EEOC Increases Penalty for Violations of Notice-Posting Requirements

On September 30, 2025, the EEOC issued a final rule increasing the maximum civil penalty for failing to post required workplace notices about federal anti-discrimination laws to $698, up from $680. Covered entities, including private employers with 15 or more employees, state and local governments, and labor organizations, must display the “Know Your Rights” poster in a conspicuous location and are encouraged to post it digitally as well. Employers must ensure the poster is accessible to individuals with disabilities and reflects current legal protections under Title VII, ADA, GINA, and PWFA. The penalty adjustment is mandated annually under federal law and applies to violations assessed on or after the effective date.

 

EEOC Administratively Closes Disparate Impact Cases

The EEOC administratively closed essentially all pending charges based solely on unintentional discrimination claims (e.g., “disparate impact” cases) as of September 30, 2025, and will issue right-to-sue letters by October 31. This shift, driven by executive orders from President Trump, significantly limits the agency’s enforcement of policies that disproportionately affect certain protected groups. Employers should be aware that while disparate impact claims are being administratively closed by the EEOC, disparate impact liability remains a viable theory of discrimination under Title VII and claims for such will be allowed to proceed on their own in federal court. Moreover, many states impose laws establishing disparate impact liability under their state non-discrimination laws.

 

EEOC: Quorum Reached

The EEOC reached a quorum on October 7, 2025 when the U.S. Senate confirmed the nomination of Brittany Panuccio to be a commissioner. This resolves the quorum issue which resulted in January when the new administration fired two of the four sitting commissioners and left the EEOC with only two sitting members. Three members are needed for a quorum to make new policy, revisit old policies, vote upon guidance, or take any other significant action. Now that a quorum has been reached, employers are likely to see advancement of Chair Andrea Lucas’ agenda which she laid out in a statement after her appointment.

 

OSHA: Extension of Comment Period for Heat Rule

On September 17, 2025, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) extended the post-hearing comment period on the proposed rule for Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings to October 30, 2025. Only individuals and organizations who participated in the informal public hearing by submitting a Notice of Intent to Appear are eligible to submit post-hearing comments. These comments and supporting data can be submitted electronically.

 

OSHA: New Leadership Approved

OSHA also received a new leader on October 7, 2025 when David Keeling was approved by the U.S. Senate as the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA. Keeling’s background includes worker safety at Amazon and UPS, including with heat safety standards. Employers should expect renewed scrutiny of the proposed heat safety standard that is now in the post-hearing comment period. Wayne Palmer was also appointed as the New Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health (MSHA). These is less change expected with this appointment since the mine safety standards and mandates are set by statute and can only be changed by the U.S. Congress. MSHA is responsible for investigating hazard complaints, whistleblower complaints, and accidents.

 

First Circuit: Upheld Nationwide Ban on Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

On October 3, 2025, in a pair of cases (New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Donald Trump and New Jersey v. Donald Trump, et. al.), the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a block on President Trump’s Executive Order that sought to dismantle birthright citizenship protections. The court reaffirmed that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment, rejecting the administration’s argument that citizenship should depend on parental status rather than birth on U.S. soil. This ruling is the latest in a series of court decisions rejecting President Trump’s executive order since it was signed in January. The current administration has indicated an interest to continue judicial review of these decisions, so employers should continue to monitor future developments.

 

Second Circuit: Dispute Over Arbitration Fees is Not a Refusal to Arbitrate

On September 2, 2025, in Frazier v. X Corp., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a party’s refusal to pay arbitration fees did not constitute a refusal to arbitrate. Instead, the fee dispute itself needed to be arbitrated. Here, a class of former employees of Twitter (now X Corp.) filed arbitration demands for claims of discrimination, denial of severance benefits, and other claims. The arbitration demand was pursuant to Dispute Resolution Agreements (DRAs) the employees had to enter into as an essential part of the hiring process at Twitter, unless they submitted a valid form to opt out of arbitration. The DRAs identified Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS) as the arbitration organization. While Twitter at first proceeded as required by the DRAs, they then began objecting that the DRAs required the arbitration fees to be shared equally between the parties. JAMS responded that Twitter was required to pay the costs in accordance with its rules, which were incorporated by reference in the DRAs. Twitter disputed this arguing that any fee disputes were to be resolved by the arbitrator and not JAMS. The court agreed and stated that disputes over payment of arbitration fees are a procedural matter to be determined by the arbitrator and not the courts. Courts are only empowered to address a narrow category of disputes of whether arbitration must occur between particular parties over particular issues.

 

Ninth Circuit: Denying Vaccine Accommodation to Firefighter Not Title VII Violation

On September 2, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue (SRFR) did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for denying a religious accommodation to firefighters from its COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The SRFR was able to prove that granting a religious accommodation would cause an undue hardship. Almost 25% of the workforce requested an exemption which would cause a significant cost to SRFR. This cost would be compounded if there were additional absences due to COVID-19 being spread by unvaccinated firefighters. In addition, the firefighters’ job involved interfacing with the public and vulnerable patients so testing, masking, and social distancing was inadequate. SRFR was able to prove additional undue hardships through detailed medical evidence provided by an infectious disease expert. Employers should remember that the undue hardship defense for denying a religious accommodation is a difficult process and very fact-specific. Denials of accommodations should always be evaluated by legal counsel for this reason.

 

Eleventh Circuit: Denial of Gender-Affirming Surgery is Not Sex Discrimination

On September 9, 2025, in Anna Lange v. Houston County, Georgia, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a county health insurance plan’s exclusion of gender-affirming surgery did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This decision reversed a prior panel ruling and diverged from other federal court interpretations that viewed such exclusions as discriminatory. The court reasoned that the exclusion was applied uniformly and did not target individuals based on sex or gender identity, relying in part on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld similar uniform bans. In light of this ruling, employers are encouraged to carefully review their health benefits policies, especially if operating in multiple states, and consult legal counsel to ensure compliance with evolving federal and state interpretations of anti-discrimination laws.

 

California: Prohibition on Captive Audience Meetings Temporarily Blocked

Effective September 30, 2025, SB 399, prohibiting captive audience meetings, has been temporarily blocked from enforcement by a preliminary injunction. The law went into effect on January 1, 2025 and prohibited private and public employers from taking adverse action against an employee for failure to attend employer-sponsored meetings or communications where the purpose is to communicate the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters or unionization. The preliminary injunction was granted pursuant to legal challenges to the law that it is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and is an unconstitutional effort to regulate employer speech. It is likely the State of California will appeal the ruling.

 

Los Angeles, California: Los Angeles Hotel Worker Minimum Wage Ordinance and Hotel Worker Training Ordinance in Effect

Effective September 8, 2025, the minimum wage increase for hotel and airport workers in the City of Los Angeles is in effect. Since Santa Monica follows Los Angeles’ minimum wage rate for hotel workers, their hotel worker minimum wage is also increased. Ordinance No. 188610 contains two requirements which are now reinstated: the Los Angeles Hotel Worker Minimum Wage Ordinance (HWMO) and the Hotel Worker Training Ordinance (HWTO). Pursuant to the HWMO, the increase now brings the minimum wage rate to $22.50. The increase is the result of a failed referendum to prevent the minimum wage increase. The Los Angeles City Clerk has now certified that the referendum did not meet the requirements, so the minimum wage increase can proceed. In addition, hotel or airport employers who do not provide health benefits must provide an additional wage rate per hour equal to the health benefit payment specified in the HWMO. Lastly, pursuant to the HWTO, hotel workers must be trained on health and safety, including identifying instances of human trafficking and sexual and domestic violence, in addition to protecting their own safety. The training requirements are effective December 1, 2025.

 

San Diego, CA: Minimum Wage Increase for Hospitality Workers

The Hospitality Minimum Wage Ordinance increases minimum wage for workers at hotels, event centers, and amusement parks. For employees in hotels and amusement parks, minimum wage will rise to $19/hr. on July 1, 2026, increasing annually to $25/hr. in 2030, with annual cost of living increases thereafter. For employees at event centers, minimum wage will rise to $21.06/hr. on July 1, 2026, increasing annually to $25/hr. in 2030, with annual cost of living increases thereafter. There are additional notice and posting requirements. Hospitality employers must also create and retain contemporaneous written or electronic records documenting each employee’s dates and hours worked and wages paid.

 

Colorado: Supreme Court Clarifies Statute of Limitations for Wage Claims

On September 15, 2025, in By the Rockies v. Perez, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that wage claims under the Colorado Minimum Wage Act (MWA) are subject to a two- or three-year statute of limitations. Here, the plaintiff claimed the defendant employer failed to provide them with required meal and rest breaks under the MWA. The plaintiff filed the claim five years after separating from the employer. In addition, the MWA did not have its own statute of limitations period for claims. The plaintiff argued that a six-year limitations period should apply in accordance with a statute that addresses claims for a “liquidated debt or an unliquidated, determinable amount of money.” Although the Colorado Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiff, the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court reasoned that the MWA and Wage Claim Act are part of a statutory scheme intended to recover unpaid wages. Therefore, the Wage Claim Act’s limitations period should apply – two years for non-willful violations and three years for willful violations. This limitations period also matches the three-year recordkeeping requirement for wage records.

 

District of Columbia: Amendment to Universal Paid Leave and Short-Term Disability

Effective May 1, 2025, D.C. Act 26-68 amends the Universal Paid Leave law (UPL) and its interaction with short-term disability insurance. The amendment prohibits a private disability insurance provider from offsetting or reducing short-term disability benefits based on actual or estimated paid leave benefits the eligible individual may be entitled to under UPL. The prohibition applies regardless of what jurisdiction the insurance policy was issued or written.

 

Florida: Changes to the State’s Open Carry Law

In McDaniels v. State, an appellate court in Florida ruled that the state’s existing Open Carry ban was unconstitutional, making it lawful for eligible adults to openly carry firearms in most public places as of September 25, 2025. Employers retain the right to prohibit firearms on private property, including in workplaces and company vehicles, but must post clear signage and implement policies to enforce this. That said, Florida’s “Bring Your Guns to Work” law limits employer control over firearms in locked private vehicles in parking lots, prohibiting inquiries, searches, or employment actions based on lawful firearm possession. Employers should train staff on handling armed visitors, if applicable, and ensure compliance with sensitive location restrictions, which remain unchanged.

 

Massachusetts: 2026 Paid Family and Medical Leave Updates

The Massachusetts Department of Family and Medical Leave has released its 2026 updates to the Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program. Effective January 1, 2026, the maximum weekly benefit increases to $1,230.39 per week from $1,170.64. The contribution rate on eligible employee wages will remain the same at 0.88%. This rate has not been changed for three years. Employers should prepare to update their employee notices and top-off policies. Employers with private plans should review their benefits for compliance with the changes for 2026.

 

Minnesota: New Sample PFML Notices and Posters

The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development has published sample notices and workplace postings for employer use on the state’s website for Paid Leave Minnesota. To comply with Minnesota’s Paid Leave program launching January 1, 2026, employers must display a workplace poster by December 1, 2025, and provide each employee with a written notice about their leave rights within 30 days of hire or before premium collection begins. Notices must be in the employee’s primary language and acknowledged in writing or electronically, with employers required to offer access to a computer for review and printing if notices are delivered digitally. Employers using approved equivalent plans must also distribute a separate notice and poster specific to that plan. All notices must include premium contribution details and be retained as proof of compliance.

 

New York, NY: Software Specifications for Fair Workweek Compliance

In September, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection released voluntary guidance for software developers that create products for fast food employers that support compliance with the Fair Workweek Law (FWL). The FWL requires fast food employers in New York City to give their workers regular schedules, advance notice of schedules, premium pay for schedule changes, and other protections. The new software guidance is aimed as software that addresses the following issues for covered employers: (1) systems integration across scheduling, timekeeping, payroll, and HR management functions; (2) business rules that facilitate compliant scheduling practices; (3) authentication protocols to ensure data integrity; (4) reporting capabilities to support recordkeeping requirements; and (5) automated compliance monitoring tools. The guidance also emphasizes the types of tracking systems that any software should have in order to comply with the FWL.

 

Philadelphia, PA: Amendments to Fair Chance Ordinance

Effective January 6, 2026, amendments to Philadelphia’s Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards Ordinance clarifies certain aspects of the law and expands employer obligations. There are new, specific definitions for the terms felony, misdemeanor, summary offense, and incarceration. An adverse action has been broadened to means any action that negatively affects an applicant or employee’s “compensation, terms, or condition of current or future work or is intended to harass an Applicant or Employee in connection with work, including excessive and unreasonable levels of supervision, refusal to hire or promote, blacklisting, interferences with current employment or employment prospects, contacting law enforcement or a government agency to file a report, including reporting suspected or actual immigration status.” Employers cannot consider misdemeanor convictions over four years old, excluding incarceration. Employers must also perform an assessment based on specific factors before excluding an applicant or employee from consideration for a position. Retaliation protections have also been added. The changes are extensive so employers should review the amendments in their entirety.

 

---

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