Expert Analysis

• What Mass. Ruling Clarifies About Whistleblower Protections

  

  A Massachusetts appellate court's recent decision in Galvin v. Roxbury Community College, finding that an employee retained whistleblower protections despite his reporting responsibilities and possible contribution to the compliance failure, requires employers to distinguish between performance-based decisions and their response to protected reporting, say attorneys at Smith Kane.

• What We Did And Didn't Learn From DOJ's 1st Illegal DEI Deal

  

  IBM's recent $17 million deal with the U.S. Department of Justice marks the first resolved False Claims Act enforcement action under the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, and while it validates the core of the government's FCA antidiscrimination enforcement road map, it leaves its most aggressive theories untested, say attorneys at Nutter.

• New DEI Clauses Will Reshape FCA Exposure For Contractors

  

  As federal agencies mandate new procurement language aimed at curbing contractors' DEI practices and embedding False Claims Act materiality concepts into antidiscrimination obligations, contractors should account for both compliance and litigation risks before signing, and understand the legal constraints that govern FCA materiality, say attorneys at Seyfarth.

• How Guidance Narrows Federal Telework Accommodations

  

  A recent FAQ from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management offers agencies several ways to narrow telework as an accommodation for federal employees, including through in-office alternatives, revisiting prior approvals and substituting leave for situational telework, says Lori Kisch at Kalijarvi Chuzi.

• 7 Tips For Employers On Calif. Decision-Making Tech Rules

  

  Over the next eight months, many California employers must prepare to comply with challenging new requirements under the California Consumer Privacy Act that constitute the most comprehensive set of rules in the country on the use of automated decision-making technology, say attorneys at Littler.

• What To Know About NY's Employment Credit Check Ban

  

  An amendment to the New York state Fair Credit Reporting Act prohibiting applicants' or employees' consumer credit history from being used in employment-related decisions statewide will take effect in a few days, so employers should update policies, train teams and audit positions for narrow exemptions, say attorneys at Reed Smith.

• Gender-Expansive Calif. Equal Pay Laws Widen Employer Risk

  

  California's recent amendments to strengthen its Equal Pay Act and Pay Transparency Act aim to shrink the wage gap, not only for women, but also for nonbinary and transgender employees, creating new compliance obligations for employers and increasing their potential exposure, say attorneys at the Jhaveri-Weeks Firm.

• AI Recruiting Suit Shows Old Laws May Implicate New Tools

  

  The Fair Credit Reporting Act allegations recently filed in Kistler v. Eightfold AI, are the latest example of broad definitional language in legacy statutes proving far more dangerous to companies deploying artificial intelligence – particularly in hiring – than any purpose-built artificial intelligence regulation, say attorneys at Ogletree.

• What's Missing From Latest Gov't Claims Against Harvard

  

  The most interesting thing about the Trump administration’s recent civil rights enforcement efforts targeting Harvard University is its decision not to assert violations of the False Claims Act when given the opportunity, despite signals that its enforcement efforts will include use of the federal FCA, say attorneys at Bass Berry.

• Preparing For New Calif. Pay Data Reporting Requirements

  

  California's S.B. 464 overhauls the state's pay data reporting framework by requiring employers to use job categories that are based on the Standard Occupational Classification system, increasing both the potential visibility of pay disparities and the complexity of compliance, say attorneys at Kaufman Dolowich.

• Justices May Hesitate To Limit Courts' Arbitration Review

  

  Based on Monday's argument in Jules v. Andre Balazs, the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to preserve federal jurisdiction over arbitral award enforcement stemming from actions originated in federal court, a holding that would markedly limit the court's 2022 Walters v. Badgerow decision, says Ashwini Jayaratnam at DarrowEverett.

• Spotlight On Legal Battles Over EEOC Subpoena Powers

  

  Attorneys at Wilson Elser consider the spate of litigation over the past year, spurred by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s focus on alleged religious discrimination at universities, and corporate diversity, equity and inclusion practices, and how it may affect the attempts to assert privacy rights against the agency's broad subpoena powers.

• NFL Hiring Bias Ruling Signals Trend Away From Arbitration

  

  A New York federal court's recent decision in Flores v. NFL, declining to compel arbitration in a class action alleging racial discrimination in the league's hiring practices, reflects courts' increasing reluctance to allow private dispute resolution for systemic discrimination claims, says Masood Ali at Segal McCambridge.