President Trump Revokes Biden-Era EO on Competition

On August 13, 2025, the White House announced that President Trump revoked President Biden’s July 2021 Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy (the “Biden EO”).  President Trump’s revocation of the Biden EO marks a significant shift in federal competition policy that will directly impact employers, especially those involved in mergers, acquisitions, and regulated industries. The Biden EO had imposed a broad, multi-agency framework aimed at curbing corporate consolidation and promoting competition across sectors like healthcare, agriculture, tech, and labor. It included initiatives to limit non-compete agreements, scrutinize mergers more aggressively, and coordinate enforcement across federal agencies. For employers, this meant heightened regulatory scrutiny, slower deal approvals, and increased compliance burdens. With the revocation, the Trump administration is signaling a return to a more market-driven, case-by-case approach to antitrust enforcement. Employers can expect a more permissive environment for mergers and acquisitions, faster regulatory reviews, and greater reliance on negotiated remedies like consent decrees rather than outright deal blocks. Employers should stay alert to evolving agency priorities and prepare for a shifting landscape.

 

Second Circuit: EEOC Retains Jurisdiction Over Claims

On August 25, 2025, in EEOC v. AAM Holding Corp., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) retains the authority to investigate a charge even after it issues a right-to-sue letter to the charging party and the charging party files a lawsuit. This ruling joins similar opinions from the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, and widens the split with the Fifth Circuit.

 

Fifth Circuit: PWFA Enforceable Against Texas State Agencies

On August 15, 2025, in State of Texas v. Bondi, the Firth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a district court injunction that prevented enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) against Texas state agencies as employers. The PWFA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to workers with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, absent undue hardship. When it went into effect on June 27, 2023, the State of Texas challenged enforcement of the law by arguing the U.S. House of Representatives did not meet the necessary quorum requirements to pass legislation. Absent members were allowed to vote by proxy due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A district court agreed and instituted an injunction against enforcement of the PWFA against the State of Texas as an employer. In reaching its ruling overturning the injunction, the Fifth Circuit court ruled in-person voting was not required as the Quorum Clause of the U.S. Constitution did not explicitly require in-person voting. This ruling settles a long-standing legal challenge against the PWFA.

 

Sixth Circuit: Restrictions on Arbitration During Pending Litigation

In Kloosterman v. Metropolitan Hosp., the Sixth Circuit held that the defendant employer had lost their right to arbitrate under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because their conduct in litigating the case, with substantial motion practice and only filing a motion to compel arbitration after a year, put them “in default in proceeding with [their requested] arbitration.” The court ultimately ordered that the matter should proceed in district court, restricting the employer’s ability to use arbitration as a strategic tactic after a full year of litigation.

 

Eighth Circuit: FRA Preempts OSHA for Workers Around Railcars

On August 28, 2025, in MFA Enterprises v. OSHRC, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) preempts the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Under the OSH Act, when another federal agency has set standards for the environmental area where the employee customarily works, OSHA’s jurisdiction is preempted. Here, OSHA cited the employer for failing to ensure employees wore personal protective equipment while working on top of railcars. Ultimately, the court vacated the citation because the FRA has asserted its authority over working conditions unique to railroad operations, including the protection of employees working around railcars.

 

Ninth Circuit: EEO Reports Subject to FOIA Requests

On July 30, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued their decision in Center for Investigative Reporting v. U.S. Department of Labor, ruling that the DOL was required to release EEO-1 Component 1 reports submitted by federal contractors in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the Center for Investigative Reporting. These reports traditionally include aggregated employee demographic information (e.g., race, ethnicity, and gender) organized by job category. The court found that this data did not qualify as “commercial” under FOIA Exemption 4, which protects confidential business information, because it does not reveal profit-related or trade-sensitive data. As a result, this ruling may open the door to broader public access to EEO-1 data, especially for federal contractors.

 

California: Ignorance is Not a Defense to Properly Paying Wages

On August 21, 2025, in Iloff v. LaPaille, the California Supreme Court said that to establish a good faith defense under Labor Code § 1194.2 for liquidated damages for minimum wage violations, an employer must show that it made a reasonable attempt to determine the requirements of the law governing minimum wages and a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the law; proof that the employer was ignorant of the law is insufficient.

 

California: Paid Sick Leave Calculations for Outside Salespersons Clarified

On August 4, 2025, in Hirdman v. Charter Communications, LLC, the California Court of Appeals said that outside salespersons qualifying as overtime exempt may be paid for sick time used under the state’s paid sick leave law using the exempt employee pay calculation of the statute, Labor Code § 246(l)(3). Section 246(l) provides three methods employers may use to calculate the rate of pay for sick leave—two options for “nonexempt employees” and one for “exempt employees.” The court said that “exempt employees” in Section 246(l)(3) refers to any employee who is determined to be overtime exempt, not just those falling under the traditional administrative, executive, and professional exemptions.

 

California: Failure to Pay Arbitration Fees is Nonfatal When Due to Good Faith Mistake

On August 11, 2025, in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court said that late arbitration payments under C.C.P. § 1281.98 are subject to equitable contractual remedies and are not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Section 1281.98 requires arbitration fees to be paid within 30 days, at risk of forfeiture of arbitration rights. Here, the arbitrator’s bill was paid late due to a known paternity leave and communications around the arbitrator’s unavailability, but otherwise promptly paid on discovery. The Court said that one party’s nonperformance of an obligation automatically extinguishes the other party’s contractual duties only when nonperformance is willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent. The legislature did not intend to strip companies and employers of their contractual right to arbitration where nonpayment of fees results from a good faith mistake, inadvertence, or other excusable neglect.

 

California: Minimum Wage Will Increase to $16.90 on January 1

On August 1, 2025, the state Director of Finance announced the next minimum wage increase on January 1, 2026 will be $16.90. The Director is required to annually calculate an adjusted minimum wage on or before August 1 of each year at the lesser of 3.5 percent or the rate of change for the U.S. CPI-W. The rate of change for the upcoming year was determined to be 2.49%. Note that this increase means that the minimum salary requirement for overtime exempt workers in California, which is two times the state minimum wage, will also increase to $70,304 per year ($5,858.67 per month).

 

Long Beach, CA: Minimum Staffing for Grocery Stores and Pharmacies

As of September 22, 2025, in order to prevent retail theft, Long Beach Ordinance No. 25-0010 will require minimum staffing levels for check-out stands at certain retail grocery establishments and pharmacies. Specifically, the requirements state: (1) there must be at least one staffed traditional check-out lane available; (2) self-checkout lanes must have one staff supervising self-checkout for every three stations; and (3) the assigned employee cannot have other work responsibilities that interfere with their ability to maintain direct visual inspection and surveillance of the self-checkout operations. Staffing requirements do not count managers, supervisors, or confidential employees as complying with the Ordinance. Other operational requirements are also stated for checkout operations, such as limiting self-checkout to 15 items. Violations are subject to a private right of action with daily penalties of $100 for noncompliance, up to $1,000, and attorneys’ fees and costs. There are also anti-retaliation protections against employees enforcing rights under the Ordinance.

 

Colorado: AI Antidiscrimination Law Delayed

As part of a special legislative session called by Colorado Governor, the state legislature has agreed to postpone the effective date of the state’s pending AI antidiscrimination law to June 2026. The law was originally passed in May 2024 and set to go into effect in February of 2026, establishing a comprehensive framework for preventing algorithmic discrimination and imposing tort liability for violations. Almost immediately following the law’s passage, opponents began lobbying for substantive revisions, citing concerns with the burdens imposed on AI developers and businesses utilizing the technology. Although the legislature ultimately failed to reach a compromise on actual revisions to the law, they did agreed to an extension of the law’s implementation date to allow for further negotiations.

 

Hawaii: Lower Filing Threshold for W-2 and HW-2

Effective January 1, 2026, Hawaii will require employers filing 10 or more Forms W-2 and/or HW-2 in a calendar year to file electronically with the state Department of Taxation, regardless of the employer’s annual withholding tax liability. Previously, the filing threshold was 250 or more forms.

 

Massachusetts: Retroactive Immunity for Certain Nonprofit Institutions Paying Monthly Wages

On August 27, 2025, in Curtin-Wilding v. Trustees of Boston University, a federal district court said that Section 113 of the state budget may be applied retroactively by nonprofit higher education institutions and nonprofit healthcare providers to immunize them from Massachusetts Wage Act claims for paying wages on a monthly schedule, provided that wages are timely paid in full.

 

Montana: Limits on Restrictive Covenants for Healthcare Professionals

Effective January 1, 2026, Montana’s HB 620 amends the state’s non-compete law to ban post-employment non-compete and patient non-solicitation clauses in contracts involving physicians of all specialties. Previously limited to psychiatrists and addiction medicine physicians, the amended statute will cover all licensed physicians and will apply to other healthcare professionals like psychologists and counselors. The law applies to employment, partnership, or other professional relationships, prohibiting geographic restrictions and limitations on treating or soliciting current patients. Exceptions include contracts for the sale of a practice and repayment provisions for hiring incentives such as relocation costs or signing bonuses.

 

 

 

Nebraska: Paid Sick Time Poster and Notice Available

On October 1, 2025, employers are required to comply with Initiative 436, as amended by LB 415, implementing Nebraska’s new Paid Sick Time law. The state Department of Labor has published the required poster and employee notice (required distribution to employees as of September 15, 2025) that employers must use to comply with their obligations under the law. There is also an FAQ available on the Labor Standards website for more information.

 

Nevada: Overlapping Workdays Clarified for Overtime Calculations

On July 28, 2025, the Labor Commissioner issued an advisory opinion on how overlapping workdays impact overtime requirements. NRS 608.0126 defines “workday” as a period of 24 consecutive hours which begins when the employee begins work.  NRS 608.018 requires that overtime wages are paid, in part, for work over eight hours in a workday. When multiple shifts overlap within a 24-hour period, the time is counted chronologically for purposes of paying overtime. For example, for an employee who works from 5 pm to 11 pm on Monday and 8 am to 1 pm on Tuesday, all hours are within a 24-hour period, resulting in 8 hours of regular time pay and 3 hours of overtime. The advisory opinion describes multiple example scenarios of how this rule operates.

 

Nevada: Limits Healthcare Certification Fees

Effective January 1, 2026, AB 305 will limit fees healthcare providers can charge for completing healthcare certification forms supporting leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The fee will be limited to $30, with annual increases based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

 

New Jersey: No Captive Audiences

Effective December 2, 2025, A4429/S3302 expands prohibitions on employers concerning requirements for employees to attend or listen to communications related to political or religious matters. The bill makes clear that employers cannot mandate employees’ participation in communications about certain political matters, including mandatory meetings regarding the decision to join or support a labor organization or association. The bill provides for very specific exceptions from the prohibitions, including voluntary meetings where employees can refuse without penalty, legally required communications, job-duty-related information, workplace harassment training, and communications by certain types of organizations like political committees, non-profits, and religious organizations. The bill also strengthens employee protections by allowing workers to file civil actions within 90 days of a violation, with potential remedies including reinstatement, lost wages, attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages.

 

North Carolina: State Recognizes Two Sexes, Male and Female

On January 1, 2026, HB 805 will officially recognize two sexes, male and female, as defined at birth. Additionally, gender identity will not be treated as legally or biologically equivalent to sex. The bill cites compliance with Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” to maintain eligibility for federal funding and program participation, as the reason for implementing the law.

 

Rhode Island: New Human Trafficking Prevention Rules

Effective January 1, 2026, Rhode Island’s H5563 will require all hotel employees and short-term rental property operators to complete state-approved human trafficking awareness training annually and within 180 days of employment or property listing. The training must cover, among other things, how to recognize signs of trafficking and differentiate between labor and sex trafficking. Operators must maintain training records for at least one year after employment or property operation ends and provide them to the Department of Business Regulation upon request. Covered entities are also required to implement procedures and adopt policies for reporting concerns to the National Human Trafficking Hotline or local law enforcement.

 

South Carolina: Implements Hands-Free Driving Law

As of September 1, 2025, HB 3276 enacted the state Hands Free and Distracted Driving Act, which prohibits drivers from: (1) holding or supporting a mobile device with any part of their body (excluding using an earpiece or wrist device for voice-based communication); (2) using a mobile device to read, compose, or transmit texts, emails, app interactions, or website information; and (3) watching motion on a mobile device, including a video, movie, game, or video call. Employers should implement hands-free device policies to ensure compliance. Review the Department of Public Safety website for more information.

 

Utah: New Regulations for Healthcare Staffing Platforms

As of May 7, 2025, Utah’s SB 288 regulates health care staffing platforms that connect temporary health care workers with shifts, requiring these platforms to register with the state by January 1, 2026, and prohibits them from enforcing non-compete agreements or charging fees when workers accept employment offers. The law also bans restrictions on workers using other platforms or accepting shifts directly from health care providers or facilities. The definition of “health care worker” under the law is broad, encompassing both licensed professionals and unlicensed individuals who assist in delivering health care services.

 

Washington: Pay Transparency Remedies Available to Any Applicant

On September 4, 2025, in Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, the Washington Supreme Court weighed in on requirements for pay transparency violations. Specifically, an employer failed to disclose pay ranges in job postings as required by state law. The Court said that applicants to the posting may bring claims under the law, and there are no statutory requirements that the applicants show they were “bona fide” or “good faith” applicants. This means that anyone who applies to a job posting that violates the pay transparency requirements may be eligible for statutory damages.

 

Washington: Healthcare Workers Can Waive Meal and Rest Breaks

Effective January 1, 2026, HB 1879 amends the meal and rest break law for any healthcare workers to allow healthcare workers to waive a meal break for shifts of less than eight hours. If a healthcare worker has a shift eight hours or longer, they can waive their second or third meal break but only if at least one meal break was already taken. The employer and healthcare worker can also agree to waive other timing requirements for meal and rest periods as long as the meal period starts no earlier than the third hour worked and no later than the second to last hour scheduled. An enforceable waiver must: (1) be in writing or electronic recordkeeping format; (2) be recorded by the employer in an electronic information management system and be retrievable; (3) include a summary of the applicable department rule governing meal and rest periods and advise the healthcare worker that they may have other rights under an applicable collective bargaining agreement; (4) be voluntary and the employer must expressly advise the healthcare worker that it is voluntary; (5) be in advance of the first shift in which it is relied upon; (6) be revocable by either the employer or healthcare worker at any time; and (7) be submitted on a form agreed to between the employer and the collective bargaining organization for employees it represents. Employers must also record each time an employee misses a meal or rest period and maintain the records in order to submit a quarterly report to the Department of Labor and Industries detailing: (1) the total meals and rest periods missed in violation of the law; (2) the total number of meal and rest periods waived by an agreement; and (3) the total number of meals and rest periods required during the quarter. Healthcare employers should review and update their meal and rest policies accordingly and draft waivers with the assistance of legal counsel.

 

---

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

APPLIES TO All Employers

EFFECTIVE As Indicated

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

Quick Look As of July 1, 2025, the DOL has proposed over 60 regulatory rollbacks in response to a Trump Executive Order requiring agencies to eliminate 10 rules for every new one. Key proposals affect OSHA enforcement, in-home healthcare protections, H-2A visa worker rights, affirmative action for contractors and apprenticeships, and ERISA fiduciary rules.

Discussion

On July 1, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) launched a sweeping deregulatory initiative, advancing over 60 proposals that could significantly reshape workplace compliance across industries. This effort follows an Executive Order issued by President Trump in January 2025, directing federal agencies to rescind 10 regulations for every new one issued. Key proposals of the DOL’s deregulation efforts are summarized below.

 

Workplace Safety. The DOL proposed rolling back OSHA’s reporting requirements for musculoskeletal disorders, as well as narrowing enforcement under OSHA’s General Duty Clause to limit enforcement in professional activities that are inherently risky (e.g., sports and entertainment).

 

Healthcare. The DOL aims to eliminate minimum wage and overtime protections for millions of in-home care workers under the FLSA. This action could potentially ease payroll burdens, but would likely raise pay equity concerns.

 

Agriculture. The DOL proposed revoking some Biden-era employment protections for seasonal H-2A visa workers, including protections related to collective action and concerted activity. The Trump-era DOL had previously indicated they would suspend enforcement of the Biden-era 2024 farmworker rule, but this proposal would officially rescind the 2024 rule.

 

Federal Contractors. The DOL seeks to rescind the anti-discrimination regulations enforced by the OFCCP. The OFCCP already faces potential dismantling altogether, which would remove certain affirmative action and audit obligations entirely.

 

Apprenticeships. The DOL initiatives remove affirmative action requirements for registered apprenticeship programs and reduce diversity-related training requirements.

 

Employee Benefits. The DOL also proposes revoking legacy fiduciary rules under ERISA, which could impact employee benefits administration.

 

Despite the breadth of these proposals, most are still in the early stages of rulemaking. Employers should expect Federal Register notices soon, followed by public comment periods and potential revisions during interagency review. Final rules may be issued by year-end or early into 2026. It is expected that many of these proposals will face legal challenges, so employers should continue to monitor the DOL’s regulatory efforts closely.

 

Action Items

1. Assess how proposed changes may impact the employer’s workforce.
2. Consult with legal counsel about specific application of proposals.
3. Continue to monitor DOL regulatory initiatives.

 

---

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 DE, NJ, PA, and U.S. Virgin Islands

EFFECTIVE July 29, 2025

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

Quick Look In Sun Valley Orders, LLC v. U.S. Department of Labor, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) enforcement action against an agricultural employer under the H-2A nonimmigrant visa program entitled the employer to have the enforcement action decided in court rather than in an administrative proceeding through the DOL. Under this ruling, decisions made by administrative law judges against employers can be challenged and forced to proceed in federal court.

Discussion

In Sun Valley Orders, LLC v. U.S. Department of Labor, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the DOL enforcement action against an agricultural employer under the H-2A nonimmigrant visa program entitled the employer to have the enforcement action decided in court rather than in an administrative proceeding through the DOL. Therefore, the penalties levied against the employer were unconstitutional. Here, Sun Valley Orchards was a family-run farm in New Jersey relying on seasonal workers hired through the H-2A visa program. Sun Valley promised workers at least 40 hours of work per week for 26 weeks of employment, guaranteed employment for the hourly equivalent of three-fourths of the hours contemplated for employment, offered no-cost housing, provided free transportation to the worksite, and furnished free cooking and kitchen facilities through a job order.

 

The DOL alleged that Sun Valley did not keep its promises and violated the job order. By letter, the DOL confirmed the violations and assessed $550,000 in civil penalties and back wages against Sun Valley. The letter also notified Sun Valley of a right to request a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) within 30 days before the findings became final and unappealable. Sun Valley appealed; the ALJ agreed with the DOL and only partly modified the penalty amounts. Sun Valley then challenged the DOL’s decision in a federal court alleging statutory and constitutional defects in the DOL’s order under the Administrative Procedure Act.

 

Although the federal court found in favor of the DOL and granted the motion to dismiss, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that Article III of the Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court and other courts that Congress establishes. Congress cannot withdraw from judicial review a matter which, in its nature, is the subject of a suit at common law, in equity, or admiralty. In addition, the Supreme Court allows certain public rights to be adjudicated outside of an Article III court. The court used three principles to decide: (1) whether the DOL’s action concerned a private right in the nature of a common lawsuit; (2) whether the DOL’s action fit within the public rights exception; and (3) whether Sun Valley waived its right to have its case heard by an Article III court.

 

Using this analysis, the court found the DOL treated Sun Valley’s violation of the job order like a breach of contract with its H-2A employees and also sought common law remedies. These actions show that Sun Valley was entitled to have its case before an Article III court and not an administrative hearing. In addition, the H-2A labor certification regulations do not fit within the public rights exception. Lastly, Sun Valley did not waive its right to have its case heard by an Article III court because the letter notifying it of the appeal process did not provide any real choice to where it could challenge the DOL’s ruling.

 

This ruling is notable for agricultural employers of H-2A visa holders. It means ALJ decisions against employers can be challenged and forced to go through federal court. It remains to be seen whether the DOL will pause its enforcement actions in light of this ruling. Employers with pending cases should consult with legal counsel to determine their options.

 

Action Items

1. Consult with legal counsel regarding compliance with H-2A visa program requirements, if 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 5+ Employees in CA

EFFECTIVE October 1, 2025

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

Quick Look Regulations provide clarity on how existing anti-discrimination laws apply to the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions. Use of an automated-decision system may violate California law if it harms applicants or employees based on protected characteristics, such as gender, race, or disability. Employers and covered entities must maintain employment records, including automated-decision data, for a minimum of four years. Automated-decision system assessments, including tests, questions, or puzzle games that elicit information about a disability, may constitute an unlawful medical inquiry. There are added definitions for key terms used in the regulations, such as “automated-decision system,” “agent,” and “proxy.”

Discussion

The California Civil Rights Council recently announced the adoption of regulations seeking to provide increased clarity on how existing antidiscrimination laws apply to the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions. The regulations make it unlawful for employers or other covered entities to use automated-decision systems or selection criteria that discriminate against applicants or employees on a basis protected by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). This includes prohibiting the use of automated-decision systems in unlawful employment activities, such as those involved in unlawful recruiting practices, pre-employment inquiries, application decision-making, and employee selection. Employers also cannot use automated-decisions systems in tests, questions, puzzles, games, or other challenges that are likely to elicit protected information, such as about a person’s disability, unless job-related for the position, consistent with business necessity, and there is no less discriminatory criteria that serves the employer’s goals. Employers may be required to provide religious or disability accommodations when using automated-decision systems to avoid prohibited discrimination.

 

“Automated-decision system” is defined as a computational process that makes or facilitates employment benefit decisions, including through artificial intelligence, machine-learning, algorithms, statistics, or other data processing techniques. This includes computer-based tests to: make predictive assessments; measure skills, abilities, or characteristics; measure a personality trait, aptitude, attitude or cultural fit; or screen, evaluate, categorize, or recommend applicants or employees. It also includes directing job advertisements to targeted groups; screening resumes for terms or patterns; analyzing facial expression, word choice, or voice; or analyzing data from third parties. Importantly, the definition excludes technologies that do not make decisions regarding employment benefits.

 

Application of these new provisions extends beyond those who may be considered a direct employer. Covered “agent[s]” of employers will now specifically include those acting on behalf of the employer while engaging in traditional employer activities, like applicant recruitment, applicant screening, hiring, promotion, or decisions regarding pay, benefits, or leave, including through the use of an automated decision system.

 

Importantly, the regulations prohibit these covered activities “subject to any available defense.” Relevant considerations to any defense are the use of anti-bias testing, the results of and response to the testing, and other efforts to avoid unlawful discrimination. This is a cue to employers that they must undertake appropriate steps to confirm that their use of AI does not violate anti-discrimination laws. Specifically, the quality, efficacy, recency, and scope of their proactive efforts to avoid unlawful discrimination will be heavily scrutinized in the event of a discrimination claim.

 

Finally, personnel records must now be kept for four years from the date the record was created or the date the personnel action involved took place, including job applications, personnel records, membership records, employment referral records, selection criteria, automated-decision system data, and other records dealing with employment practices or affecting employment benefits. If a complaint has been filed, all records must be retained until the later of: (1) the first date after the time for filing a civil action has expired; or (2) the first date after the complaint has been fully resolved (including any appeals).

 

Employers should begin preparing now by conducting anti-bias testing of their AI programs and working with vendors to verify that their use of AI programs is also compliant with the new FEHA regulations. Set anti-bias testing and other evaluation methods for periodic intervals and implement corresponding procedures to maintain these processes.

 

Action Items

1. Review the regulations here.
2. Conduct anti-bias testing of employment AI programs.
3. Review employment AI programs of contracted vendors.
4. Have appropriate personnel trained on the use of employment AI programs, including to be able to identify potential problems with the system.
5. Update record retention policies and procedures.

---

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 51+ Employees in IL

EFFECTIVE August 1, 2025

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

Quick Look Effective August 1, 2025, SB 220 amends the Illinois Military Leave Act to provide eligible employees with up to 40 hours of paid leave for serving on a funeral honors detail.

Discussion

Effective August 1, 2025, SB 220 amends the Illinois Military Leave Act to provide eligible employees with up to 40 hours of paid leave for serving on a funeral honors detail. The most significant components of the law are summarized below.

 

Covered Employer. This specific leave applies only to employers with 51 or more employees. The Military Leave Act generally applies to all employers.

 

Covered Employee. Eligible employees are those who are trained to participate in a funeral honors detail at the funeral of a veteran. In addition, they are either: (1) a retired or active member of the armed forces or a member of a reserve component of the U.S. armed forces, including the Illinois National Guard; or (2) an authorized provider, or a registered member of an organization that is an authorized provider, including a member of a veterans service organization. An authorized provider is defined as an individual or group recognized by the armed forces, who are not service members or employees of the U.S. government and who augment the uniformed members of a military funeral honors detail. Examples include, but are not limited to, veterans service organizations, trained volunteers of the Reserve Officer Training Corps, honor guards, and other appropriate individuals and organizations that support the rendering of military funeral honors.

 

Usage. Employees can use up to eight hours per calendar month to participate in a funeral honors detail, up to a total of 40 hours per calendar year. Employers or collective bargaining agreements can provide for more leave. Employees do not have to exhaust or use vacation, personal, compensatory, sick, disability or any other leave prior to using funeral honors detail leave. This includes leave under Illinois’ Paid Leave for All Workers. Funeral honors detail leave is in addition to other forms of leave.

 

Notice. Employees only have to provide reasonable notice, as practicable, prior to taking leave.

 

Documentation. Employers may request confirmation from the relevant veterans service organization or any official notice provided to the employee as proof of the employee’s participation in the funeral honors detail.

 

Pay. Employees must be paid their regular rate of pay for leave taken.

 

Exceptions. Employers at an independent living facility, assisted living facility, nursing home facility, or other similar congregate care facility or at a facility providing 24/7 care can deny leave if it would reduce staffing levels to below the established minimum or impair the safe and efficient operations of the facility. This exception does not apply if denying leave would violate the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement.

 

Action Items

1. Review and update military leave 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