APPLIES TO All Private Employers with 100+ Employees or Federal Contractors with 50+ Employees

EFFECTIVE May 20, 2025

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

Quick Look The 2024 EEO-1 data collection is set to open on May 20, 2025, and close on June 24, 2025. A new proposed 2024 Instruction Booklet requires federal contractor employers with 50 or more employees to file EEO-1 reports. Among other “non-substantive” changes, the proposed 2024 Instruction Booklet removes the option to provide information about non-binary employees.

Discussion:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has finally taken steps to move forward with the 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 data collection by submitting documents for approval with the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). As part of the EEOC’s submissions, and buried in the OMB’s View Information Collection, the EEOC has proposed a new 2024 EEO Component 1 Instruction Booklet for approval that, if accepted, will alter some employer reporting obligations. A summary of the EEOC’s proposals is set forth below.

 

Shortened Reporting Period

 

The proposed 2024 Instruction Booklet provides for a shortened reporting period of five weeks, with the data collection platform opening on May 20, 2025, and closing on June 24, 2025. This means employers should start gathering their data now, to ensure they are prepared to file reports during the shortened period. Employers should continue to monitor developments as final opening and closing deadlines are expected to be published on the EEOC’s website.

 

Reporting Requirements for Federal Contractors

 

In January, President Trump signed Executive Order 14173, revoking Executive Order 11246 and OFCCP regulations enforcing Executive Order 11246. Nevertheless, the EEOC’s proposed Instruction Booklet for 2024 EEO-1 reporting provides that federal contractors with 50 or more employees are still required to file EEO-1 reports for the 2024 cycle. The proposed guidance does not address the implications of President Trump’s Executive Order 14173 on these reporting obligations, so employers should continue to monitor developments as the OMB reviews the proposed materials and finalizes the reporting obligations.

 

Changes to Reporting by Sex

 

As part of their filings, the EEOC is proposing “non-substantive” changes to the EEO-1 instructions to comply with Executive Order 14168, which mandates that agency forms list only  “male” or “female” for sex, as opposed to reporting based on gender identity. This proposal seeks to remove the voluntary reporting option for “non-binary” employees from the EEO-1 instructions.

 

Employers will no longer have the option to submit non-binary employee data. For individuals who previously self-reported as “non-binary” during the 2024 reporting year, or if an employee refuses to self-identify with one of the two approved binary options, employers may need to perform a visual identification and provide their best response.

 

Other Non-Substantive Changes

 

The EEOC has proposed several other “non-substantive” changes to streamline the EEO-1 collection process for 2024. These include removing language about “Notice of Failure to File,” eliminating references to postal mail notifications, updating instructions on undue hardship requests to reflect recent regulatory changes, and removing an inoperable link in Appendix B. These changes affect the instructions but not the EEO-1 collection instrument itself.

 

Action Items

1. Start gathering necessary employee data to prepare for timely submission.
2. Adjust reporting practices for employee sex data.
3. Have appropriate personnel trained on data collection and filing procedures.
4. Monitor regulatory updates for the finalized 2024 Instruction Booklet and reporting dates.
5. Consult with legal counsel regarding reporting obligations for federal contractor employers.

 

 

---

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase

APPLIES TO All Employers with 15+ Employees

EFFECTIVE April 23, 2025

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

Quick Look Executive Order 14281 instructs federal agencies to “deprioritize” enforcement of disparate impact discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Discussion:

A recently signed Executive Order 14281, titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” instructs federal agencies to “deprioritize” enforcement of disparate impact discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Order includes disparate impact theory as part of the “pernicious movement” that focuses on “irrelevant immutable characteristics, regardless of individual strengths, effort, or achievement.” Enforcement of disparate impact discrimination is now being lumped into the same category of alleged unfair treatment of employees as activities that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.

 

What is disparate impact theory?

 

The Executive Order defines disparate impact theory as when a “presumption of unlawful discrimination exists where there are any differences in outcomes in certain circumstances among different races, sexes, or similar groups, even if there is no facially discriminatory policy or practice or discriminatory intent involved, and even if everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed.” It says that disparate impact requires businesses to “engage in racial balancing.”

 

However, disparate impact theory is a specifically recognized form of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. First identified by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971, and later adopted by Congress in 1991, disparate impact discrimination occurs when a facially neutral policy or practice disproportionately impacts people based on their protected class. For example, requiring a credit history check for all new hires may appear facially neutral but may have a disparate impact on lower-income individuals or certain racial groups. This reality led to some states enacting laws that limit the use of credit checks in hiring except under approved circumstances.

 

Disparate impact discrimination is different from disparate treatment discrimination under Title VII, which occurs when an employer treats one applicant or employee differently than a similarly situated applicant or employee because of that individual’s protected class. Disparate treatment can be more easily identified than disparate impact in that it is, by definition, intentional; whereas disparate impact focuses on the causal effect of the policy or practice.

 

Does the President have the power to eliminate statutory theories of liability?

 

As established by the U.S. Constitution, the President cannot change established law enacted by Congress, meaning that he cannot remove disparate impact discrimination from Title VII. This is highlighted by the fact that the Executive Order instructs federal agencies to “deprioritize” enforcement. Moreover, Title VII created the EEOC and charged it with enforcement of Title VII laws. Whether the President can direct federal agencies not to follow their statutory mandates will likely be another issue brought before the courts. Further, based on last year’s Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright, which overturned the long-standing Chevron decision that gave deference to federal agency interpretations, any legal challenge will be forced to reckon with Title VII itself rather than the EEOC’s interpretations or directives.

 

What does this mean for employers?

 

This means that, for now, the EEOC will not be enforcing disparate impact discrimination claims against employers, and may even seek to dismiss its own previously filed lawsuits based on this type of discrimination. Because the Executive Order also seeks to evaluate where disparate impact discrimination enforcement exists, including at the state level, the White House appears to be evaluating how it can challenge these laws more broadly. However, because it remains established law at the federal and, in some cases, state levels, employers are still at risk of being held liable for disparate impact discrimination and should continue to follow applicable federal, state, and local laws.

 

Action Items

1. Review the Executive Order and Fact Sheet for more information.
2. Review claims of disparate impact discrimination with legal counsel.

 

---

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase

APPLIES TO Employers with Employees in CT, NY and VT

EFFECTIVE March 25, 2025

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

Quick Look Under the ADA, employers may be required to accommodate an employee’s disability even if the employee can perform the job without a reasonable accommodation.

Discussion:

On March 25, 2025, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, finding that employees with disabilities may be entitled to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), even if they can perform the essential functions of their jobs without them.

 

In this case, a high school teacher was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and requested brief afternoon breaks to manage her condition. The school district denied her request, leading her to file a lawsuit alleging a failure to accommodate under the ADA. The lower court dismissed her claim, but the Second Circuit overturned this decision, emphasizing the ADA’s broader support for employee well-being and inclusion.

 

Under the ADA, a “qualified individual” is someone who can perform the essential functions of their job with or without reasonable accommodation. The court said this means that employers must consider reasonable accommodations to enhance an employee’s workplace experience, not just those necessary for job performance. The decision aligns with similar rulings from other circuits, underscoring the importance of employer compliance with the ADA’s broad protections.

 

In light of this ruling, employers should reassess their accommodation policies to ensure they are providing adequate support for employees with disabilities, even if those employees can technically fulfill their job duties without accommodation. This may include considering accommodations that enhance overall workplace experience and employee well-being, rather than focusing solely on those essential for job performance.

 

Action Items

1. Review workplace accommodation policies and practices for compliance.
2. Have appropriate personnel trained on reasonable accommodation requirements.

 

---

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase

APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in AR

EFFECTIVE As Indicated

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

Quick Look HB 1517 enacts Arkansas’s Earned Wage Access Services Act (EWA) and goes into effect 90 days after the state legislature adjourns. The EWA allows employees to access their wages as they are earned through consumer-directed earned wage access services.

Discussion:

HB 1517 enacts Arkansas’s Earned Wage Access Services Act (EWA) and goes into effect 90 days after the state legislature adjourns. The EWA allows employees to access their wages as they are earned through consumer-directed, earned wage access services. The services are defined as “the business of delivering to a consumer access to earned but unpaid income based on the consumer’s representation and the provider’s reasonable determination of the consumer’s earned but unpaid income.”

 

Earned but unpaid income is “salary, wages, compensation, or other income that a consumer or an employer has represented, and that a provider has reasonably determined, has been earned or has accrued to the benefit of the consumer in exchange for the consumer’s provision of services to an employer or on behalf of an employer.”

 

While EWA service providers are not required to be registered or licensed in the state, the EWA does require such providers to:

 

• Comply with the requirements of the law;
• Develop and implement policies and procedures to respond to consumer questions;
• Address consumer complaints in an expedited manner;
• Offer consumers at least one reasonable option to obtain proceeds at no cost whenever an option is offered for a fee;
• Inform consumers of their rights and disclose all fees associated with the services;
• Inform consumers of material changes to the terms and conditions of the services prior to their change;
• Allow cancellation of use of the services at any time without a fee;
• Comply with all applicable privacy and information security laws; and
• Provide proceeds by any mutually agreed upon method.

 

Additionally, providers cannot share a portion of any fees, tips, gratuities, or other donations received from a consumer with the employer, require a credit report or credit score to determine a consumer’s eligibility for services, accept payment by means of a credit card, charge consumers fees or other penalties for failure to pay outstanding proceeds, or compel a consumer to pay through prohibited means, sell the outstanding proceeds to a debt buyer or collector, mislead or deceive a consumer, or advertise any false statements about the services.

 

Arkansas now joins a limited number of states that regulate EWA services. However, legislation is pending in several states demonstrating a push to regulate these services more broadly.

 

Action Items

1. Review the bill here.

 

 

---

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase

APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in CA

EFFECTIVE April 21, 2025

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

Quick Look Written meal period waivers that are voluntary and may be revoked at any time are enforceable on a prospective or going-forward basis.

Discussion:

In La Kimba Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., the California Court of Appeal said that revocable, prospective meal period waivers are enforceable in the absence of any evidence that the waivers are unconscionable or unduly coercive.

 

Here, employees claimed they were owed meal premiums for not being permitted to take their meal period by the fifth hour of work, as required in California. However, employees had signed meal waivers that said: “I hereby voluntarily waive my right to a meal break when my shift is 6 hours or less.  I understand that I am entitled to take an unpaid 30-minute meal break within my first five hours of work; however, I am voluntarily waiving that meal break.  I understand that I can revoke this waiver at any time by giving written revocation to my manager.”

 

According to Wage Order Nos. 4 and 5 at issue, the meal period may be “waived by mutual consent” under prescribed circumstances, consistent with Labor Code § 512. However, there are no restrictions on the timing and form of the permitted waiver. Generally, waiver is defined as an “intentional relinquishment of a known right after knowledge of the facts.” Where signing the waiver is voluntary and may be revoked at any time, the waivers are enforceable. Nothing in the statute and regulations, or the legislative intent, indicates an intent to prohibit prospective written waivers.

 

Action Items

1. Review meal period waivers to ensure they are voluntary and revocable.
2. Consult with legal counsel for historical corrections.

 

---

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase