APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in CT

EFFECTIVE October 1, 2025

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

Quick Look Effective October 1, 2025, HB 7236 amended the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act to add the status of being a victim of sexual assault or human trafficking as a protected characteristic.

Discussion

Effective October 1, 2025, HB 7236 amended the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act to add the status of being a victim of sexual assault or human trafficking as a protected characteristic. In addition, it is an unlawful employment practice to deny a reasonable leave of absence to such persons in order to: (1) seek attention for injuries caused by sexual assault or trafficking; (2) obtain services including safety planning from a domestic violence agency or rape crisis center; (3) obtain psychological counseling; (4) take other actions to increase safety from future incidents of sexual assault or trafficking; or (5) obtain legal services, assist in the prosecution of the offense, or otherwise participate in legal proceedings in relation to the incident or incidents of sexual assault or trafficking.

 

Employees who avail themselves of leave shall provide their employer with certification, within a reasonable time frame. Such certification can be: (1) a police report; (2) a court order protecting or separating the employee from sexual assault or trafficking; (3) other evidence from the court or prosecuting attorney that the employee appeared in court; or (4) documentation from a medical professional including a counselor. If an employee has a physical or mental disability resulting from an incident of sexual assault or trafficking, the employee shall be treated in the same manner as an employee with any other disability.

 

Action Items

1. Review and update discrimination, harassment, and disability policies.
2. Have appropriate personnel trained on the 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 New York City

EFFECTIVE As Indicated

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

Quick Look The New York City Council approved amendments to the Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (ESSTA). Effective September 22, 2025, the minimum per-mile rate for high-volume for-hire vehicle trips that begin in New York City and end outside of New York City has been increased by the Taxi and Limousine Commission.

Discussion

Earned Safe and Sick Time Act Amendments

 

The New York City Council approved amendments to the Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (ESSTA). The most notable changes are summarized below.

 

Unpaid Leave Bank. Employers shall provide to employees upon hire and on the first day of each calendar year, a minimum of 32 hours of unpaid safe/sick time that is immediately available for use. An employer is not required to carry over to the following calendar year any unused unpaid safe/sick time.

 

Prenatal Leave. Employers shall provide employees 20 hours of paid prenatal leave during any 52-week calendar period.

 

New Covered Uses. In addition to the existing reasons for safe/sick time, employees can now take leave:

 

• For a public disaster that prevents the employee from reporting to their work location;
• At the direction of a public official to remain indoors or to avoid travel;
• For caregiving for a minor child or care recipient;
• To initiate, attend or prepare for a legal proceeding or hearing related to subsistence benefits or housing to which the employee, the employee’s family member, or the employee’s care recipient is a party, or to take actions necessary to apply for, maintain, or restore subsistence benefits or shelter for the employee or their family member or care recipient; and
• Due to being a victim of having a family member who is a victim of workplace violence.

 

Temporary Schedule Change. Employees can still request a temporary schedule change, but employers is not required to agree to the requested change. Employers cannot retaliate against an employee for requesting a schedule change.

 

Although the amendment has been passed, the Mayor has not yet signed it. The amendments will become law 120 days after the Mayor signs.

 

Minimum Pay for Drivers Amended

 

Effective September 22, 2025, the minimum per-mile rate for high-volume for-hire vehicle trips that begin in New York City and end outside of New York City has been increased by the Taxi and Limousine Commission. Drivers must be paid $1.700 per mile for a trip dispatched to a vehicle that is not an accessible vehicle and no less than $2.122 per mile for a trip dispatched to an accessible vehicle.

 

Action Items

1. Review and revise Earned Sick and Safe Time Policies, pending the Mayor’s signing of the bill.
2. Revise applicable pay rates for high-volume for-hire drivers, as applicable.

 

---

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 WA

EFFECTIVE January 1, 2026

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

Quick Look Effective January 1, 2026, HB 1524 amends Washington’s law addressing sexual harassment and sexual assault committed against isolated workers. The law applies to the following covered employers: hotel, motel, retail, security guard entity, or property services contractor. Covered employers must now also provide a panic button to each isolated employee and inform isolated employees on how to use panic buttons, and inform managers and supervisors on their responsibility to respond to the use of panic buttons.

Discussion

Effective January 1, 2026, HB 1524 amends Washington’s law addressing sexual harassment and sexual assault committed against isolated workers. The law applies to the following covered employers: hotel, motel, retail, security guard entity, or property services contractor. The amendment defines an isolated employee as an employee who performs work in an area where two or more coworkers, supervisors, or a combination thereof are unable to immediately respond to an emergency without being summoned by the employee or spends at least 50% of their working hours without a supervisor or another coworker present. In addition, this definition applies to those employed as a janitor, security guard, hotel or motel housekeeper, or room service attendant.

 

Covered employers must now also provide a panic button to each isolated employee and inform isolated employees on how to use panic buttons, and inform managers and supervisors on their responsibility to respond to the use of panic buttons. There is a recordkeeping requirement of the purchase and utilization of panic buttons provided to isolated employees. Covered employers must also keep a record of the mandatory training required by the amendment.

 

The panic button must:

 

• Be designed to be carried by the isolated employee;
• Be simple to activate without delays caused by entering passwords or waiting for the system to turn on;
• Provide an effective signal for the circumstances when activated; and
• Be able to summon immediate assistance and allow responders to accurately identify the isolated employee’s location.

 

Washington’s Department of Labor & Industries is tasked with investigating violations of the requirements. Financial penalties for violations can be $1,000 for the first willful violation and up to $10,000 for subsequent violations.

 

Action Items

1. Evaluate workforce to determine whether workers meet the definition of isolated worker.
2. Distribute panic buttons, if applicable.
3. Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements.
4. Document purchase and utilization of panic buttons and required trainings.

 

---

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

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

APPLIES TO All Employers

EFFECTIVE As Indicated

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

Quick Look Board nominees are pending approval from the Senate, and if confirmed, would establish a quorum to take action. The Fifth Circuit ruled that preliminary injunctions should remain in place preventing cases from proceeding against three employers because the NLRB Board and ALJ members should be able to be fired at-will by the President. The Fifth Circuit said that employers may remove union literature from a breakroom where the employer maintains neutral policies for cleanliness and non-solicitation that are consistently applied regardless of subject. An NLRB Memo said that surreptitious recording of collective bargaining meetings is a per se violation of the NLRA for negotiating in bad faith. An NLRB Memo provided guidance on determining when salt discrimination claims are authentic. An NLRB Memo stated its intention to defer unfair labor practice cases when the parties have a mutually agreed dispute resolution process in place.

Discussion

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) continues to undergo ongoing changes. Here is a brief summary of recent NLRB developments.

 

NLRB Uncertainty

 

Board Status                            

 

The NRLB continues to be in a period of flux in that it does not have a quorum on the Board in order to fully function. There are two pending nominations, Scott Mayer and James Murphy, that are before the Senate for confirmation. Their confirmation would restore a quorum, allowing the NLRB to begin issuing decisions.

 

NRLB Challenged

 

The NLRB’s adjudicative structure is currently under fire, potentially signaling future challenges to its authority. On August 19, 2025, in Space Exploration Technologies Corporation v. NLRB (“SpaceX”), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld preliminary injunctions prohibiting the NLRB cases from proceeding against them. The court said the parties’ claims that the NLRB’s structure is unconstitutional would likely succeed on the merits, and the unconstitutionality was enough to maintain the preliminary injunctions preventing the employers from being subject to prosecution.

 

SpaceX and two other employers challenge the structure of the NLRB based on the limitations for removing Board members and administrative law judges (ALJ). Board Members may be removed by the President only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” ALJs may be removed only “for good cause,” as determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)—itself an independent, quasi-judicial agency whose members themselves enjoy for-cause removal protection by the President. The employers claim that this structure means that the Board and ALJs are unconstitutionally shielded from presidential removal, whose authority should be exercised at-will.

 

While this ruling only applies to the three employers in the case, it provides a roadmap for other employers to similarly challenge the NLRB, and also sets up a likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Removing Literature from the Workplace

 

On July 7, 2025, in Apple, Inc. v. NLRB, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that, where an employer consistently enforced its policies requiring workplace cleanliness and prohibiting any solicitation whatsoever, the employer did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in removing union flyers left on a table in a break room. The employer did not otherwise interfere with unionization activity, handing out flyers outside of the store, or wearing pro-union paraphernalia.

 

Recording Collective Bargaining Sessions

 

On June 25, 2025, the NLRB General Counsel issued Memorandum 25-07 – Surreptitious Recordings of Collective-Bargaining Sessions as a Per Se Violation of the NLRA – which declares that a party who secretly records collective bargaining sessions commits a per se violation of the NLRA for failure to bargain in good faith. The Memo emphasizes, “[t]he use of surreptitious recordings during the collective-bargaining process is inconsistent with the openness and mutual trust necessary for the process to function as contemplated by the Act.” Employers should take care not to record collective bargaining sessions without the consent of all parties and should consider reporting when they are being recorded without their consent.

 

Salt Prosecution Guidance

 

On July 24, 2025, the NLRB General Counsel issued Memorandum 25-08, providing guidance on how to prosecute claims of not being hired because of known or suspected union activity, which is prohibited by the NLRA. “Salting” is “the act of a trade union in sending a union member or members to an unorganized jobsite to obtain employment and then organize the employees.” However, job applicants must be genuine, meaning they cannot apply just so as to provoke a negative response from the employer so they can file a claim. The Memo provides guidance on determining whether an applicant is “genuine” for purposes of deciding whether to prosecute a failure to hire discrimination claim. Employers should document any suspicious application activity and disruptive conduct in the interview process if they suspect that the person is just trying to elicit a job denial.

 

Deferring Unfair Labor Practice Cases

 

On August 7, 2025, the NLRB General Counsel issued Memorandum 25-09, which recommends deferral of investigations for unfair labor practice charges to the parties’ collectively bargained grievance and arbitration process, if they have one. Citing limited resources, the NLRB intends to focus on cases where the parties do not have a mutually agreed dispute resolution process in place.  Further, Regions will no longer contact parties on a quarterly basis to inquire about the status of deferred cases; instead, Charging Parties are obligated to provide a deferral status report to the Region on a biannual basis – March 15 and September 15. Notwithstanding, the NLRB will retain jurisdiction over deferred cases and will review the ultimate disposition if requested by the parties.

 

Action Items

1. Have legal counsel review current cases for potential impact from recent updates.
2. Review nonsolicitation policies for neutrality and compliance and ensure consistent enforcement.
3. Have appropriate personnel trained on bargaining recording requirements.
4. Document applicant behavior that appears to be disingenuous.
5. Review collective bargaining agreements for dispute resolution processes and evaluate 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