David Harmon: Hi, I’m David Harmon.
Mariya Gonor: And I’m Mariya Gonor.
David Harmon: And we are the employment strategists. Welcome to our episode called the Trump factor, jobs, laws, and the workplace.
Mariya Gonor: We got to share with you that when we started researching for this episode, the actual theme of the episode was going to be, what can we expect from the new administration in the future? But now, the theme of the episode is, how can we catch up with what the new administration has already done?
David Harmon: Well, when you get on an airplane, they require that you fasten your seatbelts because the ride may be bumpy.
Mariya Gonor: Yes.
David Harmon: And this is one that I think is apropos of, of that.
Mariya Gonor: Definitely. It’s a little bit bumpy. There’s a little bit of employment law whiplash that employment law attorneys are experiencing right now because there’s a lot of changes that are happening and all of these changes are happening rather quickly.
David Harmon: So one of the biggest indicators of how quickly things are changing in 2025 alone, President Trump has already signed 73 executive orders. 73! These orders cover a wide range of issues including workplace regulations, immigration, civil rights, and so on.
Mariya Gonor: With so many executive actions reshaping the workplace. We’re going to break things down today into three major areas. The first one, what is happening with the National Labor Relations Board. The second one is what’s happening with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And the final one will address the executive orders, the policies that are shaping the workplace and employer responsibilities. With so many actions in play, employers and employees alike need to stay informed because the legal landscape is shifting very fast.
David Harmon: So Mariya, let’s start with the National Labor Relations Board. Also referred to as the NLRB.
Mariya Gonor: You know I prefer my acronyms. I cannot live without my acronyms.
David Harmon: But for our listeners, I want them to have the full depth and breadth of what they stand for.
Mariya Gonor: I appreciate that. I’m sure they do too.
David Harmon: So at the NLRB, there’s a new general counsel, and that general counsel is already making moves. For those who aren’t familiar, the NLRB enforces federal labor laws relating to unionization, collective bargaining, Unfair labor practices. But as a practical matter, the board’s jurisdiction is very broad. It covers the vast majority of private sector employers in the us including nonprofits, employee owned businesses, labor organizations, and even non-union businesses.
Mariya Gonor: So I want to stress something you just said, David, because it’s very important if you are a private employer listening to us. Do not skip this part. A lot of private employers believe that the NLRB does not have authority over them because they don’t have union labor. That is not so. The National Labor Relations Act is written so broadly that the NLRB has authority over the vast majority of private employers. Whether or not you have union workforce.
David Harmon: It’s a great point. Now one of the first major moves of the Trump administration has been replacing the NLRB’s general counsel, which isn’t unusual because Biden did the same thing.
Mariya Gonor: Yeah.
David Harmon: He quickly removed Trump’s general counsel when he took office. So that’s typical when there’s a change of administration. The general counsel plays a critical role in shaping enforcement priorities as well as issuing memoranda followed by the board. So this change signals a clear shift in direction.
Mariya Gonor: Trump’s pick for the acting general counsel is William Cowen, a former board member and the regional director of the NLRB’s Los Angeles office. His background suggests that he will take a pro business approach, meaning that we’re likely to see a lot of the rollback from the Biden era policy. That favored union and employees. And actually we have already seen the proposed general council taking certain steps in connection with these rollbacks. Okay. More specifically on February 14, 2025, the acting general council has rescinded a number of memoranda issued by his predecessor, Jennifer Abruzzo. And the rescissions are for some very significant policies.
David Harmon: The Biden era NLRB crackdown on employer policies, requiring employees to remain in their roles for a set period after training or risk financial penalties that is now being rolled back.
Mariya Gonor: Okay, David, I think we should give an example of what a stay or pay provision is for our listeners so that it’s a little bit clearer.
David Harmon: That would be very helpful.
Mariya Gonor: So we’ve had clients in the past who’ve offered some of their employees to obtain higher education, for instance, get an MBA or get an LLM if you’re a practicing attorney, in exchange for the employer fronting the funds. For that education, the employee then agrees that they will work with the employer for X number of years. If they do not, they agree to repay the employer for the expenses that the employer has incurred.
David Harmon: And that has typically been memorialized in promissory notes.
Mariya Gonor: Yep. Or retention agreements, exactly. Or alternatively, there are some other employers who offer additional training in terms of, like, getting a certification for, let’s say, an MRI tech or whatever. But again, in exchange for the employer fronting the cost, the employee agrees to either stay or repay. Some states have long taken aim at some of these provisions when the employers are overreaching, right? Like, let’s say the employer says you have to repay double of what I paid or the employer says, before you can start working for me, you need to be trained in this. And only then will I hire you. So a lot of states, including New York have cracked down on the overreach, but the Biden era proposed sort of guidance by the NLRB was beyond that was just to say that. All of these provisions are unlawful. So the memorandum that said that is now being taken back by the Trump GC and the employers can continue to utilize these types of provisions provided that they are complying with your state law.
David Harmon: So that’s the guidance that has to be sought. It may be lawful at the federal level, but then the employers and employees need to look at the specific jurisdiction in which they’re working.
Mariya Gonor: Exactly. The second memorandum from the Biden era GC that is being rolled back was the position that certain college athletes are employees under the NLRA.
David Harmon: Well, that’s having a major impact on sports at the college level for sure. And the interests of the athletes benefits as employees. I don’t know how it affects endorsements.
Mariya Gonor: This is going to continue to be a very interesting area of employment law that we will watch very carefully.
David Harmon: So another issue that was being monitored, and pardon the pun, is that um, the GC under Biden would say that they would raise questions about the impact of electronic monitoring on employees Section 7 rights under the NLRA. That’s being rolled back as well.
Mariya Gonor: The Biden era NLRB also was taking a look at the Maintenance and enforcement of non compete agreements and determining whether having such agreements and employment contracts and severance agreement would violate the NLRA. That initiative is being rolled back and canceled. So as we currently stand with the non competes, again, you got to look to your state law for specific guidance.
David Harmon: So another area where the Biden administration impacted non disparagement and confidentiality provisions in severance agreements, they were finding them to be unlawful and seeking to apply the unlawful aspect to those agreements that had previously been signed. And that is now being rolled back. That will not be the case going forward under Trump.
Mariya Gonor: Yeah, actually you make a great point which transitions us to the very next section that we want to talk about. With respect to the NLRB still, and that is the decisions that are likely to be revised under the new board. Right? So in 2023, the Biden board issued two very significant decisions that affect employers in many states. And those decisions were the stericycle decision as well as the McLaren McComb decision. So let’s talk about the stereo cycle decision. In fact, we mentioned it in our prior episodes when we’re talking about updating handbooks. That decision essentially made it unlawful to have very broad non-disparagement or just very broad conduct policies within your employment context because the board found that such broad policies were violative of the employee section seven rights.
David Harmon: And one of the things that we had to do in preparing these handbooks is have that disclaimer placed in several spots within, within, within the handbook in boldface. Separated out and very conspicuous.
Mariya Gonor: Because of the breadth of the decision essentially many typical policies that employers had in place would be potentially violative. For instance, if you had a civility policy, right, an argument could be made that under Stericycle, that civility policy No longer withhold scrutiny because the reasoning was that when employees talk about their section seven rights to unionize, sometimes things become a little unruly and no longer civil, I guess.
David Harmon: Well, I think we’re going to have to look at what happens with these handbooks and policies. Will we need to have that disclaimer in place or not?
Mariya Gonor: So what was affected were civility rules, confidentiality clauses, social media guidelines. And those would have been under [00:09:00] significant review. Now, if you are an employer currently revising your handbook, do not rush to remove those disclaimers just yet. This is one of those things that has not taken effect yet, but we suspect that if an issue like this actually comes before the board, the decision will be to roll back the status cycle.
David Harmon: Well, we really don’t know where it’s headed. So it’s really a wait and see.
Mariya Gonor: Yes, for sure.
David Harmon: Not a wait, not a look and see. Looking is important too. You know, look before you cross, right?
Mariya Gonor: Yeah. Okay. The second significant change that we expect to happen is the rollback of the prohibition on confidentiality and non disparagement agreements in settlements. That was another Biden era decision that I think took place in 2023 and represented a significant deviation from the prior precedent that was actually established by the NLRB during President Trump’s first term in office.
David Harmon: What were probably going to see is that the Trump board will restore the ability of employers to include confidentiality non-disparagement clauses and settlement agreements giving businesses more control over labor dispute resolutions and it’ll impact the desire to reach settlements. I think the motivation, rather, to reach settlements.
Mariya Gonor: For the employers, yeah. And maybe encourage them to pay a little bit more in exchange for that confidentiality and not disparagement.
David Harmon: Yeah, I think it’ll have an impact on the actual terms of these settlements.
Mariya Gonor: Again, this is something that we anticipate will likely change in the future. As of right now, the McClaren-McCoom decision stands and is active law of the land. If anybody is interested, or if anybody is a law nerd like us, and you want to take a look at what was happening during the Trump administration’s first NLRB board, the decision in Baylor University Medical Center and IGT DBA International Game Technology are the decisions that were guiding pre, uh, Biden changes.
David Harmon: Well, we’re going to look at those to give ourselves a little bit of insight and advance on what may come.
Mariya Gonor: And a refresher. If we have time.
David Harmon: That’s for sure.
Mariya Gonor: If we ever have time to look at what might come instead of dealing with what has already come.
David Harmon: What has come?
Mariya Gonor: Yes.
David Harmon: For sure.
Mariya Gonor: All righty. So, at this point, David, do we want to share with our listeners potential impacts on the employers and employees with respect to the changes on the NLRB level?
David Harmon: Sure. Mariya, do you want to talk about employers?
Mariya Gonor: Sure. Employers are likely to see fewer restrictions on workplace policies, handbook rules and settlement agreements. Again, some of these things might happen in the future, but some of these things have already happened. So again, if you are one of many employers who had a stay or pay agreement, now is the time to reach out to your employment attorney and see if you can bring them back to the extent you suspended them in the past. Another likely thing that we will see is a potential for substantially less scrutiny on hiring and retention policies, as well as non compete agreements from the federal Level but again, I want to stress do not rush to change your handbook just yet Let’s see what actually happens.
David Harmon: And on the employee side of the ledger place could face tighter restrictions on workplace speech fewer protections for discussing conditions and unionization and also in the context of settlement agreements They may include stronger confidentiality provisions limiting the ability to discuss past disputes, but a takeaway is that businesses should be careful not to overcorrect too quickly, even if the federal landscape shifts, and as we’ve said before, Mariya, the state labor laws and courts still govern within the various jurisdictions.
Mariya Gonor: Absolutely.
David Harmon: And those are, those, those should be considered, right along with whatever the status is of the federal laws.
Mariya Gonor: Yeah, we’ve said this before, and we will continue to say it on our podcast. The principle of federalism is very prominently displayed in the context of employment law, right? Because the regulations on state, federal, and in some instances, even municipal level. The other principle that we haven’t discussed Previously, but we will touch on today is the principle of separation of power. Taking everybody back to your fifth grade social studies class. We have the three branches of government, the legislative, the executive and the judicial. So these pronouncement that we just received are coming from our executive branch, but there’s also the judicial branch that is going to look at all of the executive orders, look at this guidance and potentially strike some of them down, maybe allow some to proceed. And I think that is going to be very clearly seen as we transition to the guidance by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
David Harmon: I think we can look at the news and see that there are many cases already being brought to challenge some of these actions, which frankly is not something that’s unusual. It’s par for the course. When there’s a new administration taking action. It’s just that it’s been so fast and furious that now there’s that much more activity.
Mariya Gonor: Yes.
David Harmon: So now let’s turn to the EEOC.
Mariya Gonor: Talking about whiplash. If you are a regular listener, you might recall that in 2023, we talked about the guidance that was published by the EEOC and some of the enforcement priorities that they have identified for the next years. One of the major enforcement priorities was going to be protection for gender identity and expression. And in fact, the EEOC has commenced a number of actions to enforce those protections.
David Harmon: So under Trump’s leadership already, the EEOC has dropped at least six transgender discrimination lawsuits following his executive order that recognizes only two sexes.
Mariya Gonor: It also has stopped defending its own pregnant workers fairness Act rules and guidelines that it has rolled out in 2023, which guidelines included abortion related accommodations.
David Harmon: It’s also pulled its AI bias guidance from the website signaling it won’t prioritize discrimination cases based on algorithmic hiring.
Mariya Gonor: I think it’s also important to point out that all of this is happening before the EEOC has a full quorum of commissioners in place. And that’s significant because in order for it to issue binding guidance, it has to be voted on by the full quorum.
David Harmon: So Mariya, that’s really interesting. Usually policy shifts take time because a new chair needs votes to roll back old rules. But Trump’s EEOC is making changes through enforcement choices, abandoning cases, pulling guidance and refusing to defend its own rules in court.
Mariya Gonor: So it’s sidestepping its administrative rules and is sort of doing this, having the same effect without actually following the administrative procedures that are required.
David Harmon: So let’s talk about another area. The LGBTQ plus protections.
Mariya Gonor: So, in addition to abandoning the transgender discrimination cases. That it was pursuing, it’s likely that the Trump EEOC will rescind the guidance that was promulgated under the Biden EEOC. The two significant elements of this guidance were that, one, the employers cannot misgender employees, and two, that workers must be allowed to use the bathrooms that align with their gender identity.
David Harmon: So the Trump EEOC wants to rescind this guidance but doesn’t have the votes yet.
Mariya Gonor: Correct. But instead, they’ve taken a backdoor approach by filing motions to dismiss the lawsuits that it had pending in Illinois, Alabama, California, New York, that challenged workplace discrimination against transgender employees.
David Harmon: So, it’s not just the lawsuits. Trump’s EEOC has also removed nonbinary gender markers from discrimination charge forms. That sends a message to workers that their claims might not be taken seriously, which could discourage people from even filing.
Mariya Gonor: In addition to the EEOC, The Department of Justice, the DOJ, has already stepped away from defending EEOC’s gender identity policies, giving Republican led states more room to challenge those protections in court.
David Harmon: So one thing that I want to point out, Mariya, is that the federal changes, a true sea change at the federal level, does not necessarily mean that the same is happening at the state and local level. And employers and employees alike need to be cognizant of the state laws. because those may take precedence over the federal law in these various areas.
Mariya Gonor: Absolutely. Yes.
David Harmon: And we can also take a look, as we mentioned earlier, at AI bias enforcement at the EEOC.
Mariya Gonor: Under the Biden administration, the EEOC warned employers that AI based hiring tools could create discrimination risks, particularly through disparate impact claims, meaning that there is a neutral policy that disproportionately affects or harms protected groups.
David Harmon: So, what’s interesting is that the EEOC had guidance on its website about how to use AI responsibly, but Trump’s EEOC just removed that guidance.
Mariya Gonor: Do you have a copy of it? Did you save it before they removed it?
David Harmon: I have it in my file.
Mariya Gonor: That’s great. Just a reminder though, as David said a few moments ago, you still have to look to your state to make sure that you’re complying with state law, even though there is no federal guidance because New York specifically requires, AI audits for bias if you use AI in hiring.
David Harmon: Right, but they’re less likely to pursue AI discrimination cases. That’s at the federal level. A February 5th memo from the Attorney General directed the Department of Justice to limit disparate impact claims, which is a key legal theory for AI related discrimination cases.
Mariya Gonor: If anybody is interested, please write in and we can cover the different types of discrimination and the different claims of discrimination, specifically identifying the disparate impact claim versus other discriminatory claims, but unfortunately, we do not have enough time in this episode to do a deep deep dive on the difference between the two.
David Harmon: So Mariya, let’s also talk about another area that’s changed, which has to do with pregnancy discrimination, where the EEOC may drop abortion protections.
Mariya Gonor: Yes, so under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, the EEOC interpreted that statute to require employers to provide reasonable accommodation for abortion-related absences.
David Harmon: Republican states and Christian groups challenged this in court, arguing that abortion wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the law.
Mariya Gonor: The Trump DOJ has recently asked a judge to pause the case, saying that the administration may change its position.
David Harmon: That’s very significant, Mariya, because it means the EEOC may stop defending its own rules on pregnancy discrimination.
Mariya Gonor: Just to back up a second, just like the Trump administration has appointed a new general counsel for the NLRB, there is also a new chair for the EEOC, Andrea Lucas, and the new EEOC chair has been appointed as part of a new task force created by the administration to eliminate perceived anti christian bias in government agencies. This could mean potentially further restriction on abortion related workplace protections.
David Harmon: So it raises some practical questions. If the EEOC drops abortion protections, how will employers differentiate between pregnancy related accommodations for miscarriage versus an abortion? They often look the same, making it legally murky for HR teams.
Mariya Gonor: Oh, absolutely. What are you going to start requesting an employee to provide detailed medical records about what procedure you had to undergo?
David Harmon: And then it also could have a link into the insurance coverage as well.
Mariya Gonor: Absolutely, yeah. Insurance coverage, unjustified medical inquiry under the ADA, right? I can imagine that an employee may feel uncomfortable sharing that private medical information about themselves.
David Harmon: Well, again, this is very, very new, and we need to wait and see what the landscape will be as [00:20:00] this moves forward.
Mariya Gonor: Alrighty. So, with respect to the changes with the EEOC, David, what is the impact for the employers?
David Harmon: So, for employers, there’s less federal oversight on AI discrimination. pregnancy accommodations and LGBTQ plus protections.
Mariya Gonor: You can expect fewer lawsuits from the EEOC specifically targeting misgendering as they have done over the past year. But again, we want to stress that there is still a significant risk from private litigation simply because EEOC will not bring a lawsuit doesn’t mean that a private plaintiff who feels discriminated against or misgendered, won’t bring that litigation in state court.
David Harmon: So Mariya, there is definitely uncertainty around compliance, and especially for multi state businesses.
Mariya Gonor: Yes.
David Harmon: Those operating in multiple jurisdictions. So Mariya, let’s talk about the impact on employees.
Mariya Gonor: So, the first obvious one, is that it’s going to be harder to file discrimination claims related to gender identity and expression, especially if an employee is located in a state which does not recognize that as a protection on their state level.
David Harmon: There’s going to be more uncertainty in workplace protections, especially for LGBTQ plus and pregnant workers.
Mariya Gonor: And we’ve talked about the concerns that many employees have when they actually file complaints to the employers, right, the, the, the worry about potential discrimination or retaliation following the complaint. So I think there’s going to be a significant chilling effect when it comes to employee reporting, misgendering or discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression.
David Harmon: But as we’ve said before, this will not be impacted by the current law that’s in effect in each state.
Mariya Gonor: Yes, that’s true if you’re in the state that recognizes this as a protected characteristic of course, if you are not though there may be potential hesitancy by the employees to express concerns.
David Harmon: We’re just gonna have to see how that impacts the Investigation space with complaints.
Mariya Gonor: And also, you know how it’s going to impact employers who actually want to affirmatively offer these protections, right? Because the federal government establishes the floor not the ceiling of protection for discrimination. So, if a private employer wants to be more protective of their employees expression, will they be then subjected to any kind of prosecution by the DOJ, right, or the new administration in offering these protections? Or a potential lawsuit by a, you know, cisgender individual saying, that now they feel that they’re being discriminated against because there’s some protections offered to different employees.
David Harmon: Well, as attorneys, we like to take in the facts, analyze them, and then give an answer in terms of where we’re going to be, what the advice should be, what our clients should do. It’s I think it’s very difficult at this point to understand what the landscape is going to be.
Mariya Gonor: So, my law school professor used to say that as attorneys, our job is to imagine the parades of horribles of what could potentially happen if something goes wrong. And I think we’re going into the rabbit hole of potential, like, parade of horribles of what could happen to the employers.
David Harmon: The other thing that my law school professor said was that you should read the statute, read the entire statute. And it’s important to know what, not only what the federal law says, but the state law.
Mariya Gonor: Yeah, absolutely. Moving on to the next segment where we will address executive orders. But more specifically, as David said, there has been a lot that have been issued so far. We will focus on two. There are two executive orders that will have a significant impact on workplace and employment. There is a crackdown on the DEI initiatives. And employer policies and DEI, of course, is diversity, equity, and inclusion. As well as the executive order that pronounces that there’s only two sexes. And those two sexes are the ones that are assigned to you ever.
David Harmon: Mariya, this has already had a chilling effect. Some companies, like Booz Allen Hamilton, have rolled back gender inclusive policies, such as allowing employees to choose their own pronouns. And then employers are facing conflicting legal obligations between Trump’s federal stance and state local laws that protect gender identity rights, which is the very point we’ve been making.
Mariya Gonor: Yep. And some of the companies have rolled back their DEI programs, right, in favor of what the administration executive order calls merit based hiring.
David Harmon: This is a major escalation because as you know, on February 5th, 2025 attorney general, Pam Bondi issued a memorandum directing the department of justice to investigate private sector DEI programs.
Mariya Gonor: Including criminal investigations.
David Harmon: It goes beyond the executive order by ordering criminal investigations into corporate and university DEI practices.
Mariya Gonor: Let’s start with the executive order that is entitled Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring merit-based Opportunity. That order does three major things. One, it terminates all federal DEI programs, meaning all government agencies must immediately eliminate D. E. I. N. D. E. A. Initiatives. All federal hiring and promotion policies must be based on merit based criteria and federal agencies are now barred from requiring diversity related training or recruitment efforts. It also strips D. E. I. Requirements from federal contractors, which used to be a consideration in the past. Federal contractors can no longer be required to engage in affirmative action or workforce balancing. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program is ordered to stop enforcing diversity mandates and contractors must certify compliance or risk contract termination with federal government. And the third element of this order is exactly what David just said, a significant effort to stop all of these initiatives on the private corporate levels.
David Harmon: That’s a huge shift Mariya. The DOJ is signaling that DEI practices won’t just be challenged in court, they could result in federal criminal charges being brought.
Mariya Gonor: Which is a significant deviation from how even cases of discrimination, affirmative intentional discrimination, have been treated in the past which resulted in either civil penalties, civil settlements, civil resolutions, or what have you, but generally not criminal filings.
David Harmon: Well as we’ve seen, many, many companies are terminating their DEI Initiatives, although there will be workarounds.
Mariya Gonor: Yes.
David Harmon: That are established and I think that we’re going to have to wait and see how that page is turned.
Mariya Gonor: We don’t want to be alarmist in connection with this issue. Right? The executive order specifically refers to the case of students for a fair admission versus president and fellows of the Harvard College. And that is a decision that was rendered by the Supreme Court. It was a 6-3 ruling that came down in 2023 and it addressed essentially affirmative action with respect to admissions to colleges. Um, and the court gave us a detailed analysis of what they viewed as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits distinction in law by race or color. So, essentially, the decision says that race or color cannot be treated as a positive factor. Just like it cannot be treated as a negative factor. And this sort of brings the law a little bit in line with what we’ve been seeing on our practice level, right? I’ve definitely have seen a rise in people asking questions about reverse discrimination and in the past before this executive order. Reverse discrimination arguably could only be brought in the case of a special employer, right? One of the biggest cases in New Jersey, for instance, of reverse discrimination involved a warehouse where most of the workers and most of the managers were hispanic and the employee was white. And he claimed that the managers showed preferential treatment to the Hispanic workers because they got better equipment, they got better shifts, and he was punished for being white. Because it was a unique employer, the court considered the claims of reverse discrimination. Now, I don’t think we’re going to be talking about reverse discrimination as much as we’re going to be talking about discrimination on the basis of race, even if that race is being white.
David Harmon: So, since this decision came out, we as employment lawyers have been adjusting and have been effectively taking action to address this. But now, with this new order, Now it’s a different landscape. Right, it’s an action we actually have to take versus preparing to take. That’s absolutely right. Mariya, there’s another major executive order that is already impacting workplace policies on gender identity. That’s the Two Sexes Executive Order. And in that, the order states that the U. S. government recognizes only two sexes, male and female. It rescinds all prior executive orders that provided protections for transgender employees in the federal workforce, federal contractors may no longer be required to accommodate gender identity based policies.
Mariya Gonor: So, this order, I believe, has already been challenged by litigation, but I think it’s likely to be, if it hasn’t been, it’s likely to be challenged by litigation because we have A federal circuit court decision from I want to say 2024 that specifically recognized gender dysphoria as being an ADA protected condition. So that will be an interesting development to see what the courts will do with the two gender recognition orders.
David Harmon: I think it’s also going to impact across all other employment related protections.
Mariya Gonor: Another potential challenge could come from the Supreme Court’s decision in 2020 named Bostock versus Clayton County, and that is the Supreme Court decision by the United States Supreme Court, where the court recognized that discrimination on the basis of someone being gay is actually discrimination on the basis of gender. And again, if anybody is a law nerd and wants to listen to the oral argument, I think that was the most succinct and amazing oral argument by Plano’s attorney, but essentially it comes down to this. If you have two employees and they come in on Monday and they tell you that I got married to the most wonderful man named Bill this Saturday and one employee who’s male is fired as a result of that while the other employee who’s female is offered a vacation because of that. You’re discriminating on the basis of gender.
David Harmon: I think we have to anticipate the possibility that that case is going to be used to challenge some of these executive orders. We don’t know what the court activity will be, but there’s a lot brewing.
Mariya Gonor: Already. Now, with all of that information, David, what are our suggestions for strategies for the employers and employees? Let’s start with the employers first.
David Harmon: So, the employers should be mindful of what’s going on at the federal level. They should try to get ahead of it, consult with their counsel, look at their policies and start to address where these orders. Could impact their own workplace policies.
Mariya Gonor: For the employees. I would recommend the same thing. You got to keep an eye on what’s going on on the federal level. You have to watch what’s happening on the state level and stay up to date, to be aware of what your rights are. And if you were unsure, consult with an attorney.
David Harmon: I think there’s going to be a lot of new agreements and handbooks policies issued by employers. So, they will be having to attend to those as well as the employees have to pay attention to what’s coming out and what they’re asked to sign.
Mariya Gonor: And perhaps think a little bit more creatively about what policies they want to promulgate in their workplace.
David Harmon: As we’ve said in the DEI space and in elsewhere.
Mariya Gonor: That’s right. Well, while we hope that you found our time together informative and at least somewhat entertaining, please remember that this is not legal advice and should not be taken as such and for any specific questions, you must consult with an attorney.
David Harmon: If you’d like to continue the discussion, please contact us at theemploymentstrategists@norris-law.com.