While no federal law specifies that employers must provide each employee with an up-to-date job description, it’s a serious mistake not to do so. Skipping this crucial step almost guarantees you will have at least one employee who is misclassified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) when they should be paid on an hourly basis.
The best practice is to update all job descriptions at least once a year, preferably in conjunction with an annual review. This is because jobs change—employees may have been assigned new roles and taken on new duties that now place the job squarely within an exemption from overtime. Conversely, a supervisor may have removed responsibilities or duties so that the employee no longer fits into a standard exemption. The first employee should be reclassified as exempt and be paid on a salary basis with no entitlement to overtime. The second employee should be paid for all hours worked, including overtime for work that exceeds 40 hours per week.
Here’s how to update job descriptions and audit for proper classification:
The federal government is heading for a showdown with states over who gets to shape the future of AI. A White House executive order outlines an aggressive plan to challenge state-level AI regulations through lawsuits and potential limits on federal funding. The order creates a task force that, within 90 days, will identify “onerous” state AI laws and directs the Department of Justice to sue states and overturn state laws that do not support U.S. “global AI dominance.” The order also directs federal agencies to withhold federal funding for broadband development to states that insist on keeping AI laws on the books that the DOJ challenges.
At stake are dozens of state and local laws that restrict how employers can deploy AI in hiring, firing and employee evaluations, including those that require employers to perform non-discrimination audits of AI programs.
While the political battle will play out in courts and legislatures, HR leaders won’t be on the sidelines. These decisions influence how organizations assess AI tools, verify vendor compliance and build internal safeguards that employees can trust.
The order—titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework For Artificial Intelligence”—directs the attorney general to establish an “AI Litigation Task Force” empowered to sue states whose AI laws allegedly violate federal protections like free speech and don’t interfere with interstate commerce. It also suggests that Congress enact a comprehensive AI law that preempts all conflicting state and local laws, hinting that the White House will soon present Congress with suggested legislation. The order highlights recently enacted AI safety laws in California and Colorado, which require model transparency reports and other disclosures that large tech firms and some employers argue create a confusing “patchwork” of requirements.
Most organizations already rely on a mix of state and federal rules to shape responsible AI use, especially in talent acquisition, monitoring and employee communications. If the federal government succeeds in creating one nationwide standard, HR teams may see faster clarification on issues like:
But the shift could also create short-term uncertainty. Industry groups and civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU, warn that weakening state oversight may undermine public trust in AI. HR teams should expect legal and compliance updates to accelerate as courts test the limits of federal authority and states decide whether to revise existing bills or move forward with new ones.
HR leaders can begin future-proofing now by reviewing current AI touchpoints across the employee lifecycle and mapping those that rely on vendor assurances. Establish a cross-functional group—HR, legal, IT and procurement—to monitor changes weekly and evaluate whether current AI tools meet likely national standards on accuracy, transparency and data handling. Building this internal readiness now positions HR to adapt quickly if a federal framework replaces state-by-state obligations.
Final note: If you are in a state or city that already requires employers using AI to recruit and hire to audit their AI program for possible discrimination, work with your counsel, as they can best monitor your AI obligations.
Holiday events can strengthen team bonds, but they can also amplify risk when alcohol, a relaxed atmosphere and end-of-year stress converge. Marjorie Mesidor, an employment attorney and founding partner at Mesidor PLLC, says HR can set the tone long before anyone steps into the venue.
Set expectations before the event
Clear expectations deter most boundary-crossing behavior. Mesidor recommends that HR and leadership:
Beyond policy reminders, HR can set up the environment to support safer choices—for example, offering appealing nonalcoholic options or designating leaders to periodically check in with employees who may need support or a graceful exit from an uncomfortable conversation.
Coach employees on practical boundaries
Employees often need direct guidance, especially in situations that blur social and professional lines. HR can share a quick pre-event checklist:
These reminders create a safer environment so everyone can enjoy the event without worrying about crossing a line or recovering from someone else’s misstep.
The Equal Pay Act (EPA), a federal law that is supposed to guarantee equal pay for equal work, prohibits employers from paying men and women different wages for substantially equal work that requires equal skill, effort and responsibility under similar working conditions. And Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits wage differences based on race, national origins, religion and other protected characteristics. Other federal laws like the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) also forbid wage discrimination based on age. Yet the court system is flooded with discrimination cases citing unequal pay.
Many states have stepped in with their own laws designed to make sure everyone receives equal pay for equal work. These laws include requirements that new hires not begin their jobs with starting salaries based on their past salary and that employers post salaries for open positions and promotions. The idea is to break the cycle of lower wages for equal work.
But employers may not realize they’re perpetuating past discrimination by not equalizing pay across protected characteristics. Nor may they realize, for example, that female employees in one division whose jobs are substantially equivalent to male employees in another division are being underpaid. That lack of awareness may end up costing an employer thousands, if not millions, of dollars in a lawsuit.
How to discover—and fix—unequal pay
Employers who want to fix the problem may choose to look for inequity and then equalize pay. There is a right way and a wrong way to do this. Here are the crucial steps:
1. Don’t do this alone. You don’t want to discover pay inequity and then announce it. That opens you up to a lawsuit. Instead, contact counsel to guide the way. By retaining counsel, your organization is protected by attorney-client privilege. The pay audit won’t have to be shared with the employee who sues you. The report will be for your eyes only. That’s much better than having to admit in front of a jury that you have been underpaying a protected group for years.
2. Get the right expert. Your attorney will bring in a statistical expert who can analyze your pay structure. That expert will be using advanced statistical tests, including multiple regression analysis, to determine whether any pay differences are the result of discrimination (intentional or unintentional) or some other factor (like experience level or job duties). The test can reveal the likelihood that pay differences are the result of change or due to a factor like race or sex. The expert’s report is also covered by attorney-client privilege.
3. Fixing the problem without drawing attention. If your expert uncovers red flags indicating possible discrimination, it’s time to equalize pay. You can do this without publicly admitting that there are pay differences. One option is to make the changes at your regular salary-adjustment time—typically year-end at evaluation time. This tends to trigger fewer questions about why some are getting larger adjustments than others.
Another option is to make the changes as part of an announced overhaul of your compensation system. Make equity adjustments. Fix any procedures and policies that may have contributed to the pay disparities. For example, if you have been setting starting pay based on salary history, revise your starting pay formula.
Final note: Remember that under the EPA, you cannot lower salaries but can only adjust up. For example, if you were paying men more than women, you must raise the female salary to the male level.
Sometimes business is booming. Other times, not so much. We appear to be heading into a downturn, and that means you may have to make some hard decisions, including terminations of some long-time employees. Is there a way to do so compassionately? According to lawyers at Littler participating in a recent webinar—Conducting Compassionate Reductions in Force—the answer is yes. Here’s how to do so.
Consider alternatives to RIFs. You don’t always have to cut employees entirely, especially if you think business will improve soon. One alternative is using furloughs to get costs down, but leaving open the possibility that you may soon need those workers back. A furlough is, by definition, a temporary absence from work without pay. It can include continued health and other benefits. Furloughs can also include pay reductions with reduced work for both hourly and exempt workers. Just make sure exempt workers still earn at least the minimum weekly pay for their classification and your state for any week they perform any work.
Voluntary exit incentive plans. Littler attorneys suggested that employers seeking a permanent reduction in staffing levels might choose to look for volunteers to leave in exchange for an incentive. If enough workers choose to voluntarily leave, others may not have to go involuntarily, creating goodwill for the employees accepting the incentives and those retaining their jobs. Be aware that special rules apply to older workers agreeing to accept incentives.
When a RIF is the logical answer. Employers who can’t make a furlough or voluntary exit plan work may have no choice but to conduct a RIF. If that’s the case, make certain that you identify and apply selection criteria that are both legal and fair. This should include careful documentation on a manager selection sheet.
Check that managers aren’t considering illegal reasons when ranking employees for inclusion in the RIF. That means excluding FMLA-covered absences from performance reviews and analyzing the final list for disparate impact on protected statuses like age, sex, race, disability and so on. Share this information only with your attorneys for protection under attorney-client privilege. You will likely need a statistics expert to help with the analysis.
Compassionate severance agreements. With most RIFs, you will want to get a severance agreement that includes a promise not to sue in exchange for a payment. You can add terms that make the agreements “compassionate.” These include terms like outplacement services, payment of bonuses not yet due and limited health insurance continuance.
Actual termination. Finally, make sure you perform the actual termination in a sensitive and compassionate way. Avoid termination by text message, for example.
Fiscal year 2025 brought a record number of EEOC religious-discrimination lawsuits. The agency filed 11 such cases during the fiscal year. Private litigants filed many more. Why? Because a 2023 Supreme Court decision made turning down a request for religious accommodations much harder, spurring more lawsuits.
The court ruled that before turning down a request, employers must show that approving it would create an undue burden on operations. Until 2023, all employers had to show was that approving the accommodation would have more than a de minimis impact on the employer. The Supreme Court now says employers must exhibit something more substantial—specifically, that “granting the accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”
But how substantial? That’s a question one recent federal court decision attempted to answer. The decision allows employers to finetune their religious-accommodations process to show whether they can legally reject the request.
The case: Carolyn worked for a hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her job was to admit patients to the hospital’s center for eating disorders. That means she greeted patients—often teen girls—and their parents and had a “long talk” with them on what to expect. It was not a job that could be performed remotely. It was urgent to keep the virus at bay because patients with eating disorders were especially at risk for serious complications or death should they become infected.
When the vaccine came out, all patient-facing employees were ordered to receive one. Carolyn refused and requested a religious accommodation of working from home. She was terminated. Others who requested similar religious accommodations were sometimes approved for remote work or offered transfers to non-patient-facing positions. Of 200 workers who requested religious exemptions from the vaccine, 24 were approved.
Carolyn sued. Now, a federal appeals court has upheld her termination. It reasoned that the employer had met the new undue hardship requirement. First, it said employers who consider all possible accommodations before turning down the request put their “best foot forward.”
The court also said religious accommodations can be turned down more easily than disability accommodations under the ADA, which requires employers to show a “significant difficulty or expense.” For example, employers can turn down a religious-accommodation request if they can show that making the accommodation “in the aggregate” would have a substantial impact. Employers should ask themselves, for example, what would happen if all Christian employees requested Sundays off? If the answer is that the production line could not be run or the restaurant could not serve brunch, that would create an undue burden.
The hospital won the case because it showed that if all 200 people who requested vaccine exemption were granted it, the hospital would not have been able to function. (Hall v. Sheppard Pratt Health, 4th Cir., 2025)
Proving undue hardship
Here’s what you need to do before claiming that approving religious accommodations would create an undue burden:
Workplace violence prevention is no longer limited to high-risk sectors like health care. States across the country are moving toward mandatory written prevention plans, regular risk assessments, employee training and anti-retaliation protections. Because the legal landscape is rapidly evolving, employers should review and update their workplace violence policies at least annually and confirm compliance with their state’s most current requirements.
While California leads the way, numerous states have adopted or are considering similar workplace violence prevention measures. Following is an update on specifics in ten other states.
California
Most California employers are already required under Senate Bill 553 to maintain a written workplace violence prevention plan (WVPP). On May 13, 2025, Cal/OSHA issued a new draft of its proposed Workplace Violence Prevention in General Industry regulation, updating its July 2024 version. The draft incorporates advisory committee feedback and provides important clarifications. It:
These revisions will eventually supersede existing SB 553 requirements once finalized—anticipated by late 2025—so California employers should review their WVPPs now for alignment.
Other states
California’s model continues to influence national policy trends, and many states have adopted or are considering similar workplace violence prevention measures. Key examples highlighted by labor and employment firm Ogletree Deakins include:
By Anniken Davenport
Typically, the end of one year, or the beginning of a new one, is when HR departments take the time to update their company handbooks. No matter when your HR team conducts this task (it should be conducted several times per year), your handbook should include the following sections:
Welcome to the company
Rules and procedures
Employment policies
Compensation
Benefits
Safety and health
Non-discrimination statement
Wage-and-hour compliance is one of the most complex and costly areas of HR management. At the 2025 HR Specialist Summit, Carrie Hoffman, labor and employment partner at Foley & Lardner LLP, reminded attendees that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) doesn’t grant employers much leeway. Because it’s a remedial statute, employers don’t get the benefit of the doubt. Exemptions are narrowly construed, the burden of proof is on the company and even small oversights can snowball into class claims.
Review job classifications regularly
Courts issued 172 certification rulings in 2024, with plaintiffs succeeding 80% of the time. That success rate reflects how easy it is to get classification wrong. HR teams should regularly audit how roles are classified, between contractor and employee status and between exempt and nonexempt categories.
Contractor vs. employee disputes often hinge on five factors:
Labels and agreements don’t decide the issue; what matters is the true nature of the working relationship and the level of independence involved.
For exempt vs. nonexempt roles, titles and pay method aren’t enough. The actual duties must align with one of the FLSA’s recognized exemptions: executive, administrative, professional, computer or outside sales. Entry-level roles, assistant managers and sales positions are especially prone to misclassification errors.
Get overtime calculations right
One of the most overlooked compliance traps is how overtime is calculated. All forms of compensation count toward an employee’s regular rate unless specifically excluded under federal law. Bonuses tied to performance, shift differentials and safety or attendance awards must be included when determining overtime pay.
A common mistake is using an “easier” calculation method that allocates bonuses or incentive pay to a single pay period. This often inflates or deflates pay inaccurately. The correct approach is to allocate compensation over the period when it was earned—usually the standard 40-hour workweek.
Track all hours worked
For nonexempt employees, the company bears the responsibility to accurately track hours worked. Even if employees fail to cooperate, the burden doesn’t shift. HR leaders should monitor for subtle forms of off-the-clock work, such as:
Automatic meal deductions can also create exposure if employees aren’t truly relieved of duties. “If someone’s working through lunch, that’s compensable time,” Hoffman said.
Travel, waiting and on-call time
Ordinary home-to-work travel isn’t paid time, but travel between job sites or during normal work hours generally is. Waiting time counts as hours worked when the employee can’t use the time effectively for personal purposes, and on-call time is compensable if restrictions prevent employees from freely using their time.
Correct errors quickly—and strategically
When a compliance problem surfaces, assess whether to correct it prospectively or retroactively. Future corrections draw less attention, but back-pay adjustments can limit legal risk if handled transparently. Tying changes to broader policy updates can also help frame them as part of continuous improvement rather than a reactive fix.
FLSA compliance is about what’s defensible. With plaintiffs winning four out of five certification rulings last year, even one misclassified employee or one uncounted hour can tip the scales. Compliance reviews should be ongoing, not occasional, and precision remains the best protection.
By John Wilcox
When investigating an employee’s complaint of harassment—sexual or otherwise—tailor your inquiries to the facts of that case.
Ask the complainant
Ask the alleged harasser
Ask third-party witnesses
Advice: Document every interview you conduct. Note who you interviewed, and when and where the conversation occurred. If there were any witnesses to the interview—it’s often a good idea to have someone sit in—record their names and titles. Place all interview notes in a working file until you have concluded your investigation. Then transfer them to a permanent file.
Never alter or destroy any interview notes. They could become evidence if litigation results from alleged harassment.
