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 still a bit of instability and fluctuation in federal labor and employment law – with more to come – so check with us or another employment lawyer before taking action based on something in our posts.
The post on Sunday 9/28/2025 told us firefighters’ vaccine exemption lawsuit fails Supreme Court updated religious test. Roadmap for employers.
A federal appellate court held in early September that Washington state’s Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue (SRFR) did not violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it refused to exempt firefighters from its COVID-19 vaccine requirement allegedly in violation of their religious beliefs. Let’s look at the facts.
The plaintiffs requested an accommodation in the form of masking, testing and social distancing, but SRFR determined it could not do so without imposing an undue hardship on its operations. What it suggested instead (and what the plaintiffs did) is noted in the post. The plaintiffs then claimed that SRFR violated Title VII and state law. A federal trial court granted summary judgment to SRFR, and now the appellate court affirmed. It examined the situations under the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy and held that that the combination of health and safety costs, operational burdens and financial costs of allowing firefighters to work while unvaccinated posed a substantial burden.
This lawsuit is one of several to test the high court’s Groff precedent (a reminder of how it defined undue hardship is in the post). On appeal the court found that the substantial costs incurred by the fire department would have affected both its workforce and members of the public requiring its services. The court also weighed in on why what was proposed by the firefighters would not always work – see the post.
The plaintiffs advanced numerous arguments to counter SRFR’s position, including that because only 11 firefighters required accommodation, the costs were overestimated. But the court disagreed; its analysis is in the post.
Other court decisions on religious exemptions post-Groff have yielded more favorable outcomes for plaintiffs. In late August, an Illinois jury found in favor of an electrician who was denied a COVID-19 vaccine exemption. The plaintiff in that case, a practicing Catholic, alleged he was denied an exemption and replaced with a non-Catholic who received the vaccine. He also provided additional facts that weighed in favor of an exemption (and against undue hardship) – see the post.
And earlier in August, another federal appellate court reversed a district court’s decision siding with a school district that refused to exempt a Christian teacher from its requirement that staff call transgender students by their chosen names. The appellate court held that the teacher’s proposed accommodation (which is in the post) may not have imposed a burden so substantial as to clear the Groff standard.
As employers and employees hash out religious accommodation claims in court, the EEOC has likewise moved to enforce Title VII in line with Groff. The EEOC issued two recent federal workforce decisions (linked in the post) in favor of employees, including one dealing with an agency’s alleged failure to accommodate a Christiane flexible worker’s COVID-19 vaccine exemption request.
In managing religious accommodation requests post-Groff, employers may need to be flexible in considering how the requests actually affect business operations. Other tips are in the post.
TAKEAWAY: The Supreme Court in Groff made it more difficult for an employer to show that providing a religious accommodation would be an undue hardship – employers should discuss the situation with an employment lawyer before making a decision.
The post on Monday 9/29/2025 reminded that private employers have ‘a lot of latitude’ in regulating workers’ speech. In this politically charged era, employers must know what they can and cannot do in response to employees’ speech and activities, both on the job and off duty, so let’s dive deeper.
The question is not really whether freedom of speech applies as whether that speech is job-protected. Employers can discipline any kind of speech, political or not, that occurs in and disrupts the workplace and is not otherwise protected (with that last part being the key and including those things mentioned in the post).
The typical freedom of speech that individuals have under the First Amendment, and that seems to be in the news all the time now, only applies in government settings. Contrast that with private workplaces where employees do not necessarily have those same protections. So what does that mean relative to purely political speech and what a private employer can do? See the post.
But employers must keep in mind that certain types of speech are “expressly or impliedly protected.” One example is Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. What that allows employees to do is in the post. But even the NLRA has limits; it does not protect the speech of supervisors, but only applies to non-supervisory employees.
What can be a big challenge for employers is distinguishing between disruptive or discriminatory conduct, which may be regulated, and protected activity, which may not. There is no black and white standard that applies to employers regarding freedom of speech. Rather it is a balancing act as explained in the post.
What might be helpful is for employers to in place have written policies making clear that hostile or demeaning speech won’t be tolerated, regardless of the topic. And then they must enforce the policy. They cannot do the things described in the post. Any policies must, of course, comply with federal and applicable state and local laws protecting certain kinds of speech.
And, as always, supervisors must be trained to recognize the difference between a healthy discussion and a volatile one, to stave off disruptive or harassing behaviors that could create a toxic atmosphere. How things could play out in a private workplace versus one that is unionized is in the post.
Can an employee be terminated for speech? Maybe. Having a legally-compliant policy in place will help an employer make that decision. See the post for more details on that.
TAKEAWAY: claims of free speech may not save an employee from adverse action – but there are exceptions and then exceptions to the exceptions. Contact an employment lawyer before any adverse action is taken.
The post on Tuesday 9/30/2025 gave us a look inside the Internal Revenue Service response to Trump’s DEI Order (and the effect on the agency).
Just days before President Trump began his second term this past January, the IRS was in the middle of planning a diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) event at a Small Business/Self-Employed Division field office in the Houston area. The event was scheduled for February 11 and 12 as part of a pilot program called DEIA Days that was supposed to be rolled out across the IRS (how we know that is in the post). A week later, the IRS was halting all DEIA-related activities, placing DEIA staff on paid administrative leave, purging its website of DEIA-related content, and eliminating DEIA-related trainings to comply with directives from the White House that rolled back a signature initiative of the Biden administration. Redacted emails (obtained as noted in the post) provide a glimpse into what went on behind the scenes as the IRS scrambled to comply with the directives.
White House Orders
On his first day in office, Trump issued a flurry of executive orders, including one that revoked President Biden’s 2021 Executive Order 14035, “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce.” Both the 2025 Executive Order and the 2021 Executive Order are linked in the post.
What Biden’s executive order said is also in the post, including that agencies should seek to establish a position of chief diversity officer or diversity and inclusion officer to coordinate efforts to promote DEIA within the agency. The IRS Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) was responsible for advising the IRS commissioner and other agency leaders “on matters relating to equal employment opportunity, taxpayer non-discrimination, and diversity and inclusion,” according to Internal Revenue Manual 1.1.10 (which is linked in the post but has since been removed).
And then one day after Trump’s executive order, a memorandum (linked in the post) from the Office of Personnel Management directed agency heads to notify all employees of DEIA offices that they were being placed on paid administrative leave effective immediately and to take down all outward-facing media of DEIA offices. They also were told to withdraw any final or pending documents, directives, orders, materials, and equity plans issued by the agency in response to Biden’s executive order. All agency leaders were ordered to cancel any DEIA-related trainings and terminate any DEIA-related contractors. They also were directed to report to OPM on the things listed in the post. Agency heads had until 5 p.m. on January 22 to complete the required action.
Seeking Guidance
In response to Trump’s executive order, employees in the IRS communications and liaison division began identifying content on the IRS website subject to the executive order. What they had to do, as noted by one former IRS executive, is in the post. It did not help that there was confusion and concern about guidance from the administration, especially what constitutes DEIA or DEIA-aligned activities. Then-IRS Chief Diversity Officer Carrie Holland, who left the agency in February, according to her LinkedIn page, issued an email that same day, January 22, notifying IRS staff that all DEIA-related trainings were immediately suspended in accordance with Trump’s executive order (linked in the post). What the email said was included in the program suspension is in the post.
Also by email on January 22, one IRS employee sought guidance about whether the DEIA Days event was on hold and asked whether the agency should still address the topics of psychological safety, reasonable accommodation, and emotional intelligence. Why those things were needed (according to the employee) is in the post.
IRS employees sought to ensure the agency complied with the executive order and the law, despite any moral concerns they had. But from internal emails (again, how they were obtained is noted in the post) we know there were questions about whether the IRS would comply with civil rights law. One email, sent January 22 (what a chock-full day that was!), says they initially thought that compliance with Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would continue but IRS employees were waiting for guidance from the Office of Chief Counsel to know for sure. What was included among their use of the term “compliance” is listed in the post.
There were also questions about whether the IRS would still observe celebratory events such as Black History Month and Pride Month. The content of a January 21st (inauguration day and a day before the executive order was issued) email is in the post. But there was also a contrary email (that is noted in the post).
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said June 3 that Trump had no plans to issue a proclamation for Pride Month. Trump did, however, issue a proclamation recognizing February as Black History Month and the White House hosted a reception.
Organization
The documents that were obtained also show that the EDI headquarters’ organizational structure comprised four divisions and a chief of staff’s office which was responsible for administration, communications strategy, internal employee programs, managing human capital services such as hiring and staffing, and maintaining the EDI office’s budget. What the EEO operations division was responsible for is listed in the post. The IRS had EDI offices set up in different parts of the agency, including the Large Business and International Division, the Taxpayer Advocate Service, taxpayer services, and the Tax-Exempt and Government Entities Division. But the Trump administration wanted the entire EDI office gone in addition to any employees with DEIA responsibilities in their workload. But that brought up a problem – see the post.
Civil Rights
Some employees within the office ultimately were allowed to remain at the IRS to help the agency comply with its statutory obligations. The EDI, which became the Office of Civil Rights and Compliance (OCRC), was subject to a reduction in force and 179 employees were notified that their positions would be eliminated, according to the source noted in the post. IRS employees were told in an April 4 email that 5% of the OCRC staff had left through the deferred resignation program and attrition and that 75% of the office’s staff would leave through a reduction in force. Where the remaining employees would go is noted in the post. What has happened to some of the RIFfed employees since then is also in the post.
TAKEAWAY: from the outside it may have looked like government compliance with Trump’s executive order(s) was smoothly executed, but the reality is quite to the contrary.
The post on Wednesday 10/01/2025 told us a senior who spent 7 months without a hip sued condo (and manager) and won $2M. Condominium and homeowner associations must be aware of their maintenance obligations.
For seven months, octogenarian Gloria Minnick did not have a right hip. The hip, which had been replaced several years earlier, was removed in 2022 after Minnick fell along a path at her condominium complex. She fractured her right hip and developed an infection that sent her to surgery 10 times and to acute rehabilitation facilities multiple times. For nearly a year, her movements were limited to going from a bed to a wheelchair and vice-versa. She still needs a walker to get around now. For a senior who led an active life before the fall, Minnick said her limited mobility can sometimes be depressing. But a bright spot appeared in late August. A local jury awarded 85-year-old Minnick $2,550,000 after finding her condominium association liable for her injuries. Let’s look at the backstory.
In November 2024, Minnick sued her condominium association, Forest Lake Place Horizontal Property Regime, accusing it of negligence in maintaining and repairing the unpaved path where she fell. Details about that happened in September 2022 are in the post. According to her suit, her fall happened three years after the condo association created a five-year plan to conduct “critical maintenance” at the property, including addressing the erosion in the area where she fell. What had been done on the path by the time of her fall is in the post. Homeowners, including Minnick, had been making monthly payments into the maintenance fund at that time.
The condo association had denied liability, arguing that Minnick’s negligence and carelessness caused her fall. How the jury assigned liability is in the post along with the result of that finding.
Minnick’s suit also included the company that provided management services to the condo association, but the jury did not find them liable.
The attorneys for the condo association (identified in the post) did not respond to requests for comment on Sept. 17. But the post does mention further action they intended to take on behalf of the association.
In the meantime, Minnick is living in her condo again. She is undergoing physical therapy twice a week and hopes to soon be free of her walker. She is also contemplating joining a gym before her 86th birthday next spring.
TAKEAWAY: Let’s say it again for emphasis: condominium and homeowner associations must be aware of their maintenance obligations. Ignoring them could be costly; instead involve a community association lawyer.
In the post on Thursday 10/02/2025, we read that parents of teen killed inside Icon Brickell file lawsuit against building (including condo association). Question: how did killer get into the unit itself?
According to Miami police, 17-year-old Dominic Ferrell was killed early in the morning on June 8 on the 34th floor of the Icon Brickell building. Ferrell’s parents recently filed a $50,000 negligent security wrongful death lawsuit against Icon. The suit claims the building’s owners and managers failed to provide adequate protection, calling the killing preventable.
Police said officers responded to the Icon Residences around 2:15 a.m. that morning and found the victim with multiple stab wounds. Ferrell was pronounced dead at the scene. Police said the suspect, 26-year-old Kyrill R. Kehl, followed two men into an elevator inside the building as the men used their key card to get to the 47th floor. How Kehl might have accessed the 34th floor is noted in the post.
Police said Kehl stabbed Ferrell to death as the teen was sleeping in his bedroom. What surveillance video shows after the stabbing is in the post. Kehl later fell to his death.
NOTE: there is also a VID embedded in the post.
TAKEAWAY: just as condo (and homeowners’) associations have maintenance obligations, so too they have certain safety obligations to residents. But those obligations are not foolproof or absolute …
The post on Friday 10/03/2025 talked about 6 labor and employment issues that are in flux (still).
We’ve been talking about this for over 8 months now, so you know that the beginning of President Trump’s second term has included what can only be called dramatic changes in labor and employment policy and law — and more are expected. The administration has transformed more than 60 years of labor and employment policy and precedent and it is not done yet. Some of the changes benefit employers, but not all. Changes at the federal level also are being counteracted by Democratic-leaning (blue) states passing laws that either give employees more workplace protections or try to tip the scale back in favor of workers. Let’s look at some of the trends.
1. “Independent” federal agencies are in question. Days after taking office, Trump fired a number of officials at the EEOC and National Labor Relations Board, among other independent agencies (see our posts of Sun. 2/23/2025, Mon. 2/24/2025, Fri. 2/28/2025, Wed. 3/5/2025, Sat. 3/8/2025, Tues. 3/11/2025, Thurs. 3/20/2025, and Mon. 4/7/2025). Several of those officials have since filed lawsuits (linked in the post) alleging illegal termination and challenging the president’s authority to remove federal agency leader. The administration has called into question the constitutionality of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 90-year-old U.S. Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed Congress’ power to create independent boards and commissions and denied the president the ability to remove members of those agencies at will. More on that is in our posts of Mon. 4/7/2025, Fri. 4/11/2025, Sun. 4/13/2025, Sun. 4/20/2025, Tues. 4/22/2025 and Fri. 4/25/2025. Perhaps the worst part is that the firings left both the EEOC and NLRB without a quorum, stifling what they could do. NOTE: since then there have been confirmations of agency nominees and multiple Supreme Court rulings (many over the summer on the shadow docket). We all await the Court’s ruling this term on the continued viability of Humphrey’s Executor and the limits of presidential authority.
2. Union membership drops, but legislators consider worker-friendly laws. Even though unions are holding more organizing efforts and elections, their membership continues to fall and union density dropped to the lowest levels on record in fiscal year 2024. Concurrently, more states have passed laws to ban or restrict employer-sponsored meetings, known as “captive audience” meetings. How many states jumped on that bandwagon, and possible unintended but negative effects of those laws, is all in the post. There is also possible federal legislation coming down the pike – see the post.
3. Administration pushes to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Trump has targeted DEI programs and has instructed federal agencies throughout the government to focus their efforts on eliminating DEI programs as aggressively as possible. A large proportion of our posts in 2025 have dealt with this because those efforts continue (not only at the agency level, but also in state and federal courts – see the post). Because this has been and remains such a priority for the administration, employers that still have DEI initiatives should consult with employment counsel.
4. Changes to overtime and worker classification. As you know from our post of Fri. 5/9/2025, the white-collar overtime threshold that had been raised by a Biden administration rule in 2024 and later vacated by a federal judge is still in limbo. But on Sept. 4 the U.S. Department of Labor confirmed that it intends to revisit the overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. And as with one of the other changes above, blue states are acting to counteract what they think the federal government might do – see the post.
5. Immigration enforcement is a priority. Maybe this should be #1 … The administration’s immigration-related policy changes — and related enforcement actions — mean employers should expect more I-9 audits and workplace raids. That has been proven out in the news. The expected effects from that are in the post. Also in the post is information breaking down the premise espoused for the administration’s changes.
6. Artificial intelligence regulations are patchwork. Another possible #1. The new administration has emphasized “deregulation and technological competitiveness” when it comes to AI; tis is a change from the Biden administration. And so once again state and local governments are taking the lead in shaping AI-related employment law to combat those things listed in the past. But having so many separate laws with which to comply makes it more difficult for employers, especially those with workers in more than one state. A suggestion as to how AI ethics policies should be written at this point is also in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Employers must be aware of all of the laws and orders that affect their workplace and workers – they should work hand in hand with an employment lawyer to avoid costly legal minefields (which have increased substantially since the start of the year).
Finally, in the post yesterday 10/04/2025, we saw that Bojangles told worker she was ‘not a good fit’ because of pregnancy, disability, per lawsuit. Let’s get more details.
A former employee of chicken restaurant Bojangles had her disability accommodation request denied and was terminated in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, she alleged in a lawsuit filed recently. According to the complaint, the worker disclosed her sickle cell anemia and pregnancy to a manager and requested accommodation (as noted in the post). Her request was denied, according to the lawsuit. And then one week after disclosing her pregnancy, the worker was allegedly told she was “not a good fit for the restaurant because [she has] sickle cell and [is] pregnant” and was fired. (Is there anyone reading this not saying “ugh” at this point?)
The worker alleged violations at one of the newest Bermuda Triangles in employment law: Title VII, the PWFA, and the ADA. The EEOC recommends that – and there is a statutory obligation for – employers participate in an interactive process when a worker discloses disability and need for accommodation. More details on that process, including what might be requested and what might be provided in response are in the post. And of course, employers must provide an accommodation unless doing so would constitute an undue hardship.
The PWFA, he third side of the triangle that became effective in 2023, extends employers’ obligation as noted in the post.
Unsurprisingly, Bojangles did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
TAKEAWAY: We feel like a broken record: employers must know their obligations when it comes to accommodating workers. Discuss any adverse decisions with an employment lawyer before finalizing.