For more information please call  800.727.2766

 
  • Return-to-Office Mandate:

    Is it Right for Your Organization?
    Read the Article
  • EPS Expert Conversation Series:

    Thriving in a Remote/Hybrid Business Model
    Watch | Listen | Learn
  • Let’s Face It, Hybrid Work is Here to Stay.

    Now What?
    Read the Article
  • 2024 Human Resources and Employment Law Highlights

    Looking Back, Looking Ahead
    Read the Article
  • AI in the Workplace:

    Uses and Risks
    Read the Article
  • Elephants and Donkeys:

    Does Your Organization Resemble a Zoo this Political Season?
    Read the Article
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6

“ We collaborate with employers and employees to build respectful organizations through high-quality training, objective and unbiased complaint investigations, human resources and employment law expert testimony, and a wide range of human resources consulting services. ”

The EPS Team

LATEST NEWS AND STORIES

  • California State Employees Must Return to Work Four Days a Week

    California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order requiring all state workers to work in the office at least four days a week. The order goes into effect on July 1, 2025. This hybrid schedule applies to all state agencies and departments, which includes 224,000 full-time employees. Gov. Newsom stated that the in-office requirement will improve collaboration and communication, enhance mentorship and knowledge-sharing, strengthen oversight and accountability, and deliver better services to the state.

  • Federal Judge Reverses Firing of NLRB Board Member

    In January, President Trump fired Gwynne Wilcox, a Democrat the Senate confirmed to a second five-year NLRB term in September 2023. The NLRB was left with just two members following Wilcox’s and the board chair’s contemporaneous firings. With two members, the board has been unable to act. Wilcox followed through on her plan to challenge the firing, which she asserted was “unprecedented” and “illegal.” A federal court reversed the firing, holding it was unlawful.

  • Government Pulls Columbia University Funding for Antisemitism

    The Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism announced the “immediate cancellation” of about $400 million in federal grants and contracts given to Columbia University. These cancellations are due to the institution’s “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” The Task Force said it was merely the first round, and it plans to cancel more. Columbia holds more than $5 billion in federal grant commitments. The Task Force asserted that Jewish students have faced violence, intimidation, and antisemitic harassment on Columbia’s campus.

  • Transgender Employee’s Suit Against Liberty University Moves Forward

    Ellenor Zinski worked for Liberty University’s IT department beginning in February 2023. In July 2023, Zinski notified Liberty that she was taking hormone replacement medications and planned to change her name. Just one month later, Liberty University fired her because it “does not and will not permit employees ... to transition away from one’s birth gender” because it violated the institution’s religious beliefs. Zinski filed a federal lawsuit alleging sex discrimination.

  • Supreme Court Heard Argument in “Reverse” Discrimination Case

    Marlean Ames worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services. She claimed that the department passed over her for promotion and then demoted her because she was straight. The department denied the allegations. Some federal circuit courts have held that members of a majority group, like white people or heterosexuals, must carry a higher level of proof when suing for “reverse” discrimination. The lower courts dismissed Ames' case. U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on the issue of whether a “majority-group plaintiff has to show something more than a minority-group plaintiff, here, whether a straight person has to show more than a gay person.”

  • Judge Temporarily Halts Anti-DEI Executive Order Enforcement

    Shortly after taking office, the President issued two executive orders directed at “illegal DEI” in government and with private employers. Federal agencies took steps to comply, notifying contractors and grantees that they would evaluate and possibly terminate some contracts and grants. The National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education and others challenged the constitutionality of the orders in a Maryland district court. The Maryland federal district court agreed with the plaintiffs that some of the orders violated the Constitution.

  • EEOC Will Protect American Workers from Anti-American Bias and Won’t Pursue Transgender Suits

    Acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas put employers on notice that they must stop “contributing to our immigration crisis or abusing our legal immigration system via illegal preferences against American workers.” The EEOC plans to deter illegal migration and reduce the abuse of legal immigration programs by increasing its enforcement against employers that illegally prefer non-American workers. In addition, the EEOC has requested to dismiss the six lawsuits filed under the previous administration alleging discrimination against transgender workers.

  • Employer Does Not Need to Explain Arbitration Clause to Employee

    In an unpublished opinion, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that if an employee signs an arbitration agreement, that provision is binding and enforceable. John Gavette lost his job at United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC (UWM). Gavette sued for violation of federal and state disability laws. The company responded that Gavette had signed an arbitration provision included in his employment contract, so he could not file a suit. Gavette argued that he did not recall signing the agreement.

  • NLRB Rescinds Enforcement Memos Issued During Prior Administration

    On Valentine’s Day, the NLRB’s acting general counsel revoked many of the guidance memos issued by the previous general counsel. The guidance memos, while nonbinding, outlined for the public how the board would likely view certain issues. These revocations signal to employers that the NLRB will proceed in a different direction under the current administration.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3