The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (the “Age Act”) proscribes age-based discrimination in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. The Age Act generally does not restrict age discrimination in employment practices, as this is the purview of a separate federal law, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (the “ADEA”). On August 18, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ranking of medical residents by medical schools is an “employment practice” to which the Age Act does not apply. The case, Spatz v. Regents of the University of California, clarifies that the decision not to accept a medical student into a residency program does not give rise to a cause of action under the Age Act.Continue Reading Age Discrimination Act—Which Proscribes Age Discrimination in Programs Receiving Federal Assistance—Does Not Apply to Medical Residency Rankings, Ninth Circuit Panel Rules

The recent wave of executive orders issued under the Trump Administration marks a dramatic shift in the landscape of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) policy, sustainability initiatives, and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs at the federal level. From rescinding previous climate-related directives to terminating DEI programs and altering federal enforcement priorities, these sweeping changes have far-reaching implications for businesses, contractors, educational institutions and other stakeholders across all sectors.Continue Reading Comprehensive Guide to Trump’s Executive Actions on ESG, DEI & Environmental Policy

On August 19, 2025, the Fifth Circuit upheld injunctions barring the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) from prosecuting unfair labor practice cases against SpaceX and two other companies. In its decision, a three-judge panel found the removal protections that federal labor law grants NLRB members and NLRB administrative law judges (“ALJs”) likely violate the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that being subjected to proceedings by unconstitutionally insulated officers constitutes irreparable harm, leading to preliminary injunctions blocking the NLRB cases. Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Rules NLRB Structure Likely Unconstitutional

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) is sharpening its focus on “salting”—the practice of union organizers seeking employment with non-union employers to facilitate organizing campaigns. On July 24, 2025, the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel (“AGC”) William Cowen issued updated guidance that both clarifies and intensifies scrutiny around salting cases, altering how these matters will be investigated and litigated.[1] Employers and HR professionals should take note of this evolving landscape.Continue Reading Hold the Salt: Key Takeaways from the NLRB’s New Guidance on Union Salting

The Sunshine State just got brighter for Florida employers seeking to enforce non-compete agreements. On April 24, 2025, the Florida legislature passed the Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (CHOICE) Act (the “Act”). The Act—which took effect on July 1, 2025—significantly enhances the enforceability of both non-compete and garden leave agreements in Florida. As a result, Florida may now be the most non-compete friendly state in the nation.Continue Reading Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: Florida’s New Non-Compete Law Shakes Up the Sunshine State

Effective October 1, 2025, updated regulations from the California Civil Rights Council will formally restrict the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in employment decision-making by California employers. In the employment context, these tools can be applied in a litany of ways to manage the workforce, including to screen resumes, make predictions about an applicant or employee, measure an applicant or employee’s skills or abilities, direct job advertisements and recruiting materials to targeted groups, and screen, evaluate, and/or recommend applications or employees.Continue Reading California Approves Rules Regulating AI in Employment Decision-making

In a favorable decision for California employers, the Court of Appeal in Bradsbery et al. v. Vicar Operating, Inc., 110 Cal.App.5th 899, affirmed that employers and employees can enter into prospective, written, and revocable agreements to waive meal periods for shifts between five and six hours.[1] This ruling confirms what employers have long known regarding the legality of these agreements.Continue Reading California Court Upholds Prospective Meal Period Waivers

On July 4, 2025, H.R.1, or what is being called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“OBBBA”), was signed into law, introducing major reforms in tax and employee benefits that affect businesses and their employees. OBBBA is an expansive, omnibus legislative package that combines numerous, major policy proposals across a broad range of subject areas. The overarching purpose is ostensibly to cut spending by repealing or rolling back a significant number of wide-ranging provisions. OBBBA enacts new conservative policy priorities in taxation, spending, immigration, and social policy, and substantially modifies federal spending and certain entitlement programs.Continue Reading What Employers Should Know About the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA)

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced a significant shift in its wage and hour enforcement policy, ending the longstanding practice of seeking liquidated damages in administrative, prelitigation proceedings under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). This move, outlined in Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) No. 2025-3, represents a marked change in regulatory approach and has immediate implications for employers, employees, and the broader employment law community. The change is intended to bring the DOL’s enforcement activities back in line with its statutory authority while streamlining the resolution of wage and hour investigations.Continue Reading Department of Labor Curtails Liquidated Damages in Wage and Hour Investigations

Beginning September 1, 2025, Texas will significantly narrow the permissible scope of non-compete agreements with certain healthcare employees. The legislation, Senate Bill 1318 (“SB 1318” codified in Tex. Bus. Com. Code § 15.50), represents the biggest legislative adjustment to restrictive covenants in the Lone Star State in decades.Continue Reading Texas Enacts Massive Reforms to Healthcare Provider Non-Competes