News

The EEOC had been unable to vote on substantial policy changes since January, when President Donald Trump terminated two Democratic commissioners before their terms were set to expire.

The Protect Older Job Applicants Act is aimed at providing older applicants with stronger protections in hiring than currently exist under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Effective Sept. 30, the EEOC has closed its processing of cases where the basis for the complaint is an allegation that an employer’s practices or policies have a disparate impact on members of a protected class. These are cases where the employer isn’t accused of intentional discrimination, but the policy or practice impacts a protected class more than it impacts other applicants or employers.

At the recent HR Specialist Summit held September 10–11, Anniken Davenport, HR Employment Law Advisor senior legal editor, addressed the top employment law trends of 2025 and what’s coming in 2026.

According to Department of Labor statistics, more than 330,000 women aged 20 or older seem to have disappeared from the labor market since January 2025.

A judge has approved a settlement in a long-running case against the Disney Corporation. The case shows how crucial it is to fix pay-equity problems before unequal pay spurs a class-action lawsuit.

Complaints of age discrimination are reaching new highs. These experiences increase legal risk for employers while weakening workplace morale and productivity.

The EEOC says religious-discrimination cases are a high priority, filing lawsuits on behalf of employees denied accommodations at an increasing clip. To add to the deluge, individual employees are also filing lawsuits, as are organizations organized to defend religious rights in the workplace. It’s a perfect storm for employers who may not have adjusted their standards for turning down religious-accommodation requests.

Thanks to recent Supreme Court guidance, men bringing reverse-discrimination claims no longer face extra procedural hurdles. That makes these cases easier to start. But as this 6th Circuit opinion shows, they are still hard to finish without evidence that sex was the real reason for the decision.

As an HR professional, you know employers can’t ask job candidates questions that reflect sex-based bias or block them from jobs because of their sex. And you know it’s your responsibility to tell hiring managers and supervisors exactly that. But what happens if your organization ignores your expert advice?