Rhode Island

Rhode Island: Legislative Updates

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in RI

EFFECTIVE

As Indicated

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • Rhode Island’s Fair Employment Practices Act now expressly covers domestic service workers.
  • Rhode Island will limit the ratio of self-service checkout stations to manual checkout stations in grocery stores and impose staffing requirements for employees monitoring those stations.
  • A new Warehouse Worker Protection Act requires employers to disclose production quotas to warehouse distribution center employees and prohibits quotas that interfere with required breaks.

Discussion

The Rhode Island General Assembly wrapped up its 2026 legislative session, passing several bills impacting employers, while also declining to advance a number of other notable proposals. Key enactments and failed bills are summarized below.

 

Domestic Service Workers Added to FEPA Coverage. Effective June 10, 2026, H8504 amends the definition of “employee” under the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) to include individuals employed in domestic service. This continues a recent legislative trend of extending standard workplace protections to domestic workers; Rhode Island previously amended its minimum wage law to cover domestic workers in 2024.

 

Restrictions on Self-Service Checkout Stations. Effective January 1, 2027, H7290A places limits on the number of self-service checkout stations a grocery store may operate and on the workload of employees assigned to monitor those stations. Grocery stores must maintain a minimum of one manual checkout station in operation for every three self-service checkout stations in operation, and at least one manual checkout station must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

 

Warehouse Worker Protection Act. Also effective January 1, 2027, H7364A requires employers to provide each warehouse distribution center employee, upon hire, with a written description of each applicable production quota within defined time periods, along with the adverse employment action that may result from failing to meet the quota. The law also prohibits employers from imposing quotas that prevent employees from taking required meal and rest periods or using the bathroom.

 

Bills That Failed to Pass. Several other proposals affecting employers did not advance this session, though employers should monitor future sessions given the state’s continued interest in these areas:

 

  • H8505 | A proposed Workplace Psychological Safety Act, which would have prohibited workplace bullying and psychological abuse, failed in the House after lawmakers were unable to fully address concerns raised by business and civil-rights groups.
  • H7490 | A bill that would have required certain employers to pay overtime to otherwise exempt executive, administrative, or professional employees whose salaries fall below specified multipliers of minimum wage failed to pass.
  • H7767 | A bill establishing a comprehensive framework to regulate employer use of AI-driven automated decision systems and electronic monitoring in employment decisions, including notice, recordkeeping, and anti-retaliation requirements, passed the Senate but failed to gain traction in the House.
  • H7968 | A bill that would have expanded the state’s temporary caregiver leave program, including broadening who qualifies as a care recipient and increasing benefit duration, passed the Senate but failed in the House.

 

Action Items

  1. Employers of domestic service workers should review policies and practices to ensure compliance with FEPA’s anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation requirements.
  2. Prepare written quota disclosures for new hires and review existing quota practices for compliance with meal, rest, and restroom break protections, as applicable.
  3. Evaluate self-service checkout station ratios and staffing practices for compliance, as applicable.
  4. Have appropriate personnel trained on all updated 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. © 2026 ManagEase

South Carolina

South Carolina: Court Clarifies Limits of Employer Liability for Workplace Use of Force

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in SC

EFFECTIVE

JUN 10, 2026

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • The South Carolina Supreme Court held that an employer could not be held civilly liable for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention where its employee had already been granted criminal immunity under the state’s “castle doctrine” for fatally shooting a customer during a workplace confrontation.

Discussion

In Moore v. Green’s Grocery, LLC, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed dismissal of a civil lawsuit against an employer after its employee fatally shot a customer during a workplace confrontation.

 

The case arose from a September 2020 incident at a Charleston grocery store. A customer entered the store to purchase a phone charger, and a heated confrontation ensued between the customer and an employee (the store owner’s nephew). The dispute escalated to the point that the customer’s conduct placed the employee in reasonable fear of imminent serious injury, and the employee shot and killed the customer. The employee was charged with murder, but following an immunity hearing, the circuit court found that the customer’s actions gave the employee the statutory right to use lethal force under South Carolina’s Protection of Persons and Property Act (the state’s “castle doctrine” statute). The murder charge was dismissed, and the state did not appeal.

 

The customer’s estate subsequently sued the grocery store and its owner, seeking to hold the employer liable under theories of negligent hiring, supervision, or retention, independent of the employee’s personal justification for using force. The circuit court dismissed the suit, concluding that the unchallenged immunity order established the employee was not at fault, and that the employer could not be held liable where the underlying act was lawful. The state supreme court agreed.

 

The court reasoned that when an employee’s use of force is determined to be lawful and justified, there is no “underlying wrongful conduct” to which any independent negligent acts of the employer could relate. The court distinguished its prior decisions in Woodell by Allen v. Marion School District One and Greenville Memorial Auditorium v. Martin, in which employers were not shielded from liability despite third-party criminal acts, because in those cases the plaintiffs’ claims rested on the employers’ own negligence tied to wrongful underlying conduct. Here, by contrast, the court explained that the employee’s conduct “was not criminal—nor was it wrongful in any respect.” Because there was no wrongful act at the foundation of the case, independent negligence claims against the employer could not attach.

 

While the decision reflects a win for this company, employers generally should recognize that the outcome here depended heavily on the specific facts, including an unchallenged immunity order finding that the shooting was justified. Different circumstances could yield a different result. At bottom, this case serves as an important reminder for employers to review their workplace violence prevention procedures, including de-escalation training, clear use-of-force policies, and protocols for handling confrontational customers.

 

Action Items

  1. Review and update workplace violence prevention procedures, 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. © 2026 ManagEase

South Dakota

Discussion

South Dakota: Noncompetes Permitted in Limited Circumstance

As of July 1, 2026, HB 1180 allows the seller of a business to enter into a noncompete agreement to refrain from engaging, directly or indirectly, in the same or similar type of business following the sale within the specified geographic area in which the entity conducts business, for a period not exceeding three years from the date of transfer.

 


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. © 2026 ManagEase

Tennessee

Tennessee: Legislative Updates

APPLIES TO

As Indicated

EFFECTIVE

As Indicated

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • Tennessee employers of commercial motor vehicle drivers who knowingly employ individuals unlawfully present in the United States now face both new criminal misdemeanor liability and strict civil liability for resulting injuries or property damage.
  • Tennessee employers that host or subsidize licensed child care providers are now shielded from civil liability for the provider’s acts or omissions, subject to limited exceptions.
  • Delivery network companies and their drivers in Tennessee must meet new minimum automobile liability insurance requirements.

Discussion

Tennessee enacted several new laws this session affecting employer liability exposure and compliance obligations, ranging from immigration-related driver requirements to child care hosting arrangements and delivery network insurance standards. Key aspects of each are summarized below.

 

Employer Liability for Unauthorized Commercial Drivers. Effective July 1, 2026, SB 1587 creates new criminal offenses and civil liability exposure for employers of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers who are unlawfully present in the United States. It is now a Class A misdemeanor for a “direct employer” (the entity that hires, compensates, and directly supervises the driver, excluding customers, shippers, brokers, or other contracting parties without direct employment authority) to knowingly employ and allow such an individual to operate a CMV in Tennessee, and it is a separate offense for the driver to do so. Law enforcement officers who arrest a driver for this offense must ensure federal immigration authorities are notified.

 

More significantly for employers, the law creates a new strict liability civil cause of action: a direct employer that knowingly employs such a driver is strictly, jointly, and severally liable for any personal injury or property damage the driver causes while operating a CMV, exposing the employer to compensatory damages, potential punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Notably, an employer is presumed not to have acted “knowingly” if it complies with Tennessee’s existing employment verification requirements, and the law clarifies that this new liability may not be automatically covered under existing liability insurance policies unless the policy expressly provides for it.

 

Liability Protection for Employers That Host or Subsidize Child Care. Effective July 1, 2026, and applicable to actions arising on or after that date, SB 1683 establishes the “Tennessee Child Care Hosting Safe Harbor Act” which shields employers from civil liability for the acts or omissions of a licensed child care provider operating on the employer’s property or subsidized through the employer. The law covers employers that subsidize child care costs for employees (through reimbursement, direct payment, tuition assistance, or similar financial assistance) or that host a licensed child care provider on their premises, so long as the employer does not itself operate or manage the provider. Importantly, merely providing space, utilities, maintenance, security, capital improvements, or financial support does not, by itself, constitute “operating, controlling, or managing” the provider for purposes of losing this protection. The safe harbor does not apply, however, where the employer’s gross negligence or willful misconduct is the proximate cause of an injury, or where the employer operates, controls, or manages the provider, is itself licensed as a child care provider, or employs, supervises, or directs the provider’s staff.

 

Automobile Liability Requirements for DNCs. Effective January 1, 2027, HB 2175 establishes automobile liability insurance requirements for delivery network companies (“DNCs,” businesses that use a digital app or platform to connect customers with drivers for delivery services) and their drivers. During a driver’s “delivery availability period” (logged into the app awaiting a request) and “delivery service period” (actively picking up and delivering goods), the DNC, the driver, or a combination of both must maintain primary automobile liability insurance covering at least $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident for bodily injury, and $25,000 for property damage. If a driver’s personal coverage lapses or falls short, the DNC’s insurance must fill the gap from the first dollar of a claim, and the DNC’s insurer bears the duty to defend. The law also permits personal auto insurers to exclude coverage during these delivery periods, and requires DNCs to disclose their insurance coverage and limits, as well as the fact that a driver’s personal policy may not provide coverage, in writing to drivers before they can accept delivery requests.

 

Action Items

  1. Review employment eligibility verification practices for compliance, as applicable.
  2. Consult with legal counsel regarding application of the child care benefits safe harbor protection, as applicable.
  3. Review and update automobile liability insurance coverage to meet the new minimum requirements, 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. © 2026 ManagEase

Utah

Discussion

Utah: Noncompetes for Veterinarians

Effective May 6, 2026, SB 111 prohibits Utah employers from requiring veterinarians to enter into noncompete, nondisclosure, or nonsolicitation agreements, except that the noncompete prohibition does not apply if the veterinarian holds at least a 5% ownership interest in the business. Additionally, any contractual clause requiring disputes under a veterinarian noncompete agreement to be resolved outside of Utah is void and unenforceable.

 

Utah: Creditor Garnishment Employer Fees

Effective May 6, 2026, SB 307 entitles employers to a $10 fee for processing a single writ of garnishment and a one-time $25 fee for a continuing garnishment. When the garnishment amount exceeds the applicable fee, the employer may deduct the fee from the amount sent to the creditor. If the garnishment amount does not exceed the fee, the employer must notify the creditor and return the writ, and the creditor is then responsible for paying the fee to the employer. For a continuing garnishment where the amount collected is less than the $25 fee, the employer must notify the creditor and delay sending any funds until the total exceeds the fee.

 


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. © 2026 ManagEase

Virginia

Virginia: The Legislative Updates Continue!

APPLIES TO

As Indicated

EFFECTIVE

As Indicated

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • Virginia has lowered the employee threshold for mandatory participation in its state-facilitated retirement savings program and expanded the program’s features.
  • Virginia has expanded permissible work for minors, including apprenticeships in culinary arts and IT, and summer camp employment for workers as young as 14.
  • Rideshare companies face broadened background check requirements and a new required screening accreditation body.
  • New caps and automatic protections now apply to wage garnishment, including treasurers’ tax liens and financial institution account exemptions.
  • Localities may now pass ordinances requiring incoming service employers to retain incumbent workers during a transition period.
  • Tobacco retailer licensing and enforcement is shifting to the Virginia ABC Authority, with new mandatory compliance checks.

Discussion

Virginia’s 2026 legislative session produced a broad set of employment-related bills, including changes affecting retirement savings, wage garnishment, child labor, background screening, and local government authority. Key aspects of each are summarized below.

 

Retirement Savings Program Expansion. Effective July 1, 2026, HB 176 expands the state-facilitated IRA program administered by the Commonwealth Savers Plan. The bill lowers the eligible employer threshold from 25 employees to five, removes the requirement that eligible employees work at least 30 hours per week, and adds a minimum age of 18 for individuals enrolling independent of an employer relationship. The bill also expands the governing board’s authority to add features such as a lifetime income investment option, financial literacy initiatives, and incentives for employer and employee participation. Employers who withhold employee contributions must remit them within 10 business days of withholding or risk penalties.

 

Expanded Work Opportunities for Minors. Effective July 1, 2026, HB 275 allows 16-and-older students to participate in registered apprenticeships or work-based learning programs in culinary arts or information technology, provided they remain enrolled in an accredited secondary school and the work complies with applicable law. In connection with HB 1218, Virginia’s broader child labor amendments, also effective July 1, 2026, prohibit minors from working in occupations designated hazardous under federal rules while allowing minors 14 and older to work in summer camps.

 

New Background Check Standards for Rideshare Drivers. Effective July 1, 2026, HB 1469 revises background screening requirements for transportation network company (rideshare) partners. Checks may no longer be limited to a specific look-back period, except as otherwise required by law, and must cover all addresses where the partner has resided since age 18. The bill also requires that screening entities be accredited through the Professional Background Screening Association.

 

New Limits on Wage Garnishment. Effective July 1, 2026, HB 1100 limits a treasurer’s lien for delinquent taxes or local charges to 25% of a taxpayer’s disposable earnings in a single pay period, unless the taxpayer’s income exceeds 250% of the poverty guideline, a court finds evidence of flight risk or asset concealment, or the funds are held in trust for a local governing authority. Separately, SB 301 requires financial institutions to automatically exempt a minimum protected account balance of up to $1,000, as well as certain benefit payments deposited within the two months preceding an account review, from garnishment. Judgment debtors are not required to request a hearing to claim this protection, though the automatic exemption does not apply to child support or spousal support obligations.

 

Local Successorship Ordinances for Service Employers. Effective July 1, 2026, SB 430 grants localities authority to adopt ordinances or resolutions requiring successor service employers, those taking over contracts involving property maintenance, airport services, or school food service, to retain incumbent employees for a 90-day transition period. Employers who violate a qualifying local ordinance may face civil liability and monetary damages.

 

Tobacco Retailer Licensing Transferred to ABC Authority. Effective July 1, 2026, with certain provisions delayed until October 1, 2026, HB 308 restructures oversight of liquid nicotine and retail tobacco products, transferring licensing and enforcement from the Department of Taxation to a new permitting system under the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority. Permittees will be subject to unannounced compliance buys at least once every 24 months to confirm they are not selling tobacco products to individuals under 21.

 

Action Items

  1. Review retirement plan offerings to determine whether the lowered eligibility threshold now requires participation in the state savings program.
  2. Employers of minors should review job duties and scheduling practices for compliance.
  3. Rideshare companies should update background check protocols to comply with the expanded scope and new accreditation requirement.
  4. Employers should update payroll and garnishment procedures, as applicable.
  5. Tobacco employers should prepare for permitting and compliance checks, as applicable.
  6. Have appropriate personnel trained on all updated 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. © 2026 ManagEase

Washington

Discussion

REMINDER | Washington: Fair Chance Act Expanded

As of July 1, 2026, the Washington Fair Chance Act is expanded to apply to employers with 15 or more employees, requiring that when an employer discloses that a position is subject to a background check after a conditional job offer (or an applicant voluntarily discloses their criminal history), the employer must provide the applicant a written notice of certain statutory requirements along with a copy of the Washington Attorney General’s Fair Chance Act Guide for Employers and Job Applicants. The Attorney General recently posted a revised version of that Guide, so covered employers should use the updated version going forward. However, the Attorney General’s website does not yet include a sample of the required notice itself, nor a sample individualized assessment form (which employers must provide to an applicant after making a “tangible adverse employment decision” based on the applicant’s criminal history), meaning employers must continue drafting their own versions of both documents until official samples are released.

 


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. © 2026 ManagEase

Wyoming

Discussion

Wyoming: Portable Benefit Accounts for Independent Contractors

As of July 1, 2026, SB 41 authorizes the establishment of portable benefit accounts for independent contractors, without impacting their status as an independent contractor. Portable benefit accounts include health benefits, income replacement insurance, vision and dental insurance, life insurance or retirement benefits. Certain requirements must be met like having a written agreement with an opt-out option.

 


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. © 2026 ManagEase

Mid-Year Minimum Wage Updates

Mid-Year Minimum Wage Updates!

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in AK, CA, DC, FL, IL, MD, MN, NM, NY, OR, and WA

EFFECTIVE

As Indicated

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • Prepare for minimum wage updates in your areas of operation as of July 1, 2026.

Discussion

On July 1, 2026, minimum wages will increase in states and localities across the country. Although not a comprehensive list, the following are key areas to review. All changes take effect on July 1, 2026, unless otherwise noted.

 

Jurisdiction Hourly Rate
Alaska $14.00
California  
California Healthcare Workers $19.28 – $25.00
Alameda $17.76
Berkeley $19.61
Emeryville $20.34
Fremont $18.05
Glendale $25.00 (hotel workers)
Los Angeles City $18.42; $25.00 (hotel workers)
Los Angeles County $18.47
Malibu $17.91
Milpitas $18.50
Pasadena $18.57
San Francisco $19.61
Santa Monica $18.47
West Hollywood $20.87 (hotel workers)
District of Columbia $18.40
Florida $15.00 (as of September 30, 2026)
Illinois  
Chicago $17.05
Cook County $15.40 (nontipped employees); $9.25 (tipped employees)
Maryland  
Howard County $16.00 (1-14 employees)
Montgomery County $18.00 (51+ employees); $16.50 (11-50 employees); $15.95 (1-10 employees)
Minnesota  
St. Paul $16.37 (6-100 employees); $14.25 (1-5 employees); $13.95 (youth workers)
New Mexico  
Santa Fe City and County $15.40 (as of March 1, 2026)
New York  
New York City $22.13 (App-Based Food Delivery Workers as of April 1, 2026)
Oregon Standard: $15.55

Portland Metro: $16.80

Nonurban Counties: $14.55

Washington  
Everett $19.77 (1-500 employees)
Renton $21.57 (15-500 employees)

 

Employers should also review tipped employee minimum wage changes, and any impact on overtime and exempt employee pay.

 

Action Items

  1. Prepare to update minimum wage rates in payroll systems.
  1. Notify employees of wage increases, if required.
  1. Display updated minimum wage posters in the workplace and provide posters to remote workers.
  2. Have appropriate personnel trained on minimum wage 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. © 2026 ManagEase

EEOC Updates

EEOC Proposes an End to EEO-1 Reporting and Rescission of Voluntary Affirmative Action Guidance

APPLIES TO

As Indicated

EFFECTIVE

TBD

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • The EEOC submitted a proposal to eliminate EEO-1 reporting and related demographic data collection obligations under Title VII, the ADA, GINA, and the PWFA.
  • In a separate proposal, the EEOC requested to rescind its 1979 interpretive rule on voluntary affirmative action plans under Title VII, which has long served as a framework for employers that adopt affirmative action measures.
  • The EEOC also issued interim instructions significantly curtailing federal agency EEO reporting obligations under its Management Directive 715 framework, reflecting the same broader policy direction.

Discussion

In May and June 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) took several actions that, taken together, reflect a significant shift in the agency’s approach to employer reporting obligations and voluntary affirmative action practices. Key aspects of the EEOC’s proposals are summarized below.

 

Proposed Elimination of EEO-1 Reporting. On May 14, 2026, the EEOC submitted a proposal to eliminate EEO-1 reporting and related recordkeeping obligations. Under the current framework, private employers with 100 or more employees and certain federal contractors with at least 50 employees are required to annually submit workforce demographic data broken out by job category, sex, and race/ethnicity. The proposal would also eliminate related reporting and data collection obligations under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).

 

Proposed Rescission of Voluntary Affirmative Action Guidance. On May 27, 2026, the EEOC submitted a separate proposal to rescind 29 C.F.R. Part 1608, which reflects its 1979 interpretive rule on voluntary affirmative action under Title VII. The current guidance outlines the circumstances under which employers may voluntarily adopt affirmative action measures to address workforce imbalances and describes when an employer may rely on that guidance as a potential defense in Title VII litigation. If rescinded, employers would lose access to this interpretive framework and the associated litigation safe harbor. It is important to note, however, that a rescission would not amend Title VII itself, nor would it overturn the U.S. Supreme Court decisions recognizing that Title VII may not prohibit certain voluntary affirmative action measures in limited circumstances.

 

Employers should keep in mind that neither proposal is final. Both must undergo review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) before being published in the Federal Register for public comment, after which the agency must review comments and potentially revise each rule before it can be finalized. This process is expected to take several months.

 

Federal Agency EEO Reporting Also Scaled Back. Separately, on June 3, 2026, the EEOC issued interim instructions under its Management Directive 715 (MD-715) framework, which has governed federal agency EEO reporting since 2003, significantly curtailing what federal agencies are required to report. While these instructions apply directly to federal agencies rather than private employers, they reflect the same policy direction as the EEO-1 proposal and signal the EEOC’s broader approach to EEO reporting and enforcement under the current administration.

 

What This Means for EEO-1 Filers Now. Because the EEO-1 proposal is still in the early stages of the regulatory process, the EEOC may still open the reporting portal for 2025 data in the coming weeks. Covered employers should continue preparing to file as if the reporting window will open on its usual timeline. Employers should also be aware that even if federal EEO-1 reporting is ultimately eliminated, applicable state-level demographic and pay data reporting obligations would remain in effect.

 

Action Items

  1. Continue preparing for EEO-1 filing, as applicable.
  2. Continue to comply with state-level demographic and pay data reporting obligations, which remain unchanged regardless of federal proposals.
  3. Review existing voluntary affirmative action plans and practices with legal counsel.
  4. Monitor ongoing developments in the rulemaking process.
  5. Have appropriate personnel trained on applicable requirements.

 

 

EEOC Announces New National Enforcement Plan

On June 4, 2026, the EEOC announced that it has approved and released a new National Enforcement Plan (NEP), to replace the Biden administration’s FY 2024–2028 Strategic Enforcement Plan. The NEP signals a significant shift in the agency’s enforcement priorities, emphasizing intentional discrimination (e.g., disparate treatment) claims over disparate impact claims, which the plan directs the agency to eliminate from investigations and litigation “to the maximum degree possible.” The NEP specifically identifies DEI policies, programs, and practices as an enforcement focus, including race- or sex-based hiring quotas, diverse slate and hiring panel policies, diversity statements required of candidates, and compensation tied to diversity goals. Additional priorities include hiring preferences for foreign national workers and cases that will clarify the scope of recent Supreme Court decisions on majority-group bias claims, sex discrimination, voluntary affirmative action programs, religious accommodation, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Employers should review workplace policies and practices, particularly any DEI-related programs, with legal counsel for compliance with both federal and applicable state anti-discrimination laws. Employers should keep in mind that state disparate impact protections will continue to apply regardless of the federal shift in enforcement posture.


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. © 2026 ManagEase