APPLIES TO All Employers

EFFECTIVE July 4, 2025

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

Quick Look There are no changes to Form W-2 for tax year 2025. The Treasury Department released a draft list of tipped jobs that would qualify for the individual tax deduction for received tips.

Discussion

The “Big Beautiful Bill” was signed by the President on July 4th. There were significant changes to individual tax deductions for employee tips and overtime pay. The federal government has until October 2^nd to publish updated forms and guidance on how the tax deductions will operate. While employers are waiting on broader guidance, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released some information regarding the W-2 form and deduction for tips.

 

No Form W-2 Changes

 

The IRS announced in August that there will be no changes to certain forms or withholding tables for tax year 2025 related to the new law.

 

• Form W-2, existing Forms 1099, and Form 941 and other payroll return forms will remain unchanged for TY 2025.
• Federal income tax withholding tables will not be updated for these provisions for tax year 2025.
• Employers and payroll providers should continue using current procedures for reporting and withholding.

 

These decisions from the IRS are intended to avoid disruptions during the tax filing season and to give the IRS, business, and tax professionals enough time to implement the changes effectively. The IRS is working on new guidance and updated forms for tax year 2026. These will include changes to how tips and overtime pay are reported.

 

Tipped Jobs Eligible for Tax Deduction

 

To recap the recent development, starting with the 2025 tax year, tipped employees are eligible for a tax deduction on tips received up to $25,000 annually. The deduction is subject to incremental reduction if the employee’s income exceeds $150,000 for individual filers/$300,000 for joint filers. Tips received must be reported on employee W-2s in order to take advantage of the tax deduction. If the employee is married, they must file a joint return to take advantage of the tax deduction.

 

The Treasury Department recently released a draft list of the qualifying tipped occupations for purposes of receiving a tax deduction on individual tax returns.

 

Category	Tipped Jobs
Beverage & Food Service	Bartenders; wait staff; nonrestaurant food servers; dining room and cafeteria attendants and bartender helpers; chefs and cooks; food preparation workers; fast food and counter workers; dishwashers; host staff at restaurants, lounges, and coffee shops; bakers
Entertainment & Events	Gambling dealers; gambling change persons and booth cashiers; gambling cage workers; gambling sports book writers and runners; dancers; musicians and singers; disc jockeys (excluding radio); entertainers and performers; digital content creators; ushers, lobby attendants, and ticket takers; locker room, coatroom, and dressing room attendants
Hospitality & Guest Services	Baggage porters and bellhops; concierges; hotel, motel, and resort desk clerks; maids and housekeeping cleaners
Home Services	Home maintenance and repair workers; home landscaping and groundskeeping workers; home electricians; home plumbers; home heating and air conditioning mechanics and installers; home appliance installers and repairers; home cleaning service workers; locksmiths; roadside assistance workers
Personal Services	Personal care and service workers; private event planners; private event and portrait photographers; private event videographers; event officiants; pet caretakers; tutors; nannies and babysitters
Personal Appearance & Wellness	Skincare specialists; message therapists; barbers, hairdressers, hairstylists, and cosmetologists; shampooers; manicurists and pedicurists; eyebrow threading and waxing technicians; makeup artists; exercise trainers and group fitness instructors; tattoo artists and piercers; tailors; show and leather workers and repairers
Recreation & Instruction	Golf caddies; self-enrichment teachers; recreational and tour pilots; tour guides and escorts; travel guides; sports and recreation instructors
Transportation & Delivery	Parking and valet attendants; taxi and rideshare drivers and chauffeurs; shuttle drivers; goods delivery people; personal vehicle and equipment cleaners; private and charter bus drivers; water taxi operators and charter boat workers; rickshaw, pedicab, and carriage drivers; home movers

 

Note that this list does not apply to qualifying tipped jobs for tip credit purposes, which is governed by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Expect the qualifying tip deduction list to be published in the Federal Register as proposed regulations along with other information by the October 2^nd deadline.

 

Action Items

1. Review the proposed list of tipped jobs for purposes of tracking tips.
2. Track tips in accordance with the Big Beautiful Bill for purposes of tax reporting on Form W-2 for 2025.
3. Update payroll processes to account for the upcoming changes.
4. Have appropriate personnel trained on the new 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 As Indicated

EFFECTIVE As Indicated

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

Quick Look DHS has revoked certain EADs and shifted the responsibility to employers to identify affected employees using E-Verify’s new Status Change Report. USCIS is using the September Visa Bulletin’s Final Action Dates to determine eligibility for Adjustment of Status filings. The State Department has launched “continuous vetting” of all 55 million visa holders, meaning even long-standing employees with valid visas may face sudden scrutiny, revocation, or deportation. The Supreme Court has allowed ICE to resume broad enforcement operations in Los Angeles, including controversial “roving raids.”

Discussion

New E-Verify Guidance for Revoked EADs

 

Effective immediately, employers using E-Verify must proactively monitor employee work authorization status through a newly introduced Status Change Report, replacing the previous Case Alerts system. This change stems from the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision to revoke certain Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), particularly those issued under humanitarian parole programs.

 

This update shifts the burden of monitoring revoked EADs from DHS to employers. Failure to act on the Status Change Report and reverify affected employees could result in noncompliance with federal employment eligibility laws. Therefore, employers should regularly generate the Status Change Report by navigating to the “Reports” tab within their E-Verify account. Once the report is generated, employers must carefully compare the EAD card numbers listed in the report with those originally presented by employees during the Form I-9 process. If an employee’s EAD number matches one listed as revoked, the employer is required to reverify that employee’s work authorization using Form I-9, Supplement B. It is important to note that this reverification process should not involve creating a new E-Verify case.

 

Employees whose EADs have been revoked may still be authorized to work under a different immigration status. In such cases, they can present alternative, unexpired documentation from List A or List C of the Lists of Acceptable Documents. Employers must not reverify identity documents from List B, nor should they reverify the employee’s identity itself. During this process, employees must be allowed to choose which acceptable documentation to present, and employers must not accept a revoked EAD, even if it appears valid and unexpired.

 

The following table outlines the date ranges during which DHS revoked EADs and the corresponding dates when that information became available in the E-Verify Status Change Report. Employers should use this timeline to determine whether any of their employees may be affected and ensure timely reverification where required.

 

Date Employee’s EAD Was Revoked*	Date Information Available in E-Verify Status Change Report
April 9 to Sept. 2, 2025	Sept. 9, 2025
April 9 to Aug. 19, 2025	Aug. 26, 2025
April 9 to Aug. 5, 2025	Aug. 12, 2025
April 9 to July 24, 2025	July 29, 2025
April 9 to July 8, 2025	July 15, 2025
April 9 to June 13, 2025	June 20, 2025

 

*Updates from the E-Verify report include EAD revocations from the specified date range.

 

September Visa Bulletin

 

Each month, federal immigration authorities publish a list of dates informing immigrant visa applicants when they should expect to be notified to assemble and submit required documentation to government officials. The following provides a summary of the September release.

 

The Visa Bulletin includes a list of dates informing overseas immigrant visa applicants when they should expect to be notified to assemble and submit required documentation to move forward with the consular stamping process. These dates are also used to determine eligibility for Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Residence with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for applicants who are already physically present in the U.S. USCIS confirmed it will use the Final Action Dates chart, published in the September Visa Bulletin, to determine eligibility for filing Adjustment of Status applications this month. To determine potential eligibility, dates that appear in this chart must be compared with an employee’s immigration priority date, as shown on their earliest available I-797 Notice of Action (Receipt or Approval Notice) issued by USCIS for any EB-1, EB-2, or EB-3 (I-140) Immigrant Petition filed on their behalf by a sponsoring employer.

 

Preference	All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed	China – Mainland Born	India	Mexico	Philippines
EB-1	Current	15-NOV-22	15-FEB-22	Current	Current
EB-2	01-SEP-23	15-DEC-20	01-JAN-13	01-SEP-23	01-SEP-23
EB-3	01-APR-23	01-DEC-20	22-MAY-13	01-APR-23	08-FEB-23

 

Because USCIS is using the “Final Action” chart in accepting new applications for Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Residence, an application in September may be filed by a candidate with an immigration priority date that is earlier than the listed cutoff date according to the Final Action Chart for their preference category and country of chargeability, or whose category is otherwise listed as current. For Adjustment of Status cases that are already pending and were filed in a category that has since fallen behind in its cutoff date, USCIS will not begin processing until the Final Action Date has surpassed the individual immigration priority date or is otherwise deemed current.

 

Employers who have employees with priority dates that will be (or remain) current in September should reach out to their immigration legal counsel to prepare and submit the employee’s Adjustment of Status Application in September.

 

Department of State Launches “Continuous Monitoring”

 

The U.S. Department of State has launched a “continuous vetting” initiative that subjects all 55 million visa holders to ongoing eligibility reviews, marking a major shift from periodic checks to real-time monitoring. The vetting process draws on law enforcement databases, immigration records, and social media activity to flag potential violations such as overstays, unauthorized work, criminal activity or other security risks. For employers, this means that even long-standing employees with valid visas may face sudden scrutiny, revocation, or deportation without prior notice. Employers should prepare for increased Requests for Evidence (RFEs), delays in visa adjudications, and unexpected workforce disruptions due to flagged travel or status issues.

 

ICE Permitted to Continue Enforcement in Los Angeles

 

In Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security v. Pedro Vasquez, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on September 8, 2025, to allow federal immigration agents to resume broad enforcement operations in Los Angeles, including stops based on race, language, job type, or location (aka “roving” ICE raids). These roving raids had previously been halted by a federal district judge, who found the tactics to likely be unconstitutional because agents were detaining people without probable cause at car washes, bus stops and Home Depot parking lots based on stereotypes. The Supreme Court did not provide an explanation of its decision to grant the Trump administration’s emergency appeal to block the district judge’s order. For employers, especially those in industries with high immigrant labor, this could lead to increased workplace disruptions, legal exposure, and reputational risks if employees are detained or targeted during work hours. The decision may also discourage immigrant workers from showing up at job sites in locations where these raids are occurring. Although this ruling specifically addressed tactics in Los Angeles, it may foreshadow likely approval of similar tactics in other areas of the U.S.

 

Action Items

1. Establish process for generating Status Change Reports in E-Verify.
2. Evaluate visa-dependent workforce exposure and consult legal counsel to prepare for potential disruptions.
3. Review applicable employee priority dates and coordinate with immigration counsel to file eligible Adjustment of Status applications before the end of September.

 

---

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

EFFECTIVE August 22, 2025

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

Quick Look The EEOC provided a press release highlighting the enforcement actions it has taken in the 200 days of the Trump Administration to “defend the religious liberty of American workers” in line with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting religious discrimination in the workplace.

Discussion

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) provided a press release highlighting the enforcement actions it has taken in the 200 days of the Trump Administration to “defend the religious liberty of American workers” in line with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting religious discrimination in the workplace. Although the press release is not enforcement guidance, it does provide insight into how the EEOC will be approaching claims of religious discrimination. The more significant aspects of the press release are summarized below.

 

Vaccine Mandates. Citing the more than 10,000 religious accommodation charges received by the EEOC regarding COVID-19 mandates, the EEOC states it has recovered over $55 million for workers impacted by the mandates. The EEOC also states that enforcing Title VII in regard to COVID-19 vaccine mandates under the Biden Administration occurred too slowly. Under the Trump Administration, the EEOC intends to take more aggressive steps to enforce Title VII as applied to COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Examples of aggressive enforcement actions include, but are not limited to, a $1 million settlement and employee reinstatement rights against Mercyhealth for failing to grant employees’ religious accommodations to be exempt from the vaccine mandate; filing a lawsuit against the Mayo Clinic for refusing a security guard’s request for a religious accommodation to its COVID-19 vaccination policy; and settling a claim for failing to provide religious accommodations to the vaccine mandate with two resorts in Las Vegas.

 

Other Religious Accommodations. The EEOC also filed lawsuits and reached settlement agreements against employers for failing to provide religious accommodations in other aspects for both employees and applicants. The Venetian Resort in Las Vegas was found to have failed to provide religious accommodations to employees of a variety of faiths and retaliated against those employees when they opposed the failure to accommodate. As a result, the Venetian was fined $850,000 and is required per consent decree to: (1) train all employees, managers, and supervisors on employee rights and obligations regarding religious accommodations; (2) retain a third-party, independent monitor to assist with review and revision of its religious accommodations policies and complaint procedures; and (3) have their compliance tracked for 36 months. Other settlements also included similar provisions in the consent decrees.

 

Combating Antisemitism in Universities and on College Campuses. Columbia University will pay $21 million to settle charges of harassment based on national origin, religion, and/or race. The EEOC cites allegations of antisemitism in particular. The $21 million will be used to create a class claims fund to compensate employees who may have experienced antisemitism on Columbia’s campus. This is in addition to a multi-agency agreement to pay a $200 million fine. Columbia additionally must submit to compliance monitoring and other injunctive relief.

 

Federal Employee Religious Rights. The EEOC also highlighted actions taken against federal agencies for failing to reasonably accommodate federal employees’ religious beliefs and practices, absent an undue hardship. In Augustine V. v. Department of Veterans Affairs and Andy B. v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the agencies were found liable for failing to accommodate a Muslim physician’s request to attend weekly prayer service and for failing to accommodate a Christian police officer’s request for exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, respectively.

 

Employers should review their policies and procedures for providing religious accommodations to both employees and applicants. The EEOC’s recent enforcement actions show that violations can result in both costly penalties and ongoing compliance monitoring which can last years.

 

Action Items

1. Read the press release here.
2. Review procedures for providing religious accommodations.
3. Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements.
4. Consult with legal counsel prior to denying requests for religious accommodations due to undue hardship.

 

---

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 15+ Employees in CT, NY, and VT

EFFECTIVE August 11, 2025

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

Quick Look Discreditable evidence of a sincerely held religious belief does not mean that it is undisputed that the employee did not have a sincerely held religious belief. An employee must essentially provide no evidence that they have ever acted consistently with their professed religious beliefs, other than their refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine, in order for a court to rule that there were no sincerely held religious beliefs.

Discussion

In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment ruling saying that there were issues of fact to determine whether the employees had sincerely held religious beliefs that would have exempted them from following the employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

 

Here, two Federal Reserve employees were terminated for failing to conform to the employer’s policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. The employer granted the employees temporary exemptions for religious accommodation, but the exemptions expired without being allowed to renew. In the course of the litigation, the employees provided discreditable testimony around whether their beliefs were sincerely held; however, there were different outcomes for each.

 

For one, an employee claimed to be opposed to the vaccine because she thought it was made using aborted fetal cell lines, when it was undisputed that the vaccine was not. However, the court said what actually matters at summary judgment is that a reasonable jury could find that the COVID-19 vaccines were produced with aborted fetal cells in a manner that the employee believed would contravene her religious beliefs. Moreover, her objections could be found by a jury to be adequately explained, and the judge improperly made conclusions that were not undisputable. The applicable standard focused on whether the employee sincerely believed that the use of COVID-19 vaccines was contrary to her religious convictions. The court said that while her testimony may be discreditable, it did not rise to the level of being undisputed for purposes of granting a summary judgment motion.

 

For another, the court reiterated that the evidence the employee acted inconsistently with her professed religious beliefs is not a sufficient basis upon which to resolve her religious sincerity as a matter of law. The difference in this instance is that unlike the first employee, the evidence of the second employee’s religious beliefs is “so wholly contradictory, incomplete, and incredible that no reasonable jury could accept her professed beliefs as sincerely held.” For example, the employee could give almost no details about her purported membership in her ascribed religion, and what details she did give were often contradicted directly by other portions of her own sworn testimony. Ultimately, the employee provided no evidence that she has ever acted consistently with her professed religious beliefs other than her refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

 

Action Items

1. Employers should review denials of religious accommodations with legal counsel before taking adverse action.

 

---

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 KY, MI, OH, and TN

EFFECTIVE August 21, 2025

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

Quick Look The Sixth Circuit ruled that medical certifications for intermittent, unforeseeable FMLA leave cannot be treated as strict caps on leave usage. Employers must interpret estimated leave frequencies as approximations, not enforceable limits, especially for conditions with unpredictable symptoms.

Discussion

The Sixth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s partial ruling in Jackson v. U.S. Postal Serv., clarifying that medical certifications for intermittent, unforeseeable leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) cannot impose a strict cap on the number of days an employee may take off.

 

The case involved a former mail clerk who was terminated after allegedly exceeding a two-day-per-month FMLA leave limit for flare-ups related to sickle cell anemia. The court found that USPS misinterpreted the medical certification as a hard limit, rather than an estimate, and emphasized that unpredictable conditions like the plaintiff’s require flexibility under the law.

 

The court emphasized that intermittent leave under the FMLA can be either foreseeable or unforeseeable, and that the nature of the medical condition determines how leave should be administered. In this case, the plaintiff’s sickle cell anemia flare-ups were unpredictable, and the certification’s estimate was not meant to restrict the employee to exactly two days per month. The court stated that medical certifications for unforeseeable intermittent leave are inherently imprecise and should be treated as approximations, not enforceable limits. It also noted that employers must balance their operational needs with the employee’s right to protected leave, but cannot impose rigid constraints based on estimated frequencies alone.

 

For employers, this ruling reinforces the need for flexibility and careful interpretation of medical certifications under the FMLA. Misreading an estimate as a cap can lead to wrongful termination and legal exposure.

 

Action Items

1. Review and update FMLA policies for compliance with intermittent leave standards.
2. Have appropriate personnel trained on FMLA 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