Discrimination & Retaliation

Subscribe to Discrimination & Retaliation via RSS

Recent developments affecting Temporary Protected Status (TPS)[1] beneficiaries have created uncertainty for employers managing work authorization and reverification obligations. In response, California Attorney General Rob Bonta has reminded employers that changes affecting TPS beneficiaries do not change employers’ existing obligations under federal and California law. The guidance underscores a key compliance point: employers should not assume that an employee whose TPS designation has been affected is no longer authorized to work, and employers must continue to follow standard I-9, reverification, anti-discrimination, and anti-retaliation requirements.

The guidance reflects California’s longstanding approach of reinforcing workplace protections for immigrant workers during periods of federal immigration policy change. While TPS-related developments may create uncertainty for employers, the Attorney General’s message is that employers should continue to follow existing verification and reverification rules rather than impose additional requirements or take adverse action based on assumptions regarding an employee’s immigration status. The guidance further encourages employers to consult immigration counsel before acting based on an employee’s TPS status, recognizing that affected employees may remain authorized to work through another immigration status, a pending application, or another provision of law.

Among other things, the guidance reminds employers:

  • To follow current employment verification requirements. Employers must complete the Form I-9 to verify an employee’s identity and authorization to work in the United States and should monitor USCIS and E-Verify for current TPS termination and work authorization expiration dates.
  • That employment authorization may remain valid beyond the expiration date shown on a work permit. Employers should not rely solely on the expiration date printed on an Employment Authorization Document (EAD). Work authorization may be automatically extended through a Federal Register notice, USCIS notice, court order, or applicable DHS regulations. Before acting based on an apparent expiration date, employers should confirm whether an automatic extension or another basis for continued work authorization applies.
Continue Reading California Reminds Employers: TPS Changes Do Not Alter Workplace Obligations

Federal EEO-1 reporting may be heading for a major reset — but employers should be careful not to mistake federal uncertainty for a broader retreat from workforce pay-data obligations. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has proposed rescinding the long-standing annual EEO workforce demographic reporting rules, including the EEO-1 Component 1 report filed by many private employers and federal contractors. At the same time, several states and localities are moving in the opposite direction, adopting or expanding pay-data and demographic reporting requirements that are more granular, more jurisdiction-specific, and less dependent on the federal framework.

For multinational and multistate employers, the practical message is straightforward: do not dismantle EEO-1 data infrastructure yet. Instead, use this moment to rationalize workforce data governance, build flexibility for diverging state requirements, and ensure demographic and pay data are collected, stored, analyzed, and used in a legally defensible way.

EEO-1 Requirements

The EEO-1 framework has been part of the US employment law compliance architecture for decades. Historically, the EEOC and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) have jointly administered the EEO-1 Component 1 Data Collection program to monitor compliance with federal civil rights laws. Private employers with 100 or more employees and certain federal contractors with 50 or more employees have been required to file annual workforce demographic reports.

Component 1 requires covered employers to report headcount data disaggregated by race/ethnicity, sex, and job category. The Biden administration’s proposed rule to reinstate Component 2 pay data reporting — which required employers to report aggregate compensation and hours-worked data segmented by race, sex, and job category — was formally withdrawn following the change in administration and is not currently required.

What’s Changing at a Federal Level

On July 23, 2026, the EEOC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would rescind annual EEO-1, EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5, and EEO-6 workforce demographic reporting and related recordkeeping rules. If finalized as proposed, covered private sector employers — including covered federal contractors — would no longer file routine EEO-1 reports with the EEOC. Until the EEOC issues a final rule, existing federal reporting and recordkeeping requirements remain in effect.

For federal contractors, the status of EEO-1 reporting is more complicated than for purely private-sector employers. On August 21, 2026, OFCCP published three coordinated final rules that eliminate – from a regulatory perspective – federal contractor affirmative action requirements for women and minorities and narrow contractor affirmative action requirements regarding individuals with disabilities.

Continue Reading Federal Retreat, State Expansion: The New Workforce Data Landscape for US Employers

In our recent post, AI Regulation on Hold in Colorado—But Employer Risk Isn’t, we flagged that delay did not mean diminished risk. That continues to hold true. Colorado has now approved a comprehensive rewrite of its AI law, while Illinois regulators are advancing practical disclosure requirements for employers using AI in employment decisions.

The direction is clear: AI oversight in the workplace is moving forward—and becoming more operational.

Colorado: Recalibration, Not Retreat

Colorado’s rewrite reflects an effort to make its AI framework more workable—but not less relevant for employers.

Key points:

  • Employment uses remain in scope: AI tools used in hiring, promotion, and other employment decisions continue to be treated as “high risk.”
  • Governance expectations remain: Employers will still need risk management and oversight frameworks.
  • Transparency still matters: Notice and documentation obligations continue, even as details evolve.
Continue Reading Colorado and Illinois Advance AI Transparency Obligations for Employers

Some historically more employer-friendly APAC jurisdictions are becoming harder to manage as employee protections expand and procedural requirements tighten. In 2026, the region is broadly politically stable, but economic caution, recent elections, and pro-labor legislative agendas are reshaping employment risk in different ways across key jurisdictions. China is emphasizing employment stability and risk containment; South Korea and Australia are advancing employee-friendly labor agendas; and Japan, Singapore, and Vietnam remain relatively stable politically but are seeing increasingly sophisticated employment regulation. For in-house teams, the core risk is not missing a headline reform, but underestimating how process, consultation, and documentation increasingly determine outcomes.

Below are the developments global employers should have firmly on their radar.

1. Workforce Flexibility Is Narrowing—and Execution Risk Is Rising

Across APAC, worker misclassification and restructuring execution have become standout employment risks. In many markets, the primary exposure is no longer just whether an employer has a legal basis to act, but whether it can show the relationship was properly classified and that any termination, redundancy, or outsourcing decision was implemented through a defensible process.

  • South Korea combines aggressive labor reform with real enforcement risk. Unlawful contracting arrangements and illegal dispatch (e.g., subcontracted workers) have long carried criminal liability under Korean law. The Yellow Envelope Act now allows even lawfully subcontracted workers to unionize and bargain directly with client companies. The new administration has also pledged to close even lawful outsourcing loopholes, raising the stakes for businesses that rely on layered service or contractor models.
  • Australia continues moving toward an employee-protective model. Recent reforms driven by legislation and case law have refocused classification analysis on the real substance of the relationship, while courts and regulators are increasingly attentive to consultation, redeployment, and safety in workforce change exercises.
  • China, Japan, and Vietnam each create execution risk, but in different ways. China and Vietnam apply substance-over-form tests that increase recharacterization risk for outsourcing and contractor models. Japan and China are particularly restrictive on termination, requiring clear legal grounds and close procedural compliance. Vietnam does not recognize at-will employment, so even commercially justified exits require careful implementation.
Continue Reading Asia Pacific in Focus: 2026 Employment Law Shifts Global Employers Can’t Ignore

May is Mental Health Awareness Month—a timely reminder for employers to take a fresh, thoughtful look at how workplace policies and practices support employees’ mental health. This includes ensuring compliance with evolving requirements around leave, reasonable accommodations under the ADA, and broader mental health considerations. As the legal landscape continues to shift, even well‑intentioned…

On April 27, 2026, a federal court paused enforcement of Colorado’s Artificial Intelligence Act (SB 24-205), placing one of the country’s most comprehensive state AI laws on hold while lawmakers reconsider its timing and scope. The order prevents the state from initiating enforcement actions during the pendency of the litigation, effectively freezing the law just weeks before its anticipated June 30, 2026 effective date.

This development is neither a repeal nor a permanent delay. Instead, it leaves employers in a familiar position—navigating a period of legal uncertainty while continuing to operate against a rapidly evolving regulatory backdrop. Importantly, even if the Colorado law is ultimately blocked or significantly revised, employers should not view the pause as a signal to deprioritize AI governance. As discussed below, the legal and regulatory risks associated with AI in employment remain very much in force.

Background

With the statute’s effective date approaching, a leading AI developer filed suit in April seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of several provisions of the Act. Shortly thereafter, the US Department of Justice intervened, arguing that aspects of the law impermissibly compel AI systems to adopt state‑defined viewpoints. The DOJ’s intervention marks the administration’s first litigation effort aimed at limiting state‑level AI regulation.

Continue Reading AI Regulation on Hold in Colorado—But Employer Risk Isn’t

Since our April 6 blog, Why the New DEI Executive Order Matters for Federal Contractors—and Signals Broader Risk for All US Employers, where we highlighted how the latest Executive Order creates new contractual obligations for federal contractors and subcontractors, with potentially far reaching implications, there have been several significant developments that collectively signal a…

Six months ago, our Back‑to‑School Guide on Recent Developments in Workplace DEI examined how the 2025 executive orders—and early guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ)—led many US-based employers to recalibrate DEI-related risk, conduct DEI health checks, and fine-tune specific initiatives and practices.

In 2026, the risk is not coming from landmark court rulings declaring DEI unlawful. Instead, it is coming from enforcement tools: investigations, subpoenas, contract terms and leverage applied across multiple fronts—often before any litigation is filed.

That reality came into sharper focus on March 26, with the issuance of a new executive order further targeting “DEI discrimination” by federal contractors.

Workplace DEI remains lawful. But employers should expect heightened scrutiny of how programs are structured, incentivized, documented, and defended—through EEOC inquiries, administrative subpoenas, FCA theories tied to certifications, and discovery-driven litigation.

The New Executive Order Enhances DEI Risk for Federal Contractors

The White House’s new executive order—“Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors”—creates new contractual obligations for federal contractors and subcontractors. Potential consequences include termination, debarment, and potential False Claims Act (FCA) exposure. The order (and the accompanying Fact Sheet) is operationally consequential: it ties compliance to federal contracting, expands agency access to contractor information, and more explicitly links compliance with these contractual obligations to FCA theories.

Continue Reading Why the New DEI Executive Order Matters for Federal Contractors—and Signals Broader Risk for All US Employers

Special thanks to our law clerk Marjorie Simón for contributing to this update.

Mexico has kicked off 2026 with two major legal developments that employers cannot afford to ignore. In January and March, sweeping reforms reshaped the compliance landscape—introducing mandatory workplace training focused on preventing violence against women and launching a phased reduction of the standard workweek from 48 to 40 hours. Together, these changes reflect a broader regulatory push toward workplace equality, safety, and work‑life balance, while also creating new operational and compliance challenges for employers operating in Mexico. Read on for more information.

Continue Reading Mexico Employers Take Note: New Training Obligations and a Reduction of the Workweek