Insights Search

The past few years have seen concerted efforts — both domestically and globally — advancing the reporting and disclosure of various climate- and sustainability-related metrics by businesses and investors.

On March 19, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued two technical assistance documents (the “DEI Guidance”) addressing the application of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) to employers’ diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) policies and practices.

On February 26, 2025, the Supreme Court and all three counsel appearing before it in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, appeared to walk away in “radical agreement” — as noted by Justice Neil Gorsuch — that a majority-group plaintiff is not required to proffer more evidence of discrimination than a non-majority-group plaintiff in order to state a prima facie claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

On February 21, 2025, a federal judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that partially prevents the Trump administration from enforcing its executive orders on diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”).

Companies with forthcoming annual report and proxy statement filings should consult with counsel regarding recent regulatory and legal developments related to diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives and the potential impact on disclosures related to such information.

In the first ten days of his second term, President Trump has already made significant moves impacting the labor and employment landscape. Some actions were expected (see our prior predictions), while others are unprecedented.

On January 21, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (the “Executive Order”), which significantly impacts not only requirements applicable to federal government contractors and subcontractors, but also could lead to private sector investigations or enforcement actions concerning Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives — particularly those maintained by larger companies (whether privately held or publicly listed), regardless of whether they contract or subcontract with the government.

Looking toward a second administration under President-elect Trump, we anticipate a shift toward more employer-friendly labor policies and away from interpretations of law that afforded more expansive protections to employees. While we cannot predict with certainty how the second Trump administration will impact labor and employment laws, our analysis considers positions and actions taken during the first Trump administration, statements made during his campaign, and the composition of his expected team.

In May 2023, Jennifer A. Abruzzo (the “General Counsel”), General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), took the position that certain non-compete provisions violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) (as discussed here) by restricting employee mobility. Now, in an October 7, 2024, memorandum (GC 25-01), the General Counsel has expanded on the topic of employee mobility by targeting “stay-or-pay” provisions.

On June 18, 2024, the Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (the “Service”) issued (T.D. 9998) (the “Final Regulations”) regarding compliance with the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements (the “PWA Requirements”) impacting many of the clean energy tax credits introduced or expanded by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”).

On April 23, 2024, the United States Department of Labor released the final version of its rule that revises Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) regulations in order to increase the salary thresholds that must be satisfied in order for certain employees to qualify as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime payment requirements.

On February 8, 2024, in its Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a whistleblower pursuing a claim for retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) does not need to show that the employer acted with “retaliatory intent.”