’s success. Employers must assess job roles using objective, gender-neutral criteria. Each EU member state may derive its own methodology for determining whether two roles are of equal value, but minimum factors to consider for each role should include:

Skills—The experience, knowledge, and qualifications required.
Effort—The mental or physical exertion needed for a role.
Responsibility—The level of accountability and decision-making involved.
Working Conditions—The risks associated with the job.

New Employer Obligations Under Directive (EU) 2023/970
Under the directive, employees (and/or their representatives) have the right to request and receive information on their pay level and the average pay levels of their organisation, broken down by gender, for employees performing the same work as them or work of equal value. Within two months of a written request, employers will need to provide an employee with the requisite information.
In the first stage of the directive’s implementation, employers with 150 or more employees are required to report on the average gender pay gap (1) across the company as a whole and (2) within each category of workers who do the same work or work of equal value.
If a pay difference of 5 percent or more is uncovered, without objective justification, and is left unresolved for more than six months from the date it is reported, the organisation will be subject to a joint pay assessment (i.e., a detailed equal pay audit) which can be costly and damaging.
Next Steps
Employers may want to consider the objective criteria used to consider how categories of employees are determined, and which roles are of equal value. All employers must ensure that they are consistent and nondiscriminatory in their application of pay criteria and be prepared to demonstrate how this operates in practice. Transparency and fairness necessitate detailed records of salary structures and clear strategies to address possible pay disparities.
The directive requires greater accountability from employers to ensure fair pay practices. Maintaining compliance may require establishing job evaluation systems, transparent pay structures, and data reporting. The concept of “equal value” is complex and employers may want to prepare for this new requirement now.

H-1B Registration Numbers for FY 2026 H-1B Cap Reveal an Increase in Selection Rate

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has released the selection numbers for the fiscal year (FY) 2026 H-1B cap, revealing a selection rate of approximately 35 percent compared to 29 percent in FY 2025.

Quick Hits

The number of eligible H-1B registrations decreased by 26.9 percent from 470,342 in FY 2025 to 343,981.
The number of unique beneficiaries significantly decreased from 423,038 in FY 2025 to 336,153.
The average registration per beneficiary slightly decreased from 1.06 in FY 2025 to 1.01, indicating an average of one submitted registration per beneficiary.
An increase in the selection rate from approximately 29 percent in FY 2025 to approximately 35 percent.

Fiscal year
Number of unique employers
Number of unique beneficiaries
Selected Registrations

2025
Approximately 52,700
423,028
135,137

2026
Approximately 57,600
336,153
120,141

Source: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
A closer look at USCIS’s recently published FY 2026 H-1B cap registration data shows that USCIS selected 120,141 registrations out of 336,153 eligible registrations for beneficiaries with no other eligible registrations. This resulted in a selection rate of approximately 35 percent.
Since the approximate 24.8 percent selection rate in FY 2024, the selection rate has been trending upward, reaching approximately 29 percent in FY 2025 and approximately 35 percent in FY 2026, reflecting roughly a 5 percent increase each year.
Since its initiation in 2024, USCIS has continued to use the beneficiary-centric system, which aims to ensure integrity in the H-B registration system and reduce fraud by focusing on each unique beneficiary as opposed to each registration. To further ensure fairness, USCIS is reviewing the FY 2025 and FY 2026 data to identify fraud. The agency will deny or revoke petitions where there is a finding of any attempt to gain an unfair advantage and will make referrals to law enforcement for criminal prosecution where appropriate.
Next Steps
For selected registrants, the H-1B petition filing period is from April 1 to June 30, 2025. If USCIS does not receive enough H-1B petitions during the filing period to meet the H-1B annual limit, it may conduct a second lottery. USCIS has not yet announced whether there will be additional selection rounds for FY 2026.

Beltway Buzz, May 30, 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.

DOL to Rescind Biden-era ESG Rule. In a status report filed this week with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) stated that it will no longer defend a legal challenge to the Biden administration’s 2022 ESG (environmental, social, and governance) rule (formally, “Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights”). Instead, the administration will pursue notice-and-comment rulemaking to rescind the regulation. The pending rulemaking will be the latest regulatory back-and-forth on this issue, as the DOL in 2020 finalized a regulation that limited the abilities of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan fiduciaries to consider investment factors that “promote non-pecuniary benefits or objectives.” In turn, the 2022 Biden-era rule instituted an “all things being equal” standard that allows plan fiduciaries to consider such factors as “tiebreakers” in investing decisions. There is no timetable for the proposed rule, but the spring regulatory agenda—expected sometime in June or July of this year—should provide some clues.
USCIS Nominee Wants Restrictions on OPT. Last week, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Joseph Edlow to serve as director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). In response to a question from Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) regarding optional practical training (OPT), a program that provides F-1 students with up to three years of work authorization after graduation, Edlow responded with the following:
What I want to see would be essentially a regulatory and sub-regulatory program that would allow us to remove the ability for employment authorizations for F-1 students beyond the time that they are in school.

The statement clearly provides insight not just into the future of OPT, but also on the types of employment-based immigration policies that USCIS will pursue in the future. The committee has not yet voted on Edlow’s nomination.
Consulates to Pause Student Visa Interviews. According to media reports, the U.S. Department of State has instructed U.S. consulates to refrain from scheduling new interviews for applicants seeking visas to study in the United States in preparation for new social media vetting protocols. The State Department will reportedly be issuing guidance as to what such vetting will entail. The increased scrutiny of foreign students’ social media activities is likely rooted in President Donald Trump’s executive order, “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” which instructs the secretary of state, the attorney general, the secretary of homeland security, and the director of national intelligence to ensure “that all aliens seeking admission to the United States, or who are already in the United States, are vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible.”
House Committee Examines DEI on College Campuses. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce’s Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development held a hearing last week entitled “Restoring Excellence: The Case Against DEI.” The hearing primarily focused on fallout from the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2023 ruling prohibiting the use of affirmative action in college admissions, including alleged ongoing discrimination in the college admissions process. Witnesses and lawmakers also examined college accreditation standards and medical school curricula, among other topics. The Dismantle DEI Act, introduced in 2024 by then-senator J.D. Vance, was not discussed.
Republican Lawmakers Seek Input on Transparency Reforms for Union Members. Chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce Tim Walberg (R-MI), along with Representative Rick Allen (R-GA), who chairs the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, sent an open letter to stakeholders soliciting feedback on potential revisions to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) “to inform Congress how it can reform the LMRDA to ensure labor organizations adhere to the highest standards of responsibility and ethical conduct.” The letter is divided into the following issue area categories:

Strengthening Member Governance and Voting Rights (e.g., “Should a union be required to hold a secret ballot vote of membership to ratify a collective bargaining agreement or authorize a strike?” And, “What information should a union be required to share with membership during contract negotiations and before a strike authorization?”)
Fiscal Transparency and Fiduciary Duty (e.g., “How can Congress clarify or strengthen fiduciary responsibilities of union officers?”)
Political Expenditures and Member Consent (e.g., “What reforms would give members more direct control over the portion of their dues used for lobbying, campaign contributions, or ballot-measure advocacy?”)
Digital Disclosure and Data Accessibility
Enforcement, Compliance Assistance, and Whistleblower Protections (e.g., “Do current criminal and civil penalties under the LMRDA adequately deter embezzlement, vote rigging, and false reporting? If not, how should they be updated?” And, “Should Congress establish a private right of action or a more robust whistleblower protection program to assist members with reporting wrongdoing?”)

The letter requests that all stakeholder feedback be submitted by July 22, 2025. The Buzz expects that this information will eventually lead to the introduction of legislation amending the LMRDA.
Labor Secretary Outlines Priorities on Capitol Hill. As part of the fiscal year (FY) 2026 appropriations process, Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer testified last week before the Senate Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.
RIP, Harrison Tyler. Harrison Ruffin Tyler died on May 25, 2025, at the age of ninety-six. A chemical engineer and historical preservationist, Tyler was, quite amazingly, the grandson of our tenth president, John Tyler, who served as our chief executive from 1841–1845. How could someone who passed away this week have a grandfather born in 1790, just one year after ratification of the U.S. Constitution? Well, it helps that John Tyler fathered more children—fifteen—than any other president. It also helps that one of those children—Lyon Gardiner Tyler—was born to John Tyler’s second wife (Julia Gardiner Tyler) in 1853, when the former president was sixty-three years old. Like his father, Lyon Gardiner also married twice, and his second wife, Sue Ruffin, was thirty-five years his junior. Ruffin gave birth to Harrison Ruffin Tyler in 1928, when Lyon Tyler was seventy-five years old.

Oregon Federal Judge Strikes Down State Law Requiring Labor Peace Agreements for Cannabis Licensure and Certification – OLCC Will No Longer Enforce State Requirement

On Tuesday May 20, 2025, U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon, Michael H. Simon issued a decision in Casala LLC, d/b/a Bubble’s Hash and Rec Rehab Consulting LLC, d/b/a Ascend Dispensary v. Tina Kotek, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-244-SI (D.Or. May 20, 2025), striking down Oregon’s United for Cannabis Workers Act and holding that the law is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) in violation of the Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Shortly after Oregon’s United for Cannabis Workers Act took effect, two cannabis employers Bubble’s Hash and Ascend Dispensary (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, and sought a permanent injunction to enjoin the Oregon Governor, Oregon Attorney General, Chair of the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (“OLCC”), and Executive Director of the OLCC (collectively, “Defendants”), from enforcing the United for Cannabis Workers Act against them.
Plaintiffs alleged that the law: (1) was preempted by the NLRA and its enforcement would be in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution; (2) was void for vagueness in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution; (3) abridged Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment; (4) infringed on Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (5) disrupts Plaintiffs’ contractual arrangements in violation of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution.
Following hearing argument on the merits, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ requested declaratory and permanent injunctive relief, concluding that the law was preempted by the NLRA, violated the Supremacy Clause and violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, and that the requirements for permanent injunctive relief were satisfied. With this decision, the Oregon District Court became the first U.S. District Court to strike down a state law that required cannabis employers to enter into labor peace agreements in order to receive or renew a license to sell cannabis.
On May 29, the OLCC issued the following statement concerning Judge Simon’s May 20 decision: “Earlier this month, a federal judge issued a ruling barring the enforcement of Ballot Measure 119. Given this ruling and in consultation with the Oregon Department of Justice, the OLCC will no longer require labor peace agreements as part of cannabis license application and license renewals.”
United for Cannabis Workers Act
The United for Cannabis Workers Act was passed by an initiative approved by Oregon voters in November 2024 as Ballot Measure 119 (“Measure 119”) and took effect December 5, 2024. Measure 119 requires businesses licensed to sell or process cannabis to enter into labor peace agreements with labor organizations or sign an attestation affirming that the business has entered into such agreement. The businesses must submit such agreements or attestations with their applications for a license, certification of renewal of a license, or certification to dispense cannabis. Oregon law defines a “labor peace agreement” (“LPA”) as “an agreement under which, at a minimum, an applicant or licensee agrees to remain neutral with respect to a bona fide labor organization’s representatives communicating with the employees of the applicant or the licensee about the rights afforded to such employees.
Plaintiffs had both been unable to enter into LPAs at the time of filing.
The District Court’s Decision
As an initial issue, the Court determined that the NLRA likely applied to cannabis businesses and does not limit its jurisdiction to “lawful commerce” or “legal substance” as some other federal laws do. Judge Simon pointed out that the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has issued advisory memoranda back to 2013 which stated that the medical marijuana industry is within the NLRB’s jurisdiction if the business meets the NLRA’s jurisdictional monetary requirements.
The Court determined that Measure 119 is preempted by the NLRA under Garmon preemption because it does not distinguish between permissible employer speech and threatening or coercive speech and thus impermissibly conditions a state license on an employer “refraining from conduct protected by federal labor law,” which “chills one side of the ‘robust debate which has been protected under the NLRA.’” In other words, Measure 119 chills an employer’s right to speech under section 8(c).
In terms of Machinist preemption, the Court held that by seeking to regulate and forbid certain truthful, non-deceptive, non-coercive speech about unionization and by conditioning license renewal on signing an LPA, Measure 119 sought to regulate the relationship between unions and employers, upsetting the balance Congress struck in passing the NLRA. Thus, it is preempted under Machinist preemption.
With respect to the First Amendment, the Court determined that because Measure 119 requires Plaintiffs to remain neutral with respect to labor organization’s representatives communicating with employees of the applicant or licensee and does not limit its restrictions to only threatening, coercive, false, or misleading speech, it violates Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to free speech.
Other States With Similar Labor Peace Agreement Requirements
While not binding on other courts outside of Oregon, given that the decision is the first to strike down a law that requires LPAs for licensure, the decision is likely to be utilized by cannabis businesses in other states with similar requirements, such as California, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Delaware, among others.[1]
The decision acknowledged and Defendants cited to a recent decision analyzing the California version of Measure 119, the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”) Ctrl Alt Destroy v. Elliott, 2025 WL 790963 at *7 n.8 (S.D. Cal. Mar 12, 2025) which held that Garmon preemption did not apply because of the local responsibility exception. Judge Simon rejected this conclusion of Ctrl Alt Destroy, pointing out that Measure 119 and MAUCRSA regulate only labor relations of cannabis businesses and do not regulate the sale or use of cannabis. Similarly, Judge Simon rejected the conclusion from the Ctrl Alt Destroy decision on Machinists preemption. Judge Simon reasoned that Machinists preemption seeks to protect balancing only in the labor relations context, not to regulation of the underlying market. Thus, Measure 119 regulates an area that Congress intended to leave to the free play of economic forces.
Takeaways
The OLCC will no longer require labor peace agreements as part of cannabis license application and license renewals in Oregon.
Employers seeking to challenge similar state LPA licensure requirements in other states are encouraged to speak with experienced labor counsel to discuss their options. We will continue to monitor similar challenges as they are filed, and provide additional updates.

FOOTNOTES
[1] Additionally, states including Illinois and Pennsylvania grant preferential treatment to businesses with LPAs when applying for licensure.
Listen to this post

Minnesota Employment Legislative Update 2025, Part III: Regular Session Ends in Stalemate and Stagnation

On May 19, 2025, the Minnesota Legislature’s regular session adjourned without completing the two-year budget, leaving a long list of outstanding bills in limbo. The Minnesota Legislature will now enter a special session to tackle unfinished business. Despite the regular session’s anti-climactic ending, state lawmakers managed to pass a handful of bills that have been signed by Governor Tim Walz and will create new obligations for employers.
Quick Hits

Minnesota’s regular legislative session adjourned on May 19, 2025, but a special session is expected to convene soon to complete remaining budgetary matters.
Governor Walz signed the Brady Aune and Joseph Anderson Safety Act, imposing new requirements on employers with commercial scuba divers.
The legislature amended Minnesota’s medical cannabis law, among other laws, which creates new obligations for employers.
Other significant proposed bills aimed at amending existing labor and employment laws failed to make it to Governor Walz’s desk for approval.

Brady Aune and Joseph Anderson Safety Act
A new statute, Minn. Stat. § 182.679, titled the “Brady Aune and Joseph Anderson Safety Act,” applies to “persons who are conducting self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (scuba) diving at a place of employment while making improvements to the land, including the removal of aquatic plants” took effect May 2, 2025. Under this new statute, which is included in the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Act (Minn. Stat. § 182), employers:

may not allow an individual to scuba dive unless the individual has an acceptable open-water scuba diver certificate;
must require certain equipment when an individual is scuba diving;
must ensure that a standby diver is available while a diver is in the water; and
must ensure all individuals scuba diving or serving as standby divers are trained in CPR and first aid.

An employer may be cited by the commissioner of labor and industry for violations under this statute.
Amendments to Minnesota’s Medical Cannabis Law
Minnesota’s medical cannabis law (Minn. Stat. § 342.57) went into effect on March 1, 2025, and prohibits employers from discriminating against a person in hiring, termination of employment, or any term or condition of employment if the discrimination was based on the person’s enrollment in a cannabis registry program. It also prohibits employers from taking adverse action against an employee for a positive drug test for cannabis components or metabolites, unless the employee used, possessed, sold, transported, or was impaired by medical cannabis flower or a medical cannabinoid product on work premises, during working hours, or while using an employer’s vehicle, equipment, or machinery. These protections apply unless compliance would violate federal or state laws or regulations or cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing-related benefit under federal law or regulations.
Senate File (SF) 2370 / House File (HF) 1615 amended Minnesota’s medical cannabis law in several ways, including:

expanding the protection of this bill to cover employees who are enrolled in a Tribal medical cannabis program. Thus, an employer may not take any adverse action against an employee based on the employee’s enrollment in this type of program;
requiring an employer to notify employees at least fourteen days before the employer takes an adverse employment action due to the specific federal law or regulation the employer believes would be violated if it does not take the action and the monetary or licensing-related benefit the employer would lose if it does not take the action;
prohibiting employers from retaliating against an employee for asserting the employee’s rights or seeking remedies under the Minn. Stat. §§ 342.57 or 152.32;
increasing the civil penalty for violating Minn. Stat. §§ 342.57, subds. 3, 4, or 5 from $100 to $1,000.
giving employees the option to seek injunctive relief to prevent or end a violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 342.57, subds. 3 to 6a.

Governor Walz signed the bill on May 23, 2025, and it took effect the following day.
Amendments to Wage Theft and Whistleblower Laws
On May 23, 2025, Governor Walz also signed bills that amended Minnesota’s wage theft and whistleblower statutes.
Wage Theft: SF 1417 / HF 2432 amends Minn. Stat. § 388.23 to give the county attorney (or deputy attorney if authorized by the county attorney in writing) the authority to subpoena and require the production of records of an employer or business entity that is the subject of or has information related to a wage theft investigation, including: accounting and financial records (such as books, registers, payrolls, banking records, credit card records, securities records, and records of money transfers); records required to be kept pursuant to section 177.30, paragraph (a); and other records that relate to the wages or other income paid, hours worked, and other conditions of employment or of work performed by independent contractors, and records of any payments to contractors, and records of workers’ compensation insurance.
SF 1417 / HF 2432 will go into effect on August 1, 2025.
Whistleblowers: SF 3045 / HF 2783: Amends Minn. Stat. § 181.931 (Minnesota’s whistleblower law) to add definitions of “fraud,” “misuse,” and “personal gain”:

“Fraud” means an intentional or deceptive act, or failure to act, to gain an unlawful benefit.
“Misuse” means the improper use of authority or position for personal gain or to cause harm to others, including the improper use of public resources or programs contrary to their intended purpose.
“Personal gain” means a benefit to a person; a person’s spouse, parent, child, or other legal dependent; or an in-law of the person or the person’s child.

SF 3045 / HF 2783 will go into effect on July 1, 2025.
Looking Ahead
Several omnibus bills include provisions that, if enacted, would amend Minnesota’s meal and rest break law, add employer unemployment insurance fraud penalties, make “political activity” a new protected characteristic under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, revise Minnesota Paid Family and Medical Leave and Earned Sick and Safe Time laws, and create valid circumstances for noncompete agreements. However, when the regular session ended, these bills were stranded in the legislative pipeline, awaiting potential revival in the special session.
The legislature has until July 1, 2025, to enact the rest of its budget to avoid a government shutdown, and Governor Walz is expected to call the special session soon after Memorial Day. With a track record of embedding labor and employment laws into lengthy budget bills, employers may want to prepare for any developments from the special session.
Find the previous parts of this series here: Part I & Part II

Trump Administration Will Replace the Biden Administration’s Department of Labor Rule Permitting ESG Investing

Under the Biden Administration, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) had issued a rule that permitted ESG factors to be considered when making investments on behalf of 401(k) plans. (This rule had replaced an earlier one from the first Trump Administration that had expressly forbidden that practice.) Despite lawsuits questioning the validity of the rule, and the demise of the Chevron doctrine (that afforded greater judicial deference to agency decision), the Biden Administration’s DOL rule had nonetheless survived these legal challenges. (In part, this may be due to the fact that the conservative federal court judge in Texas presiding over the case had determined that the rule–enabling ESG factors to be considered as a “tiebreaker”–would have little practical impact.) However, the demise of this Biden Administration policy, despite the successful defense of this initiative in the courts, is now certain. On May 28, 2025, lawyers from the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice officially reported to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (the court currently exercising jurisdiction over the legal challenge) that the “Department [of Labor] has reported that it will engage in a new rulemaking on the subject of the challenged rule”–in other words, the Biden Administration DOL rule will soon be replaced by a new rule that will likely prohibit the consideration of ESG factors when investing 401(k) plans.
This development is not especially surprising, and reflects the regulatory reversal between Republican and Democratic administrations. Nevertheless, it is still significant, as it demonstrates the continuing salience of ESG and its financial implications on the policy disputes between the political parties in the United States.

The Trump administration will replace a controversial Biden-era rule permitting companies that sponsor workplace 401(k)s to consider eco-friendly factors when picking and choosing investments on behalf of workers and retirees. Lawyers for the government filed a status report Wednesday telling the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit it will engage in rulemaking set to appear on the US Labor Department’s spring regulatory agenda. A notice-and-comment rulemaking process would be required to rescind the rule altogether. The Biden rule’s demise marks an escalation in Republican efforts to root out environmental, social, and corporate governance investing from the federal as well as state and local governments. The rule served as a proxy for conservative ire against “woke” Wall Street activity under Biden, who had to exercise his veto power in 2023 against a bipartisan attempt to axe the rule ….
news.bloomberglaw.com/…

New Jersey’s Tightened Pay Transparency Requirements Take Effect June 1, 2025

Employers looking to hire workers in New Jersey will need to comply with the state’s new pay transparency requirements under a state law set to take effect on June 1, 2025. The law, which was signed by Governor Phil Murphy in November 2024, will require employers to disclose compensation and benefits in job postings and notices for promotion opportunities.

Quick Hits

New Jersey’s new pay transparency law takes effect on June 1, 2025.
The law will require employers to provide salary or wage information or a salary range in job postings and to make reasonable efforts to inform existing employees of promotional opportunities in their departments.

Specifically, Senate Bill 2310 (S2310) will require employers to provide the “hourly wage or salary, or a range of the hourly wage or salary” in postings for new jobs or transfer opportunities. Employers will also be required to make “reasonable efforts” to “announce, post, or otherwise make known” any promotion opportunity advertised either internally or externally to all employees in “affected department[s].” Promotions are defined as positions where there is a “change in job title and an increase in compensation.”
Covered employers that fail to comply with the new pay transparency requirements may face civil penalties of $300 for a first violation and $600 for each subsequent violation. While each violation will be considered a “separate violation,” S2310 makes clear that an employer may only be fined once for each noncompliant posting, even if that posting is distributed on multiple platforms.
Next Steps
The New Jersey law comes as a growing list of states and jurisdictions have enacted new pay transparency laws across the United States. If they have not already, covered employers may want to review their job postings and procedures for publishing job openings.
More information on S2310 is available here. Additionally, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (NJDOL) has published additional guidance on complying with the law on its website here.

Secretary of Labor’s Senate Testimony on DOL Budgetary Issues, Workforce Priorities, and Reform Initiatives

On May 22, 2025, Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer testified before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, detailing the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) proposed budget, current priorities, and strategic direction. The hearing featured testimony from the secretary and questions from a bipartisan group of senators, focusing on the administration’s proposed funding reductions, restructuring of workforce programs, and the elimination of longstanding initiatives such as the Job Corps. The secretary emphasized a commitment to placing American workers at the center of economic policy, with a focus on supporting the middle class, union members, and small businesses.
Quick Hits

The president’s FY 2026 budget proposes a $4.6 billion (nearly 35 percent) reduction in DOL funding, consolidation of workforce programs, and elimination of the Job Corps.
Secretary of Labor Chavez-DeRemer testified before a Senate subcommittee that “essential workers through OSHA, MSHA, and the Wage and Hour Division” are exempt from the deferred resignation program.
The secretary outlined a worker-centric agenda focused on job creation, workforce development, and regulatory reform.

Proposed Budget Reductions and Program Consolidation
One of the most pressing issues addressed in Secretary Chavez-DeRemer’s testimony was the reduction in forces at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), and the Wage and Hour Division (WHD). The secretary testified that the “essential workers” at those agencies are exempt from the deferred resignation program. While exempted from the mandatory elements of the deferred resignation program, given the number of resignations from these and other DOL agencies, it appears agency employees are free to take advantage of the program.
The administration’s budget request seeks to reduce DOL funding by $4.6 billion, representing a nearly 35 percent decrease. Central to the proposal is the creation of the “Make America Skilled Again” block grant, which would consolidate multiple federal workforce training programs into a single funding stream, granting states increased flexibility in program administration. The secretary argued that this approach would reduce regulatory burdens and allow states to tailor training to local labor market needs.
Senators expressed skepticism regarding the efficacy of this consolidation, noting that the block grant would cut workforce development funding by approximately half and could undermine bipartisan programs established by the U.S. Congress. Senators raised concerns that such reductions would limit opportunities for workers to access training for high-demand jobs, particularly in key industries such as coal mining, healthcare, and manufacturing.
Regulatory Reform and Worker Protections
Secretary Chavez-DeRemer emphasized efforts to reduce regulatory burdens on businesses, including the rollback of the previous administration’s independent contractor rule, which she characterized as restrictive for freelancers and gig workers. At the same time, she affirmed the importance of maintaining essential safety regulations, particularly for high-risk sectors such as mining. Senators raised concerns about the potential closure of MSHA offices and the impact on miner safety, with the secretary committing to ongoing review and collaboration with relevant agencies.
Multiple senators criticized the administration for a lack of transparency in the budget process, citing limited information provided to Congress and delays in responding to requests for data on workforce reductions and program changes. Secretary Chavez-DeRemer pledged to improve communication and provide periodic updates on program implementation and staffing changes, including the impact of the deferred resignation program and reductions in force across DOL agencies.
The hearing also addressed the significant downsizing of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), responsible for enforcing nondiscrimination requirements among federal contractors. Senators questioned the legality and implications of reducing OFCCP staff by 90 percent and closing regional offices, particularly in light of ongoing investigations into alleged workplace discrimination. The secretary declined to comment on specific cases due to pending litigation but asserted that nondiscrimination laws continue to be fully enforced.
Senators and the secretary discussed the persistent challenge of low labor force participation rates, particularly in rural and high-poverty states. Childcare affordability and accessibility were identified as major barriers to workforce entry, with bipartisan interest in legislative solutions to support working parents and increase labor participation.
Worker-Centric Approach and Regional Engagement
Secretary Chavez-DeRemer described a nationwide “America at Work” listening tour, aimed at gathering feedback from workers, employers, and community leaders. This initiative is designed to ensure that federal labor policies are informed by regional workforce needs and real-world experiences. The secretary reported that the DOL is prioritizing policies that equip employers and communities with the tools necessary to recruit and retain talent, while also ensuring that workers’ voices are reflected in federal decision-making.
Secretary Chavez-DeRemer said more than 464,000 jobs have been created since January 2025, with notable gains in manufacturing and construction. The secretary attributed this growth to an “America First” strategy, which includes over $8 trillion in private investment and a focus on reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending. She highlighted efforts to return $4.4 billion in unspent COVID-19 funds to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the cancellation of over $250 million in certain federal grants as examples of fiscal stewardship. According to the secretary, “the Department of Labor is eliminating unnecessary red tape that stifles innovation.”
A central theme of the testimony was the expansion of registered apprenticeships and skilled trades pipelines. The DOL is collaborating with the U.S. Departments of Commerce and Education to modernize workforce programs and align training with labor market demands. Since January 2025, nearly 83,000 new apprentices and over 900 new apprenticeship programs have been registered.
Secretary Chavez-DeRemer also underscored the importance of early exposure to technical education and the integration of apprenticeships oriented to artificial intelligence (AI). As part of the White House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence Education, the DOL is working to promote AI literacy and proficiency, leveraging financial incentives and partnerships to prepare the workforce for technological change.
The DOL’s current agenda is characterized by a focus on efficiency, accountability, and preparing American workers for the future economy, Secretary Chavez-DeRemer told the subcommittee. She reaffirmed a commitment to safe workplaces, good pay, and secure retirements, and expressed readiness to work with Congress to advance these goals.

Government Consultation on the Introduction of Mandatory Ethnicity and Disability Pay Gap Reporting Now Open

The UK government has launched a consultation on introducing mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for certain employers. The consultation closes on 30 June 2025. This consultation applies to ‘large employers’ and ‘large public bodies’ who are defined are those with 250 or more employees. The responses to this consultation will be used to inform the government’s drafting of the proposed Equality (Race and Disability) Bill and ensure that the legislation gives employers a clear framework on what is required of them.
Key proposals
Large employers have been required to report their gender pay gap data since 2017 which the Government says has led to greater transparency for employers and employees. The Government plans to use a similar reporting framework for ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting, meaning that all employers with 250 or more employees will need to report any ethnicity and disability pay gaps amongst their workforces.
Employers will be required to use data from a ‘snapshot date’ of 5 April each year and report their gaps within 12 months i.e., by 4 April the following year. Employers will report their data online, in a similar way to how gender pay gaps are reported. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which currently enforces gender pay gap reporting, be empowered to enforce ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting, too.
Employers will report ethnicity and disability pay gaps on the same measures used for gender pay gap reporting:

mean differences in average hourly pay;
median differences in average hourly pay;
pay quarters – the percentage of employees in four equally-sized groups, ranked from highest to lowest hourly pay;
mean differences in bonus pay;
median differences in bonus pay; and
the percentage of employees receiving bonus pay.

In addition to the above, the Government will also require employers to report on the overall breakdown of their workforce by ethnicity and disability and the percentage of employees who did not disclose their personal data on their ethnicity and disability.
The Government is also seeking views on whether employers should have to produce “action plans” for ethnicity and disability pay gaps (a similar proposal for gender pay gap “action plans” is currently included in the Employment Rights Bill). This would provide employers with an opportunity to explain the reasons for any pay gaps and the steps they are taking to address them.
Ethnicity Pay Gap Reporting
In relation to ethnicity pay gap reporting specifically, the Government has proposed employees self-report their ethnicity (with an option to opt out of answering; employees will not be legally required to disclose this information). Those who do wish to disclose their ethnicity should select their ethnicity from the 18 classifications used in the Government Statistical Service ethnicity harmonised standard that was used for the 2021 Census.
In order to report on ethnic pay gaps, the government has proposed that the minimum threshold should be 10 employees in any ethnic group being analysed in terms of pay. If there are fewer than 10 employees in any of the classifications, employers should combine ethnic groups together, following the guidance on ethnicity data from the Office for National Statistics to ensure groupings are as comparable as possible. Where there are smaller numbers of employees in different ethnic groups, the Government has advised that employers report a “binary classification”, for example, reporting the comparison between the largest ethnic group in the organisation and all other groups combined.
The Government is also seeking views on whether large public bodies such as universities should report on ethnicity pay difference by grade or salary bands and data relating to recruitment, retention, and progression by ethnicity.
Disability Pay Gap Reporting
The government proposes using the Equality Act 2010 definition of ‘disability’ as the basis of identifying disabled employees. The Government also proposes to make employers responsible for collecting data on disability in accordance with that definition, however, as with ethnicity pay gap reporting, employees will self-report (or can opt out of reporting) their disability status.
The Government has also proposed a binary approach to disability pay gap calculations. All disabled employees will be grouped together regardless of their disability and employers will be required to compare disabled employees with non-disabled employees. Employers will not be required to collect and publish data about different impairment types.
There should be a minimum of 10 employees in each group being compared. If there are less than 10 employees with disabilities, it is presumed that the employer will still be required to file a report explaining that they cannot publish a disability pay gap to reduce the risk of individuals becoming identifiable.
Practical implications
The introduction of mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting will be a major change for UK employers as many will not have been collecting and analysing such data to date.
The consultation does not specify when these reporting requirements will be introduced, although the Government has stated it will be publishing the draft Equality (Race and Disability) Bill this parliamentary session. The earliest the reporting requirements will be introduced is 2026 with the first reports due in 2027.
The collection of ethnicity and disability data will likely be a challenging task for employers who will need to ensure that they approach their obligations in a way that does not compromise employee privacy data protection law. Calculating the average pay of a dataset as small as 10 employees may result in individual identification being possible and its usefulness is questionable as there may be significant fluctuations if employees join or leave.
Employers may also be concerned about the potential triggering liabilities and responsibilities if employees come forward and disclose that they consider themselves to be disabled when they have not previously done so.
The full consultation document can be found here.
*Maya Sterrie, trainee in the Employment Litigation practice, contributed to this article.

The New York Retail Worker Safety Act: Countdown to Compliance

In February 2025, Governor Hochul signed an amendment to the New York Retail Worker Safety Act extending the effective date of some of its provisions to June 2, 2025. The amendment to the New York Retail Worker Safety Act modified several provisions of the legislation, which has an overall purpose of enhancing the safety and well-being of retail workers in the state, to replace panic buttons with silent response buttons, require such buttons for retailers with 500 or more employees statewide, and change the training requirement for smaller retailers.

The Law and Recent Amendments
The New York Retail Worker Safety Act was first proposed in January 2024, and quickly garnered support in the state legislature. The original version of the act was signed into law by Governor Hochul on September 5, 2024, with an effective date set for March 4, 2025. However, an approval memo from the governor indicated that amendments were forthcoming. These amendments were proposed and signed into law on February 14, 2025, pushing the effective date to June 2, 2025.
Which Employers are Covered Under the Act?
The act applies to all employers with at least ten retail employees. The act defines a “retail employee” as an employee working at a “retail store” for an employer. A “retail store” is any store that sells consumer commodities at retail and which is not primarily engaged in the sale of food for consumption on the premises.
What is “Retail”?
While the basic concept of which employers are covered under the act seems straightforward, a primary concern for employers is determining whether their businesses qualify as “a store that sells consumer commodities at retail” and thereby falls under the law’s definition of a “retail store.” While there is no official guidance to help employers with this question, they can turn to other sources for insight. Employers can refer to their North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, where retail trade employers are classified with numbers beginning with 44 or 45. Employers can also look to the dictionary definitions of “commodity” and “retail.” A “commodity” is generally defined as a substance or product that can be traded, bought, or sold. “Retail” is generally defined as the activity of selling goods to the public, usually in small amounts, for their own use. Therefore, if an employer sells a tangible product to the general public as an end user, that employer may be covered under the act. Contrast this to another employer that sells a service or something nonphysical, or that sells products in larger amounts to other businesses or entities for resale.
Prevention Program Requirements
The new law requires employers to develop a written workplace violence prevention program that identifies factors and situations that place retail employees at risk. While much of this is left for the individual employer to determine, the law does provide some examples, including working late hours, exchanging money with the public, working alone, and having uncontrolled access to the workplace. According to the law, a workplace violence program must include prevention methods, a reporting system for incidents, information on resources for victims of workplace violence, and anti-retaliation language.
Training Requirements
The new law requires also employers to implement an interactive training program for their retail employees. According to the law, retailers must train their retail employees upon hire and annually thereafter, while retailers with fewer than 50 retail employees must train their employees once every two years. These trainings must cover various topics including protection from customer/coworker workplace violence, de-escalation tactics, active shooter drills, and emergency procedures. The trainings must also communicate a site-specific list of emergency exits and meeting places.
Silent Response Buttons
When first signed into law, the act required employers to implement panic buttons with which employees could directly and immediately contact law enforcement contact. However, the February 2025 amendment to the law changed this requirement, to replace the panic button requirement with a silent response button requirement. These buttons notify internal staff and quickly request assistance from on-site security officers, managers, or supervisors instead of off-site law enforcement. The goal with this change was to prevent overwhelming law enforcement with false alarms and ensure a more controlled response to potential incidents.
Notice Requirements
The new law requires employers to provide retail employees with a notice about the company’s workplace violence prevention program and information about training requirements. The law requires that this be in English and the employee’s primary language, if it is one of the 12 most common non-English languages spoken in New York State. If the primary language is not among these, the notice can be provided in English.
Next Steps
The New York Retail Worker Safety Act is intended to be a significant step towards ensuring the safety of retail employees. The new law and its amendments include several requirements on employers, including implementing a prevention program, a comprehensive training program, and silence response buttons. As the effective date approaches, retailers may want to be proactive and prepare to comply with the act’s provisions in advance of its June 2 effective date.