Labor & Employment Law Update

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently proposed eliminating the requirement for covered employers to provide workforce demographic information through the annual EEO-1 Report. If finalized, the change would reduce a longstanding federal reporting obligation for many employers.

However, employers should not assume that elimination of the report will make workforce demographic information irrelevant. To the contrary, employers may have good reasons to continue collecting and analyzing this information, even if they no longer have to submit it to the EEOC.

Wisconsin has updated its child labor regulations, prompting employers that hire minors to review their compliance practices.

Effective June 1, 2026, the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD) implemented Administrative Rule CR 26-015, a comprehensive update to the state's child labor regulations. The rule revises Chapter DWD 270, repeals Chapter DWD 271, and reorganizes numerous provisions governing the employment of minors and street trades. 

Employers may have more flexibility to enforce neutral dress code and uniform policies, even when those policies affect employees' display of union insignia. On September 2, 2026, in a decision involving Starbucks’ New York Reserve Roastery, the Second Circuit rejected the NLRB’s stringent standard to workplace rules that restricts employees’ ability to display union insignia under its Tesla decision. The court concluded that the Board’s Tesla standard did not adequately balance employees’ rights with an employer’s legitimate business interests.

For employers, this is a significant development, but not a nationwide green light to restrict union apparel. While the decision does not eliminate employees’ rights to display union messages or overrule Tesla nationwide, it signals growing judicial skepticism of the Board’s restrictive approach. 

Employers acquiring a business with a unionized workforce may soon have more flexibility to challenge the incumbent union's status than they have had for decades. On July 21, the D.C. Circuit held in Hospital Menonita de Guayama, Inc. v. NLRB that the National Relations Labor Board (NLRB ) never had the authority to impose its “successor bar” doctrine, a rule that generally requires a successor employer to continue bargaining with an existing union for up to a year after an acquisition. As one of the first appellate decisions to reject an NLRB doctrine since the U.S. Supreme Court ended automatic deference to federal agencies, other doctrines built on similarly thin statutory footing may be next.

Effective January 1, 2027, Illinois employers with 26 or more employees must pay employees at their regular hourly rate for their existing job-protected jury duty leave. The change, enacted through House Bill 4844 and signed by Governor J.B. Pritzker on July 31, 2026, amends the Illinois Jury Act and Illinois Jury Commission Act. Crucially, there are no caps or limitations on the new paid leave.

While Illinois employers have long been required to provide employees with protected time away from work to fulfill jury duty obligations, the new law fundamentally changes who bears the financial burden of that leave. Illinois has chosen to place responsibility for additional pay above the low jury duty stipend on private employers. As a result, what was previously an operational challenge of covering for an employee's absence will now also become a potentially significant payroll expense.

Many nonunion employers do not expect that they may be one ordinary employee group chat away from a potential National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) issue. The common misconception is that labor law only matters when a union is involved. It doesn’t. As a result, disciplinary decisions that seem routine can quickly become unfair labor practice charges if managers fail to recognize when employees are engaging in protected concerted activity.

A recent decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit found that OSHA lacked congressional authorization to regulate mental health in the workplace. While the decision does not change workers' compensation laws or standards for mental injury claims, it raises important questions for employers about how workplace mental health conditions may be evaluated under existing legal frameworks.

The Fifth Circuit recently issued a decision that could affect how courts evaluate Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and enforcement actions moving forward.

On July 21, 2026, in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the court addressed OSHA’s rule requiring employers to record certain work-related mental illnesses. It concluded that OSHA exceeded its Congress authority under the Occupational Safety and Health Act and vacated the rule, Exxon’s citation, and the accompanying penalty.

Compliance with pay transparency laws is no longer as simple as adding a salary range to a job posting and moving on. As state pay transparency requirements and compliance obligations continue to expand nationwide, regulators are increasingly focused on whether employers’ disclosures are meaningful, accurate, and supported by actual compensation practices. As lawmakers and regulators continue to refine pay transparency requirements, employers should view compliance as part of a broader compensation strategy rather than a standalone posting obligation.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued much-needed guidance on compensable travel time, one of the more complex areas of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  Laid out in two opinion letters, the guidance is particularly relevant for employers with hybrid workforces and field-based employees. Employers should review their pay practices to ensure they are properly distinguishing between ordinary commuting and compensable work activities.