Below is a review of the posts on Facebook and LinkedIn from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
NOTE: there is continued instability and fluctuation with the (attempted) changes in federal labor and employment law resulting from executive orders (EOs) and court decisions, so check with us or another employment lawyer before taking any action based on something in our posts.
The post on Sunday 5/4/2025 told us EEOC head taps Christian rights advocate for chief of staff; what effect on compliance and enforcement going forward? EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas recently selected Shannon Royce, the former president of the Christian Employers Alliance (CEA), to serve as her chief of staff. Royce left CEA in December 2024 after heading the Christian group for nearly four years. CEA is currently embroiled in a lawsuit with the EEOC – what it involves is in the post. So what might Royce’s hiring suggest? See the post. And that falls in line with one of the priorities identified by the Trump administration (yep, also in the post and see our post of Thurs. 4/18/2025).
The suit filed by CEA in January 2025 alleges that the EEOC and former Chair Charlotte Burrows exceed[ed] the government’s statutory and constitutional authority by applying Title VII to cover gender-transition efforts and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) as including protections for elective abortions. Some language from the complaint is in the post. The entity representing CEA in the suit, long with its mission, is also in the post.
When Royce was leading CEA, it successfully challenged a mandate requiring member organizations to pay for or provide gender transition services, including those things listed in the post. In early March 2024, a court ruled that the EEOC and US Dept. of Health & Human Services (HHS) cannot enforce provisions of Title VII and the ACA; the subject provisions are identified in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Only time will tell what if any changes the EEOC makes in its interpretation (and enforcement) of Title VII and other federal statutes, especially in light of the statements issued by Lucas; stay tuned.
The post on Monday 5/5/2025 noted blind worker to receive $250K for call center’s failure to accommodate. It could have been so easy for the employer …
The Results Companies, LLC, a Florida-based business services company, hired a blind person in Texas as a telephone-based customer service representative. The worker requested a screen reader so she could do her job. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that The Results Companies did not take reasonable steps to accommodate the worker, refused her request to contact the screen reader company when there were software issues, and then fired her. Let’s take a closer look.
The EEOC filed suit in federal court in September 2024, alleging violation of Title I and Title V of the ADA and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The charging party had been hired in July 2019. She requested that Job Access with Speech (JAWS) software be installed on her computer; a company IT specialist determined that the JAWS software supplied by the state’s Vocational Rehabilitation Services was out of date. The following month, August 2019, the company asked the worker to step down until she obtained the newest version of JAWS, when she would be rehired. Vocational Rehab purchased the upgraded software in November 2019, but when the employee returned to work in December, the employer still had not installed it. And there was more that the employer did not do – see the post. The Results Companies then the worker on Feb. 3, 2020.
How the EEOC characterized the employer’s conduct is in the post. Not surprisingly, a spokesperson for the company also had a statement – again see the post.
This was not the first case brought by the EEOC for violation of the ADA alleging a lack of accommodation around screen readers. A ruling in summer 2024 held that PepsiCo had violated the ADA and Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a case brought by the EEOC involving a screen reader. The allegation in that case is noted in the post. The EEOC even issued guidance in 2023 to help eliminate this kind of discrimination. The guidance answers key questions including when a recruiter or HR can ask an applicant or employee questions about their vision impairment, how an employer should treat a voluntary disclosure, and others listed in the post.
Relative to accommodating people with visual impairments, the EEOC has warned employers not to assume that certain accommodations will be deemed an undue hardship. Further tips from EEOC attorneys are in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Employers have a duty to reasonably accommodate workers under federal statutes unless doing so would cause an undue hardship to the employer; an adverse determination on whether reasonable efforts to accommodate were made and if there is undue hardship can hit hard. Consult an employment lawyer.
The post on Tuesday 5/6/2025 told us Catholic aid group violated gay employee’s rights by cancelling spouse’s health benefits, judge says. Also look at majority funder of the employer …
The entity was recently ordered to pay $60,000 to a gay former employee after he filed a lawsuit alleging sexual discrimination. Let’s take a closer look. The former employee, referred to as “John Doe” in the 2020 federal complaint, is a gay man in a same-sex marriage. He was hired in 2016 as a program data analyst for the Baltimore-based Catholic Relief Services (CRS).
Doe’s complaint (linked in the post) alleges that he was told at time of hire that his husband would be covered under his employee health insurance plan. But in November 2016, CRS informed Doe that same-sex spouses were not eligible for coverage. They said his spouse had been added by mistake and that the spouse’s health insurance coverage would be terminated by the end of that month. Doe then negotiated with superiors until October 2017, when his spouse was dropped from the plan. Doe alleges that he was threatened with termination for pressing the issue. Doe’s complaint argued that CRS discriminated against him based on sex, including sexual orientation, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Federal Equal Pay Act, and applicable Maryland state law.
The recent court ruling addressed Doe’s claims of discrimination under the state fair employment statute (but the ruling and analysis mirrors what would be done under a similar federal statute). CRS argued that as a religious organization, it falls under the Religious Entity Exemption included in that statute. But in the ruling, the judge cited to a state supreme court conclusion that religious organizations are exempt from sexual orientation discrimination on claims under that state statute when the claims are brought by employees who carry out a “core mission” of the organization. The court then proceeded to examine whether the facts of the case fit within that framework. See the post for that factual determination leading to the ruling that CRS violated the employee’s rights and must pay him $60,000.
The ruling was groundbreaking – see the post. Doe’s statement is also in the post.
This was not the first favorable ruling for Doe in his suit against CRS. In 2022 a federal judge ruled in his favor on the Title VII and EPA claims. The post has a link to earlier reports of that ruling.
CRS did not respond to a request for comment from the news media. And who or what is CRS? It is a non-governmental organization (NGO) that serves as the official international humanitarian agency of the Catholic community in the United States. The group’s mission/purpose as on its website. According to a report in the National Catholic Reporter (which is linked in the post), CRS has been forced to shut down programs and lay off staff this year due to President Trump’s dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Interestingly, CRS receives more USAID support than any other NGO, per an AP report linked in the post, and USAID funded about half of the CRS’s $1.2 billion budget in 2023. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s March 11 statement about USAID contract cuts, and CRS’s response, are also in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Regardless of funding, employers must follow the law. It can be costly to violate the law, as this employer discovered.
The post on Wednesday 5/7/2025 noted owner balks at days without water as condo demands replacement of aging but unbroken pipes. Yep, that’s life in a condominium association.
The facts revolved around a condo association whose board of directors is determined about doing work in one unit, even though the work apparently is not necessary. The board wants to replace the unit’s copper piping that it says “has the potential to leak — it could be six months from now or three to five years, who knows, from now but we need to replace them.” The owner says the pipes are not currently leaking and show no damage of any kind. Further, the work the board wants to do could render the apartment useless for at least a week, and the owner and spouse will not be able to use the toilet, the vanity or the shower. The owner questions whether they can refuse entry the unit for the “repairs” that are not needed?
The answer is perhaps simple, perhaps “it depends”. But let’s start by assuming (yes, dangerous in real life) that the association has primary responsibility to maintain, repair and replace the common plumbing in the building. The types of things that might lead to the need to repair or replace piping are listed in the post – and often part of operating or capital budgets. Here the issue is piping, which means water, and leaking or failing pipes can and do cause tremendous losses. So the board here seems to be acting proactively.
Given that, is there a legal right of the association to enter your unit for these purposes, i.e., to maintain the common elements or other property that is the association’s responsibility or to protect other units? Probably so – see the post for where that right might be found. This is true even though the repair work might inconvenience the owners; as the post notes, there are lots of inconveniences in a condominium — that’s part of living with dozens of others in the same property. What might happen if the owner refuses access is also noted in the post. However, there is one thing that the owner can and should look at relative to the repairs, as a “just in case” – see the post.
TAKEAWAY: Because of the extent of common elements in a condominium association, especially in a large building, the association most likely has the right and obligation to enter units periodically to review the performance of those common elements and repair or replace as necessary. Consult with a community association lawyer if there are questions.
In the post on Thursday 5/8/2025, we learned that big dog exceeds HOA’s pet guidelines: what to do? The realtor who responded to the question missed some of the boat on this one.
Someone noted that the association rules specify weight/size limits for pets. They prohibit pets over 55 pounds and more than 22-inches at shoulder height. But a new resident moved in who has a dog that, according to the paperwork, weighs 95 pounds. The question is what if any recourse does another owner have.
A realtor jumped in to respond. Which would have been great had the realtor known and cited to all applicable law. What the realtor said is in the post. But what the realtor missed, and what is perhaps the first inquiry, is whether the dog is a service animal. If so, the inquiry stops there. Service animals are not pets. But the owner still must adhere to other rules for pets such as picking up after the animal and ensuring that it complies with any noise limits.
TAKEAWAY: It is imperative to know the difference between service and emotional support animals – along with the effect when living in a community association (HOA, cooperative or condominium). See our post of Tues. 3/18/2025 and consult a community association lawyer with any questions.
The post on Friday 5/9/2025 told us the US Dept. of Labor reconsiders FLSA salary rule amid litigation. Yes, you need to know how to pay your workers!
Employers were granted a reprieve in Fall 2024 when a federal court invalidated DOL’s final rule increasing the minimum salary requirements for the “white collar” or “EAP” (executive, administrative, and professional) exemptions from the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). But the DOL under the Biden Administration appealed that decision to a federal appellate court. That left employers in limbo as they didn’t know what would happen with the rule. Recently, however, DOL asked the appeals court to stay the case to allow it to consider its next move.
Let’s go back a bit. The 2024 minimum salary final rule took effect July 1, 2024. It increased in two stages the salary threshold an employee must be paid for a white-collar exemption to apply. The first increase, effective July 1, raised the threshold from $684 per week ($35,568 per year) to $844 per week ($43,888 annually). The second, more substantial increase was slated to take effect Jan. 1, 2025. What that would have done is in the post. But in a decision issued 11/15/2024, a federal court in Texas found that DOL exceeded its statutory authority when it issued the rule (and therefore vacated the final rule in its entirety). A cite to that ruling is in the post. Another Texas federal court, in a separate suit, also ruled against the rule – see the post. The effect of those holdings was that the 2024 final rule was vacated, so the prior minimum salary floor of $684 per week ($35,568 per year) was restored and currently applies.
But that was not the end of the saga. On 12/4/2024 DOL filed an appeal. But what was uncertain was whether DOL would continue to pursue that appeal after the new administration took office. The two views on that are in the post. We still don’t know, but have a better idea now. On April 24, 2025, DOL filed a motion to stay the pending appeals. What that signals is in the post.
There is also other litigation. DOL is defending the rule in an ongoing suit in federal court in the District of Columbia (with the case cite in the post). Cross-motions for summary judgment are pending and DOL has not (yet?) moved to stay that case.
And the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled (in Sept. 2024) that DOL has the statutory authority to issue a minimum salary rule (under the parameters set forth in the ruling and noted in the post). Links to that ruling and an article about it are in the post. In that case, the plaintiffs challenge the minimum salary requirement in effect prior to the 2024 final rule and, with the 2024 rule vacated, what is the current operative threshold. On Feb. 14, 2025, the Fifth Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc. What then happened on Feb. 20, 2025, is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Employers must know how and what to pay their workers, including whether they are exempt or non-exempt under the FLSA; stay on top of legal developments by touching base with an employment lawyer.
Finally, in the post yesterday 5/10/2025, we looked at the impact of new Trump Executive Order targeting disparate impact liability. (NOTE: our post of Sat. May 3, 2025 also touched on this.) In his administration’s continued quest to “encourage meritocracy and a colorblind society” and oppose “race-or sex-based favoritism,” President Trump issued a new executive order (EO) on April 23, 2025, titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy.” The order specifically targets disparate impact liability.
What is disparate impact discrimination, you ask? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits two kinds of discrimination – disparate treatment and disparate impact. Disparate treatment is described and summarized in the post. Disparate impact is also described in the post. Generally, to prove a disparate impact claim, the complaining party must demonstrate that the employer does not have a job-related reason consistent with business necessity for the challenged practice. When disparate impact liability tends to arise, and a few examples, are in the post.
In the EO, Trump challenges disparate impact liability. His statement is in the post. To resolve what he sees as the issue/problem, President Trump states that it is now US policy to eliminate the use of disparate impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible (including revoking prior presidential approvals of regulations implementing disparate impact rules) and he orders executive agencies (such as the EEOC) to “deprioritize” enforcement of disparate impact claims. The Acting Chair of the EEOC has 45 days to assess any pending investigations and lawsuits related to disparate impact liability under Title VII and take action to comply with the order.
So what does all of this actually mean or do? First, the EO does NOT change Title VII or alter U.S. Supreme Court precedent regarding disparate impact theories or liability. But it DOES require EEOC action as noted in the post. That has resulted in at least one change already – also noted in the post.
Next, courts will likely continue to look at the statutory language of Title VII and legal precedent when deciding disparate impact claims. But there might be changes, additional defenses and more as noted in the post.
And then there is how this EO fits within all of the recent employment-related EOs and the emphasis of the current administration. See the post for that and the EEOC’s current position relative to discrimination.
TAKEAWAY: Again, employers must know what they can and cannot legally do under the law and (if and) how the law will be enforced – at least periodic contact with an employment lawyer is a good thing in this time of uncertainty.
York, Pennsylvania 17403