Quick Hits

• OFCCP issued an Information Collection Request on January 2, 2026, seeking to revise questions on its complaint and pre-complaint inquiry forms to align with Executive Order 14173.
• OFCCP issued a renewed Information Collection Request on January 7, 2026, seeking to extend existing recordkeeping requirements under VEVRAA.
• On January 20, 2026, an appropriation bill was introduced that proposed to fund OFCCP at $100,976,000 for fiscal year 2026. This appropriation bill passed the House of Representatives on January 22, 2026, and now moves to the Senate for final approval.

The future and focus of OFCCP has been the subject of discussion and speculation by the federal contractor community since Executive Order (E.O.) 14173 was signed in January 2025. In the lead-up to last year’s government shutdown, the House Appropriations Committee proposed to eliminate OFCCP and move oversight obligations to other federal agencies, while the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed to fund OFCCP for fiscal year (FY) 2026.

On January 20, 2026, a consolidated appropriations bill was introduced that seemingly shifted course from the previous House proposal of eliminating the agency. In the January 20 proposal, which passed in the House on January 22, OFCCP’s necessary expenses would be funded for FY 2026 at $100,976,000. While the FY 2026 proposal contains slightly less funding for OFCCP compared to FY 2025, assuming the Senate passes the bill, it appears OFCCP will have ample funding to enforce agency priorities.

This consolidated appropriations bill comes on the heels of other recent proposed regulatory action from OFCCP related to discrimination complaints and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA).

OFCCP Complaints

On January 2, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor issued an OFCCP-sponsored Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), seeking “approval to revise questions on its complaint and pre-complaint inquiry forms to align with E.O. 14173.” The supplementary information in support of the ICR explains that applicants and employees of federal contractors and subcontractors remain able to file complaints under VEVRAA and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 503), but that complaints are no longer allowed under E.O. 11246.

OFCCP continues to receive and investigate complaints filed under VEVRAA and Section 503. The proposed revisions to the complaint form—while specifics have not yet been released—appear aimed at making updates to reflect the current state of the agency’s investigations, including making clear that OFCCP continues to investigate complaints of discrimination under VEVRAA and Section 503.

VEVRAA Data Collection and Compliance

On January 7, 2026, OFCCP issued a renewed ICR seeking approval to extend the recordkeeping requirements of VEVRAA such that OFCCP can continue to “carry out its responsibility to enforce VEVRAA.” The threshold for VEVRAA coverage recently increased to a contract of $200,000 or more. OFCCP’s Supporting Statement explains in its justification for the ICR that obligations continue for covered contractors in all respects, specifically calling out

• the inclusion of the equal opportunity clause in contracts;
• mandatory job listings with appropriate state or local employment service delivery systems;
• the development and maintenance of written affirmative action programs (AAP);
• invitations to job applicants to self-identify as protected veterans at the pre-offer and post-offer selection stages so that the agency and contractors can “collect valuable data needed to track the number of protected veterans who apply for open positions and the number who are hired”; and
• the adoption of a hiring benchmark.

OFCCP’s renewed ICR reiterates the importance of VEVRAA’s compliance and AAP obligations. Similar obligations for compliance and AAPs also currently remain in place pursuant to Section 503.

Next Steps

Employers may want to review current and anticipated federal contracts and subcontracts against the updated thresholds and notices to assess coverage, as well as compliance and AAP implications, and verify whether their organizations meet the employee-count and single-contract triggers for Section 503 and VEVRAA. Addressing existing and ongoing requirements under VEVRAA and Section 503, including completing mandated AAPs, is important for ensuring compliance with any legal risk related to E.O. 14173.

Ogletree Deakins’ Government Contracting and Reporting and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Groups will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Government Contracting and Reporting and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Effective January 21, 2026, the State Department will pause issuance of immigrant visas to applicants from seventy-five designated countries.
• Nonimmigrant visas (e.g., H-1B, L-1, TN, and B-1/B-2) will continue to be processed and are not impacted by this directive.

Scope and Designated Countries

The seventy-five countries impacted by the announcement include:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.

The processing pause will impact the cases that are currently pending on January 21, 2026, and any new cases going forward until it is lifted. Foreign nationals from the designated countries will still be able to submit immigrant visa applications and attend interviews during the State Department’s pause.

Immigrant visas issued prior to the announcement have not been revoked.

Nonimmigrant visas (e.g., H-1B, L-1, TN, and B-1/B-2) will continue to be processed and are not impacted by this directive.

Exceptions

Immigrant visas will continue to be issued to dual nationals who apply using a valid passport from a country not affected by the directive.

Impact

The State Department will continue to schedule immigrant visa interviews for nationals of the affected countries, but no immigrant visas will be issued until the policy review is complete. The government has not provided a timeframe within which the review should be completed.

This announcement is limited to the issuance of immigrant visas abroad. It should not impact employees in the United States applying for permanent residence through the Adjustment of Status process via Form I-485. Form I-485 applications may, however, be subject to an administrative pause pursuant to USCIS’s January 1, 2026 “hold and review” policy, impacting foreign nationals from thirty-nine specified countries.

Ogletree Deakins’ Immigration Practice Group will monitor developments with respect to these and other policy changes and will post updates on the Immigration blog as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Ontario’s Working for Workers Seven Act, 2025, which received Royal Assent on November 27, 2025, introduces significant amendments to the Employment Standards Act (ESA), the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).
• Key changes to the ESA include new requirements for online job-posting platforms, job-seeking leave entitlements for employees facing mass termination, and provisions for extended temporary layoffs.
• The OHSA now includes a definition for defibrillators, introduces an administrative penalty scheme for noncompliance, and mandates the equivalency of accredited health and safety systems in public infrastructure projects, while the WSIA imposes stricter penalties for false statements, wage recordkeeping failures, and nonpayment of premiums.

Key amendments to each of these pieces of legislation are summarized below.

Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA)

Job-Posting Platform Accountability (in force from January 1, 2026)

An online job-posting platform for publicly advertised job postings is required to:

• implement a mechanism or procedure for users to report fraudulent job postings and
• have a written policy with respect to fraudulent job postings and post it in a conspicuous place on the platform. A copy of the policy must be retained for three years after it ceases to be in effect.

This requirement does not apply to an employer that advertises job postings only on its own website.

Job-Seeking Leave (in force from November 27, 2025):

• An employee who receives notice of termination of employment as part of a mass termination under s. 58 of the ESA is entitled to three days of leave without pay to obtain new employment.
• An employee shall provide at least three days of advance notice to the employer before commencing the leave.
• The leave will be deemed to have been taken in entire days even if only part of a day was taken off.
• An employer may request reasonable evidence.
• Even if the job-seeking leave is provided in an employment contract, the employee will be deemed to have taken the leave under s. 58 of the ESA.
• The entitlement does NOT apply if the employee is provided with termination pay instead of notice, specifically where the “working notice” period provided is 25 percent or less of the total statutory notice period required.

Extended Temporary Layoffs (in force from November 27, 2025):

• An employer and an employee may agree to a layoff that is thirty-five or more weeks in any period of fifty-two consecutive weeks but may not agree to a layoff of fifty-two or more weeks in any period of seventy-eight consecutive weeks.
• The agreement should be made in writing and should have (a) the latest date the employer intends to recall the employee, and (b) a statement of the nature of the agreement.
• The agreement may NOT be withdrawn by the employee.
• The agreement shall be approved by the director of employment standards.
• A copy of the agreement must be retained for three years from expiry of the director’s approval.

Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA)

Clarification on Defibrillator (in force from November 27, 2025):

• The OHSA defines “defibrillator” as an automated external medical heart monitor capable of detecting abnormal heart rhythms, assessing whether defibrillation is required and providing electrical impulses as medically required.
• Employers in the construction industry, which are subject to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, shall be reimbursed for the cost of the defibrillator by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) if they meet specified criteria.
• Regulations may be prescribed to govern the reimbursement process.

Administrative Penalties (in force from November 27, 2025):

• The OHSA introducesan administrative penalty scheme, which will allow inspectors to issue notices of penalty for noncompliance, with the amount of the penalty to be paid in accordance with the regulations.
• A person who receives a notice may request a review, and the designated reviewer can confirm, change, or cancel the notice as set out in the regulations.
• If the fine is paid, the person cannot be charged with an offence under the OHSA with respect to the same contravention.
• If the fine is not paid, it is considered debt to the Crown and may be recovered in accordance with the regulations.

Equivalency of Accredited Health and Safety Systems (in force from November 27, 2025):

The OHSA creates the authority to require public infrastructure project owners, constructors, and employers to treat chief prevention officer-accredited occupational health and safety management systems (OHSMS) as equivalent in procurement processes.

Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA)

False or Misleading Statements (in force from November 27, 2025):

• An employer is prohibited from making false or misleading statements to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board regarding any claims for benefits.
• Contravention may be subject to an administrative penalty, in addition to any other penalty imposed by a court.

Wage Recordkeeping Penalties (in force from November 27, 2025):

An employer that fails to maintain accurate wage records or produce wage records on request of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board may be subject to an administrative penalty, in addition to any other penalty imposed by a court.

Penalties for Failure to Pay Premiums (in force from November 27, 2025):

• An employer may be guilty of an offence for a failure to pay premiums to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board when due.
• If convicted under this section, the court may also make a restitution order for the person to pay the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board any outstanding amounts owed for any period before the conviction.

Increased Fines for two or more convictions (in force from November 27, 2025):

A person convicted of two or more counts of the same offence in the same legal proceeding may be liable for a fine of up to $750,000 for each conviction.

Aggravating Factors for Employers (in force from November 27, 2025):

The following are aggravating factors when determining a penalty for an employer:

• previous conviction under the WSIA,
• conviction of two or more counts of the same offence in the current proceeding, and
• a record of prior noncompliance with the WSIA.

Ogletree Deakins’ Toronto office and Cross-Border Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Canada, Construction, Cross-Border, Leaves of Absence, Reductions in Force, Wage and Hour, and Workplace Safety and Health blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Collective redundancy consultation is required if an employer proposes to dismiss twenty or more employees over a ninety-day period.
• In Micro Focus v. Mildenhall the EAT ruled that previous redundancies do not need to be counted. The test is whether twenty or more redundancies are proposed looking forward.
• The ruling in Micro Focus v. Mildenhall provides a timely reminder of how Employment Tribunals handle redundancy proposals, redundancy pooling, and collective consultation responsibilities. However, this finding may be short-lived as the government intends to consult on making changes to the threshold as part of the new collective redundancy framework under the UK Employment Rights Act 2025.

In Micro Focus Ltd v Mildenhall, the EAT considered when collective redundancy consultation obligations under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA) are triggered. Under TULRCA, there is a legal requirement for employers to carry out a collective consultation when proposing redundancies with twenty or more employees at one establishment in a period of ninety days. Employers that fail to comply with the collective consultation obligations will face penalties.

Mr Mildenhall, the employee in this case, was dismissed for redundancy on 29 July 2022 following a wide-scale cost-reduction and consolidation programme. He brought a claim for a protective award for failure to inform and consult under TULRCA. The Employment Tribunal, taking into account the number of redundancies in a rolling ninety-day period, found that the collective consultation duties had been triggered and awarded Mr Mildenhall the maximum ninety days’ gross pay. The employer, Micro Focus, appealed the finding that the duty to carry out collective consultation had been triggered.

By using the “forward and backward” approach established in a previous ruling, the EAT found that the Employment Tribunal was misdirected. That prior approach had been overtaken by a decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in UQ v Marclean Technologies.

The EAT clarified that the collective consultation obligation applies when an employer proposes to make redundant twenty or more employees within the next ninety days, the approach should be prospective rather than retrospective. The assessment concerns what the employer was actually proposing for the future at the relevant moment, rather than looking back at how many dismissals ultimately occurred. However, the EAT also made clear that employers attempting to avoid their obligations will be subject to scrutiny. Tribunals may consider redundancies that appear to have purposely held back or staggered to prevent consultation in their threshold assessments.

Key Takeaways

Employers may wish to maintain well-documented redundancy procedure and intentions records to aid compliance. Clarity on this subject is particularly welcome, and the importance of following the correct protocol is of increasing importance in light of changes to the penalty for failure to consult in a redundancy in the UK, with the protective award rising from ninety days’ pay to 180 days’ pay per affected employee, effective from April 2026.

Ogletree Deakins’ London office and Global Reorganizations Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Cross-Border, Global Reorganizations, Reductions in Force, and United Kingdom blogs as additional information becomes available.

Roger James is a partner in the London office of Ogletree Deakins.

Lorraine Matthews, a practice assistant in the London office of Ogletree Deakins, contributed to this article.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Congress Faces Government Funding Deadline While Winter Storm Looms. The November 2025 legislative deal that ended the record-breaking forty-three–day federal government shutdown expires one week from today—January 30, 2026. The good news is that lawmakers are not signaling much of a desire for another shutdown (at least not yet). Since returning to Washington, D.C., for the second session of the 119th Congress, both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives have worked to pass annual spending bills, setting the stage for the hopeful completion of the annual funding exercise next week. (The funding package is not expected to address enhanced healthcare insurance premium subsidies, one of the underlying disputes that led to the 2025 shutdown.)

Of course, nothing on Capitol Hill is ever easy. Politics can always derail efforts at the last minute. Further, it will likely be up to the Senate—which is on recess this week—to cast the final votes on the funding measures next week. But returning to Washington, D.C., next week could prove treacherous for many senators in light of potentially significant winter weather that is expected to impact large portions of the country.

Finally, these bills extend funding through the normal federal government fiscal calendar. This means that funding for fiscal year 2027 will need to be approved before October 1, 2026. Though many of us have “government funding fatigue,” legislative work on fiscal year (FY) 2027 will begin sooner than you may think.

FY 2026 Funding Impacts on Labor and Employment Agencies. Potential passage of the funding package will mark the first time that Republicans in the 119th Congress get their hands around the federal government’s purse strings. Indeed, all government funding in 2025 was established by the previous Congress (and administration) and extended through multiple continuing resolutions in 2025.

But even with Republican majorities in the U.S. Congress, cuts to funding levels for labor and employment agencies are not as significant as one might think. To the contrary, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) will actually receive an increase of $65 million for a total of $13.7 billion. As far as government dollars go, this is a nominal increase, but an increase nonetheless, especially given the fact that the White House budget had proposed a $4.5 billion cut to the DOL. That said, many subagencies within DOL will receive flat funding or cuts to their funding. Key subagencies will receive the following appropriations:

• Wage and Hour Division: $260 million (FY 2025 enacted, $260 million)
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): $629 million (FY 2025 enacted, $632 million)
• Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA): $191 million (FY 2025 enacted, $191 million)
• Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP): $101 million (FY 2025, $111 million). The White House’s budget, as well as the House Republicans’ underlying bill, eliminated OFCCP entirely. Other DOL subagencies that were targeted for elimination but will now receive funding include the Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) (funded at $116 million) and the Women’s Bureau ($23 million).

Finally, the legislation appropriates approximately $294 million for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), about $5 million less than currently enacted. The Board lost about 10 percent of its workforce in 2025 due to retirement and deferred resignations. The legislation also includes a “legacy rider” (language that has been included in the bill since the Buzz can remember) that prohibits the NLRB from “issu[ing] any new administrative directive or regulation that would provide employees any means of voting through any electronic means in an election to determine a representative for the purposes of collective bargaining.”

EEOC Rescinds 2024 Harassment Guidance. By a vote of 2–1, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rescinded its “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace,” which was finalized in 2024. Republican Commissioner Brittany Bull Panuccio and Chair Andrea Lucas, also a Republican, emphasized that the rescission of the harassment guidance does not diminish employees’ or applicants’ rights under federal law—that workplace harassment is unlawful with or without the guidance. They further emphasized that the Commission continues to bring harassment-based charges against employers and maintained that the guidance is essentially a substantive rule that exceeds the Commission’s authority under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On the other hand, Democratic Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal—who voted against rescinding the guidance—argued that the guidance provides helpful information to employees and employers and urged the Commission to solicit public input and take a more targeted approach to amending the guidance. Nonnie L. Shivers, T. Scott Kelly, and Zachary V. Zagger have the details.

Speaker Johnson Addresses Parliament. This week, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) became the first Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives to address the UK Parliament. Invited by Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the UK House of Commons, Speaker Johnson’s address celebrated the 250th anniversary of the United States, and focused on the shared bonds between the two countries:

“But again, the surest way that we protect a special relationship long term is by renewing and recommitting to our foundational principles. As Churchill taught us, the strongest alliances are between kindred countries of kindred principles. What has always set us apart from the rest of the world is our commitment to liberty, our pursuit of excellence, our desire to put faith and family at the center of our lives.”

In 1976, Speaker of the House Carl Albert (a Democrat from Oklahoma) was invited as a guest to Speaker’s House, the official residence of the Speaker of the House of Commons, by Speaker of the UK House of Commons George Thomas to celebrate the United States’ bicentennial. Albert did not address Parliament.

Quick Hits

• On January 17, 2026, outgoing New Jersey governor Phil Murphy signed into law a bill that will expand the reach and protections of the NJFLA.
• The new law also appears to greatly expand state law, including new job-protection provisions for employees taking medical leave.
• The new law takes effect on July 17, 2026, six months following its enactment.

Smaller Employers Affected and Newer Employees Eligible

The new law amends the NJFLA to cover small employers and reduce the minimum amount of time an employee must be employed before being eligible for leave.

The NJFLA currently provides twelve weeks of leave every twenty-four months to eligible employees who require time off to care for a seriously ill family member or bond with a new child. To be eligible for NJFLA leave under existing law, an employee must: (1) work for an employer with thirty or more employees; (2) have been employed at least twelve months; and (3) have worked at least 1,000 hours in the twelve months preceding the requested leave start date.

The new legislation changes each of these eligibility requirements. Now, an employee will be eligible for NJFLA leave if the employee: (1) works for an employer with fifteen or more employees; (2) has been employed for at least three months; and (3) has worked at least 250 hours in the preceding three months.

New Medical Leave Job-Protection Provisions

The new law also appears to greatly expand state law to include new job-protection provisions for employees taking medical leave and receiving state Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) benefits. Currently, the NJFLA (unlike the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)) does not provide job-protected leave for an employee’s own serious medical condition. Under the new law, employees receiving state TDI benefits for their own medical condition must be restored to the same job they had before taking leave, or a job that is equivalent in terms of “seniority, status, employment benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment.”

Although this amendment to the TDI law does not describe this as a new “leave” right, the job restoration requirement may effectively create a new job-protected medical leave entitlement. Further, since employees are eligible for up to twenty-six weeks of state TDI benefits, the new law may provide for up to twenty-six weeks of medical leave—a truly remarkable change in the law, providing fourteen more weeks of job protection than is currently available under the FMLA.

Whether the new law in fact creates a new twenty-six–week, job-protected medical leave entitlement, or perhaps simply requires restoration to prior employment when an employee returns from leave under an employer’s existing medical leave policy or takes leave under the FMLA is unclear.

Ability to Choose Order of Earned Sick Leave and Temporary Disability Benefits

Additionally, if an employee is eligible for earned sick leave under New Jersey’s Earned Sick Leave Law and eligible for TDI benefits, the employee may choose “the order in which the different kinds of leave are taken,” but will not receive more than one kind of paid leave at the same time.

What This Means for Employers

The law takes effect on July 17, 2026, six months following its enactment. Given the extraordinary changes the new law appears to implement, we hope state authorities will issue guidance and clarification immediately to address, among other things, whether the law in fact requires up to twenty-six weeks of job-protected medical leave and, if so, how the law interacts with the FMLA. In the meantime, employers will want to review and modify their current policies to be prepared for the law’s enactment.

Ogletree Deakins’ Morristown office and the Leaves of Absence/Reasonable Accommodation Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Leaves of Absence and New Jersey blogs as additional information becomes available.

In addition, the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal tracks developments and provides real-time updates on Leaves and New Jersey’s employment laws, including the NJFLA. Full law summaries are available for Premium-level subscribers. Snapshots and Updates are available for all registered client users. For more information on the Client Portal or to inquire about a Client Portal subscription, please reach out to clientportal@ogletree.com.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The EEOC voted 2–1 along party lines to rescind the 2024 anti-harassment guidance that recognized harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity as unlawful under Title VII.
• The reversal aligns with the Trump administration and EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas’s federal policy shift to define sex as immutable and binary.
• This rescission follows a federal court ruling that the EEOC had overstepped its authority with the original guidance, finding it had unlawfully broadened the interpretation of sex-based discrimination.

The 2024 harassment guidance, which was adopted in a 3–2 vote, broadly updated the EEOC’s interpretations of anti-harassment protections under federal law, but notably, it addressed new positions on harassment based on “race” and “color” and pregnancy and childbirth, as well as sex-based harassment against LGBTQ+ individuals.

The guidance came on the heels of the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from making hiring or termination decisions as to employees or applicants based on their gender identity (including being transgender) or sexual orientation as unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. However, a federal court in Texas vacated portions of the guidance in May 2025, finding that the EEOC had exceeded its authority.

Despite the court order, EEOC Chair Lucas, who voted against adopting the guidance in 2024, targeted the guidance for formal rescission. Chair Lucas has nevertheless recognized (including in her confirmation hearing testimony) that Bostock remains good law as to hiring, firing, and promotion decisions.

Commissioner Brittany Panuccio, another Trump appointee who was confirmed to the Commission in October 2025, joined Lucas in voting to rescind the guidance. Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal, a Biden appointee, voted against rescission, while criticizing the Commission for rescinding the guidance document in its entirety instead of excising parts with which the majority disagrees.

The vote comes a week after the EEOC voted to change its procedures for voting on agency policies and enforcement changes, granting the chair the authority to deny requests from other commissioners to hold public or private meetings to consider changes.

EEOC’s 2024 Harassment Guidance

The 2024 harassment guidance was the first significant update to the EEOC’s interpretations of the legal standards and employer liability for unlawful harassment under federal law in more than two decades. It outlined the EEOC’s prior decisions and enforcement strategy that discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity is a form of unlawful sex-based discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The guidance had specifically recognized certain conduct as potentially unlawful harassment, such as:

• “outing,” or the deliberate disclosure of an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity without their permission;
• other harassing conduct toward an individual because “not present in a manner that would stereotypically be associated with that person’s sex”;
• misgendering, meaning the “repeated and intentional” use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with an individual’s “known” gender identity; and
• the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with an individual’s gender identity.

The guidance also expanded the explanation of potential harassment based on “color” under Title VII, taking the position that color-based harassment could occur between employees of the same race or national origin.

Additionally, the guidance also took the position that harassment based on childbirth, or related medical conditions, “can include issues such as lactation; using or not using contraception; or deciding to have, or not to have, an abortion,” if that harassment “is linked to a targeted individual’s sex.”

In May 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that EEOC had exceeded its authority because the guidance “contravenes Title VII’s plain text by expanding the scope of ‘sex’ beyond the biological binary.” The court vacated the portions addressing accommodations for bathrooms, dress, and pronouns. Following that order, the EEOC added a disclaimer to the published guidance and highlighted portions that had been vacated.

Shift in EEOC Enforcement

The rescission of the 2024 guidance comes after then-Acting EEOC Chair Lucas, in January 2025, removed language from several materials from its internal and external websites and other documents to align with President Donald Trump’s inauguration day executive order, EO 14168, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” That EO directed federal agencies to “enforce laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations to protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes.”

At that time, Lucas targeted the 2024 guidance as requiring EEOC approval, calling the guidance “fundamentally flawed.” Lucas also previously issued a statement on the guidance, arguing that protections for sexual orientation or gender identity, including regarding pronouns and bathroom access, unlawfully expand on the Bostock holding, which applies to hiring or termination decisions.

Next Steps

The rescission of the guidance removes employer guidance on potential unlawful harassment and signals a shift in the EEOC’s enforcement. The EEOC’s interpretations in the now rescinded nonbinding guidance may still be helpful for employers to understand the law and potential harassment claims that can be pursued by litigants. While the EEOC’s step with a quorum is not surprising given shifting federal policy and priorities, employers could still face employee claims and liability for unlawful harassment, and the Bostock decision remains binding Supreme Court precedent. Employers may want to remain acutely aware of all applicable law, including applicable state, local, and federal law.

Ogletree Deakins’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance Practice Group and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Employment Law, Governmental Affairs, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

This article and more information on how the Trump administration’s actions impact employers can be found on Ogletree Deakins’ Administration Resource Hub.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• USCIS will continue to accept adjustment of status filings based on the Dates for Filing Chart in February 2026.
• All EB-3 categories advance, except India and China-mainland.
• EB-4 Certain Religious Workers (SR) is Unavailable (U) in February 2026 due to the program’s sunset on January 30, 2026.

Final Action Dates

The final action dates in the EB-3 category advance for all countries except for China-mainland and India in the February 2026 Visa Bulletin. Additionally, the EB-4 Certain Religious Workers subcategory is unavailable (U) for all countries in February 2026. No movement is shown for all other categories.

• EB-1: No movement is shown. The final action date for China-mainland and India remains February 1, 2023; all other countries continue to be current.
• EB-2: No movement is shown.
• EB-3: All countries advance except for China-mainland (which remains at May 1, 2021) and India (which remains at November 15, 2013). All other countries advance by just over one month to June 1, 2023.
• EB-4: No movement is shown.
• EB‑4 Certain Religious Workers: Unavailable (U).
• EB-5: No movement is shown.

Source: U.S. Department of State, February 2026 Visa Bulletin, Final Action Dates Chart

Dates for Filing

The dates for filing in the EB-3 category advance for all countries except for China-mainland and India in the February 2026 Visa Bulletin. Additionally, the EB-4 Certain Religious Workers subcategory is Unavailable (U) for all countries in February 2026. No movement is shown for all other categories.

• EB-1: No movement is shown. August 1, 2023, remains the date for filing for China-mainland and India. All other countries remain current. EB-2: No movement is shown.
• EB-3: All countries advance except for China-mainland and India. All other countries advance by three months to October 1, 2023.
• EB-4: No movement is shown.
• EB‑4 Certain Religious Workers: Unavailable (U).
• EB-5: No movement is shown.

Source: U.S. Department of State, February 2026 Visa Bulletin, Dates for Filing Chart

Key Takeaways

With advancement in the final action dates, more applicants will become eligible to complete the final step of the permanent residency process. Additionally, applicants who became eligible to file their Adjustment of Status (AOS) application from November 2025 through January 2026, as outlined in the Dates for Filing Chart, will have at least another month to submit their applications.

Ogletree Deakins’ Immigration Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Immigration blog as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Muldrow’s lowered standard of harm for discrete discriminatory acts under Title VII does not apply to hostile work environment claims, according to the Tenth Circuit.
• A circuit split exists on this issue, with the Sixth Circuit reaching the opposite conclusion.
• Employers may face different standards for hostile work environment claims depending on jurisdiction.

Background

In Russell v. Driscoll, a civilian employee at a U.S. Army hospital alleged that his female supervisor treated the men in her division poorly compared with female employees. Following multiple complaints, the Army investigated and determined that the supervisor had, in fact, engaged in gender discrimination in violation of the Army’s equal-opportunity policy.

The employee filed internal complaints, followed by a lawsuit claiming that his supervisor had created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. The federal district court granted summary judgment for the Army, finding that the supervisor’s actions did not meet the standard for establishing an unlawful hostile work environment.

Legal Framework

Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex, encompassing two major categories: (1) discrete discriminatory acts arising from specific employment decisions (such as discharge or demotion) and (2) hostile work environment harassment claims based on a series of smaller actions that add up to create a negative work environment.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow resolved a circuit split over whether an employee “must meet a heightened threshold of harm—be it dubbed significant, serious, or something similar” to assert a viable Title VII discrimination claim based on a discrete employment action. The Court rejected the heightened standard, holding that an employee “need show only some injury respecting her employment terms or conditions.” (Emphasis added).

For hostile work environment claims, long-standing Supreme Court precedent requires an employee to show that “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” Courts have traditionally viewed this as setting a high bar for such claims.

The Court’s Opinion

The employee argued that Muldrow’s lessened standard should apply to hostile work environment claims in addition to discrete employment action claims. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, holding that the Supreme Court had not expressly overruled its standard for hostile work environment claims and that Muldrow’s analysis was not applicable to such claims. As the court explained, the severe or pervasive nature of the underlying conduct “is integral to determining whether any actionable Title VII injury occurred” and applying the Muldrow standard would wholly undermine the hostile work environment claim.

In arriving at this holding, the Tenth Circuit noted that the Sixth Circuit had reached a different result, though it was unclear whether Muldrow’s impact on hostile work environment claims was actually contested in that case. The Tenth Circuit strongly rejected the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, asserting that applying Muldrow would essentially “gut[] the very thing that distinguishes hostile-environment claims from discrete-act claims.”

The Tenth Circuit also noted that the Fourth and Fifth Circuits had issued unpublished decisions (which carry less weight as precedent) aligning with the Tenth Circuit’s approach, although, like the Sixth Circuit case, it was unclear whether the issue was actually contested in either case.

Takeaways for Employers

At least in the Tenth Circuit—and likely in the Fourth and Fifth Circuits—employers can take some reassurance that employees must still meet a high bar to establish a viable hostile work environment claim under Title VII. But as other courts consider the issue, the existing circuit split may deepen, and different standards could apply across jurisdictions—unless and until the Supreme Court provides a definitive answer.

Ogletree Deakins’ Employment Law Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Employment Law and State Developments blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• “Ley Silla”—the Chair Law—took effect in June 2025, with Labor Ministry inspections starting in December 2025.
• App‑based couriers have been recognized as employees since June 2025.
• SIQAL, the Labor Ministry portal for anonymously filing complaints and reporting workplace accidents, has been live since September 2025.
• The minimum wage increased 13 percent, effective January 1, 2026. The daily, monthly, and annual UMA‑indexed amounts will increase 3.69 percent over the 2025 UMA rates, effective February 1, 2026.
• The Labor Ministry’s inspections are expected to tighten up enforcement throughout 2026, through all kind of visits.

2025 Labor and Employment Roundup

Mexico saw several initiatives from late 2024 gain traction in 2025, translating into concrete obligations for employers across industries.

Chair Law. The Chair Law (“Ley Silla”) was published on December 19, 2024, and became enforceable in June 2025. The Chair Law requires employers to provide a sufficient number of seats with backrests for employees and to refrain from prohibiting seated breaks when the nature of the work allows it. While the obligations had been in place since June, labor authorities initiated formal inspections on this topic in December 2025.

App-based couriers as employees. Amendments to the Federal Labor Law recognizing app‑based couriers as employees were published on December 24, 2024, and took effect in June 2025. The reforms established a regulatory framework intended to protect couriers who provide services through digital platforms and to provide legal certainty to the sector. Employers and platforms operating in this space may want to review their contracting models, onboarding, social security registration, benefit accruals, and health and safety obligations to ensure they align with an employment relationship.

INFONAVIT Loans. On February 22, 2025, amendments to the National Housing Fund Institute for Workers Law (INFONAVIT) law were published. Although approved early in 2025, their practical relevance increased toward the end of the year due to criteria issued by INFONAVIT and the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación). Employers may want to validate payroll configurations, contributions, and employee communications to ensure proper handling of INFONAVIT rights, deductions, and any new procedural requirements.

SIQAL (whistleblowing tool): A New Way to Submit Complaints and Report Workplace Accidents in Mexico. Since September 2025, the SIQAL portal—run by the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social (STPS))—has provided a centralized, anonymous channel for filing labor complaints and reporting workplace accidents. This tool spans issues from general labor noncompliance to unsafe working conditions.

Preparing for 2026

With 2025 now closed, employers may want to prepare for new financial thresholds, potential legislative changes, and increased enforcement intensity in 2026.

Minimum Wage. On December 3, 2025, The National Commission on Minimum Wages (Comisión Nacional de los Salarios Mínimos (CONASAMI)) approved a 13 percent increase to the minimum wage effective January 1, 2026.

Update of Mexico’s Unit of Measure. On January 12, 2026, the National Institute of Statistics and Geography announced an increase to Mexico’s Unit of Measure and Update (UMA), setting it at $117.31 MXN per day, effective February 1, 2026.

Risk premium update. The Mexican Social Security Institute (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS)) requires employers to review and, where applicable, update their risk premium based on the prior year’s workplace accidents and occupational diseases. Employers must prepare and submit the annual report of work accidents for the relevant period and confirm that classification, contribution rates, and supporting documentation are accurate and complete (due February of every year).

Forty-Hour Workweek. The initiative to reduce the workweek to forty hours was reintroduced to the Congress of the Union, with the latest proposal suggesting enforceability beginning in 2027. Although there is no definitive approval date, Mexico’s current administration has treated the matter as a priority, and approval is plausible in 2026. Employers may want to model staffing, scheduling, overtime exposure, and cost scenarios under a forty‑hour framework and consider collective bargaining implications.

World Cup 2026. With Mexico co‑hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup, there has been public discussion about declaring the opening day a holiday in Mexico City. This has not been confirmed, but employers may want to monitor official announcements, and employees’ vacations / absenteeism trends to be prepared to approach the World Cup.

T-MEC (USMCA) trade agreement. Review of the Mexico-United States-Canada Treaty is scheduled for discussion on July 1, 2026, with an emphasis on compliance with labor and energy commitments. Potential adjustments could affect sectors such as automotive and technology. Employers may want to monitor the review’s outcomes and anticipate supply chain, compliance, and labor‑relations impacts over the medium term if revisions are adopted.

Workplace Inspections. Given the heightened regulatory focus and the new and amended obligations described above, workplace inspections are likely to become more frequent and more granular. Authorities may emphasize compliance with the Chair Law, INFONAVIT obligations, general working conditions, accident reporting, and proper classification of platform‑based workers. Employers may want to prioritize audit‑ready documentation, ensure internal policies reflect current law, and conduct periodic compliance reviews.

Ogletree Deakins’ Mexico City office will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Cross-Border and Mexico blogs as additional information becomes available.

Pietro Straulino-Rodríguez is the managing partner of the Mexico City office of Ogletree Deakins.

Natalia Merino Moreno is an associate in the Mexico City office of Ogletree Deakins.

María José Bladinieres is a law clerk in the Mexico City office of Ogletree Deakins.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts