The Dole Act recently amended and expanded employment protections afforded veterans by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Read more about amendments to USERRA’s anti-retaliation provisions, potential remedies, and more here: Increased Workplace Protections for Veterans: Dole Act Amends USERRA – Jackson Lewis.

On April 15, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota issued its decision granting partial summary judgment to the Catholic Benefits Association, on behalf of its members and the Bismarck Diocese (collectively the CBA).  The court found that the portions of the PWFA Final Regulations that require employers to reasonably accommodate limitations arising out of infertility, abortions, and in vitro fertilization violate the  CBA’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  The court also found that the EEOC’s Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace violates the CBA’s rights under the RFRA to the extent the EEOC Guidance forces the CBA to “speak or communicate in favor of abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transition when such is contrary to the Catholic faith; refrain from speaking or communicating against the same when such is contrary to the Catholic faith, use pronouns inconsistent with a person’s biological sex; or allow persons to use private spaces reserved for the opposite sex.” 

Because the court granted partial summary judgment and permanently enjoined the EEOC’s enforcement of the PWFA and Guidance On Harassment in the Workplace in this manner, the court declined to address the CBA’s other arguments including that the PWFA final regulations violate the Administrative Procedures Act.

What Does This Mean for Employers?

This ruling, and the court’s injunction, is limited to the CBA and its members. Moreover, the applicability of the court’s reasoning, other than the court’s discussion about whether the CBA had legal standing to bring the case, is limited to RFRA challenges to the PWFA regulations and EEOC Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. While the EEOC could appeal the decision, it is entirely possible the agency will not do so since the EEOC has indicated its intent to revisit the breadth of the PWFA final regulations once the EEOC regains a quorum of commissioners and the Trump Administration has directed the EEOC to rescind the Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace.

More than half-a-dozen lawsuits have been filed by private employers and a number of states challenging the EEOC’s authority to enact portions of the PWFA Final Regulations. We are continuing to monitor these developments. Please reach out to your Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions about this decision or the other pending cases challenging the PWFA final regulations or the EEOC’s Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) withdrew 11 documents providing guidance to businesses on compliance with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title III). The DOJ Guidance sets forth how the agency interprets certain issues addressed by Title III of the ADA.  Although the guidance has been withdrawn, the law remains the same. Title III requires that covered businesses must provide people with disabilities with an equal opportunity to access the goods or services that they offer.

The DOJ says the documents were withdrawn in order to “streamline” ADA compliance resources for businesses consistent with President Trump’s January 20, 2025 Executive Order “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis” . According to the DOJ’s press release, “Today’s withdrawal of 11 pieces of unnecessary and outdated guidance will aid businesses in complying with the ADA by eliminating unnecessary review and focusing only on current ADA guidance. Avoiding confusion and reducing the time spent understanding compliance may allow businesses to deliver price relief to consumers.”  

The DOJ identified the following guidance for withdrawal:

  1. COVID-19 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Can a business stop me from bringing in my service animal because of the COVID-19 pandemic? (2021)
  2. COVID-19 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Does the Department of Justice issue exemptions from mask requirements? (2021)
  3. COVID-19 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Are there resources available that help explain my rights as an employee with a disability during the COVID-19 pandemic? (2021)
  4. COVID-19 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Can a hospital or medical facility exclude all “visitors” even where, due to a patient’s disability, the patient needs help from a family member, companion, or aide in order to equally access care? (2021)
  5. COVID-19 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Does the ADA apply to outdoor restaurants (sometimes called “streateries”) or other outdoor retail spaces that have popped up since COVID-19? (2021)
  6. Expanding Your Market: Maintaining Accessible Features in Retail Establishments (2009)
  7. Expanding Your Market: Gathering Input from Customers with Disabilities (2007)
  8. Expanding Your Market: Accessible Customer Service Practices for Hotel and Lodging Guests with Disabilities (2006)
  9. Reaching out to Customers with Disabilities (2005)
  10. Americans with Disabilities Act: Assistance at Self-Serve Gas Stations (1999)
  11. Five Steps to Make New Lodging Facilities Comply with the ADA (1999)

The DOJ is also “raising awareness about tax incentives for businesses related to their compliance with the ADA” by prominently featuring a link to a 2006 publication.

The withdrawn guidance was prepared before the most recent Title III regulations went into effect in 2011 or deals with COVID-19.  We do not expect the DOJ’s withdrawal of the guidance to have significant impact on business operations. However, Jackson Lewis attorneys, including Disability Access Litigation and Compliance group are closely monitoring the rapid developments from the federal agencies that impact our clients.

If you have questions about the withdrawn guidance, your obligations under Title III or the available tax incentives, please reach out to our Disability Access Litigation and Compliance group or any other Jackson Lewis lawyer.

On Nov. 5, 2024, Missouri voters approved Proposition A, which included a new statewide paid sick leave law and an increase to the minimum wage. The paid sick leave requirement is set to go into effect on May 1, 2025, while the $13.75 per hour minimum wage took effect on Jan. 1, 2025.

On March 13, 2025, the Missouri House of Representatives passed a bill (HB 567) that, if enacted, would repeal the paid sick leave requirement and delay the minimum wage increase. However, if passed by the Senate and signed by the governor in its current form, the bill would not become effective until Aug. 28, 2025, after the paid sick leave requirement is set to take effect on May 1, 2025. The bill has now been read twice in the Senate, and a public hearing is set for March 26, 2025.

On March 12, 2025, the Missouri Supreme Court heard oral argument on the constitutionality of Proposition A.

Opponents of the law, mostly business groups, argue that:

  • The fiscal note summary to the ballot initiative did not include the costs to state and private businesses or some local governments
  • The summary statement failed to notify voters of certain elements of the paid sick leave law
  • It included two different subject matters (paid sick leave and a minimum wage increase) in violation of the Missouri Constitution.

Proponents of the law dispute that Proposition A was misleading or violated Missouri’s Constitution. They argue that overturning the law would be denying the will of the Missouri voters who voted to approve Proposition A.

The Court’s questions focused on whether it has original jurisdiction to rule on the legal challenges or whether the trial courts were the proper venue to hear the matter. A decision should be forthcoming.

Barring extraordinary relief by the Missouri legislature or the Missouri Supreme Court, employers are required to provide written notice to their employees about the paid sick time by April 15. Employers should proceed as if the paid sick leave law will take effect on May 1, 2025, and they are able to provide the required notices by April 15. In the meantime, Jackson Lewis’ attorneys will continue to monitor both legal challenges closely.

Washington expanded the covered uses and definition of a family member under Washington’s paid sick leave law effective January 1, 2025.

Under Washington’s paid sick leave law employers must provide non-exempt employees with at least one hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours the employee works. Leave accrual is not capped, which means there is no limit on the amount of paid sick leave hours an employee can accrue in one year. Employers are required to allow employees to carry over 40 unused hours each year.

Employees may use accrued paid sick leave for certain legally protected reasons, including: (1) the employee’s personal medical care; (2) to care for a family member with a mental or physical illness, injury, or health condition; (3) to care for a child when their school or place of care is closed by a public official for a health-related reason; (4) closure of the employee’s place of business for a health-related reason; or (5) for reasons under Washington’s Domestic Violence Leave Act.

The definition of who is considered an employee’s family member or child for purposes of using paid sick leave has been expanded as follows:

  • The definition of “family member” is revised to include any individual who regularly resides in the employee’s home and “who has a relationship with them that creates an expectation that they would take care of them during an illness.” Family member does not include an individual who resides in the same home with no expectation that the employee will care for the individual.  
  • “Child” now also includes the spouse of the employee’s child.
  • “Grandchild” and “grandparent” will be defined to mean the employee’s grandchild or grandparent.

 Employers are reminded to review their policies for compliance with these latest legislative updates. Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney if you have any questions about these developments.

Over a year after Minnesota’s Earned Sick and Safe Time (ESST) law went into effect in January 2024, Minnesota’s Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) recently published proposed permanent rules (the Proposed Rules) that, if adopted, will regulate the ESST law. Although the rules are not yet final, they offer insights for employers on DLI’s interpretation of the ESST law.

Certain Employees Accrue ESST When Working Outside of Minnesota

As a reminder, under the Minnesota ESST law, employees accrue one hour of ESST for every 30 hours worked, up to 48 hours annually. The Proposed Rules explain that an employee’s hours worked outside of Minnesota count towards accrual as long as the employer anticipates the employee will work more than 50% of their hours for the employer inside of Minnesota per accrual year. If the employer anticipates that the employee will work 50% or less of their hours in Minnesota during the accrual year, then only the employee’s hours worked in Minnesota will count toward accrual of ESST. If the employee begins the accrual year without the expectation of working in Minnesota for more than 50% of their work time, but the expectation of working in Minnesota increases during the year to more than 50% of worked time, then the employer must allow the employee to accrue hours beginning on the date of the change in circumstances. Under the Proposed Rules, an employee who is teleworking is considered​ to be working in the state from which they telework.

Guidance on Calculating ESST Deductions for Indeterminate Shifts

When an employee takes ESST for a shift scheduled for an indeterminate time, the ESST law does not expressly state how an employer should calculate the hours to deduct from an employee’s ESST bank. The Proposed Rules clarify that an employer can only deduct from an employee’s “accrued” ESST the hours worked by the employee who picked up the ESST-taking employee’s shift. If there is not a replacement worker for that shift, but there are similarly situated employees, then the employer can deduct: either the average hours worked by the similarly situated employees who worked the same shift or the greatest hours worked by a similarly situated employee who worked the same shift. If there is no replacement worker or any similarly situated employees, then the employer may use the hours worked by the ESST-taking employee in their most recent similar shift of an indeterminate length.

Employers Can Demand Documentation from Employees Suspected of ESST Misuse

The Proposed Rules provide guidance on an employer’s ability to address a suspected “pattern of misuse” of ESST. The Proposed Rules define a pattern of misuse for claimed unforeseeable use of ESST as an employee routinely taking ESST (1) before a weekend, vacation, or holiday; or (2) before the start of a scheduled shift for under 30 minutes. The Proposed Rules do not indicate what number of such suspected misuses qualify as “routine.” When an employer observes a pattern of misuse, the Proposed Rules allow the employer to demand reasonable documentation from the employee suspected of ESST misuse. The reasonable documentation is limited to the definition in the ESST statute.

The ESST Law Covers Other Paid Time Off Used for Qualified ESST Purposes

If a covered employer provides paid time off beyond the hours required by the ESST law to an employee for absences from work due to personal illness or injury, then under the Proposed Rules, the excess paid time off is also subject to certain requirements imposed by the ESST law when the employee uses the time off for a reason covered by the ESST law. Such requirements include but are not limited to those related to the ESST requirements on notice, documentation, and anti-retaliation.

Next Steps

The DLI has opened a second comment period on these Proposed Rules. Comments are due by April 2, 2025. We will continue to monitor these developments. In the meantime, if you have questions about Minnesota’s state-wide mandatory leave laws, local leave laws in Minnesota, or the mandatory employee leave laws around the country, please reach out to Jackson Lewis.

The Maryland Department of Labor is proposing delaying implementation of the Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI) program. Under the new recommended plan, payroll deductions would begin January 1, 2027 and benefits would become available on January 1, 2028. This proposed change will need to be approved by the General Assembly. In light of the anticipated delay, MDOL will halt any previously announced regulatory timelines for FAMLI. Read more about the potential delays here: Delays Ahead: Maryland DOL Proposes Pushing Back FAMLI Program Implementation by 18 Months.

Employers with employees in Michigan need to be aware of immediate changes to the state’s Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA). Under the amended ESTA, paid earned sick time begins to accrue as of Feb. 21, 2025.Our article, Last-Minute Changes to Michigan’s Earned Sick Time Law: What Employers Need to Know, highlights key aspects of the amended law now in effect that employers need to know to stay up to date.  

Minnesota is one of a dozen states that have enacted a statewide program providing compensation to employees during family and medical leaves. Minnesota’s law provides job protection and payment of benefits through a state-run insurance program to qualifying employees to take up to 12 weeks of leave for family and/or medical reasons (or a combined total of up to 20 weeks of leave if the employee qualifies for both types of leave in one benefit year) (“the Paid Leave Law”). The insurance program will be funded through employer and employee contributions beginning on January 1, 2026. Employees can also begin applying for compensation beginning on January 1, 2026.

Recently, the Division outlined how employers can use self-insured plans or plans from an insurance carrier to comply with the Paid Leave Law. The Division refers to insurance plans providing coverage for Minnesota’s Paid Leave law as “Equivalent Plans.”

Equivalent Plans must allow for the same, or more comprehensive, coverage than is expressly required by the Paid Leave Law. The Division details the conditions that an Equivalent Plan must meet to comply with the Paid Leave Law. As explained by the Division, employers can choose to use an Equivalent Plan to cover one leave category (family or medical) and can participate in Minnesota’s Paid Leave program to cover the other leave category (family or medical). The Minnesota Department of Commerce will begin accepting applications from employers to use Equivalent Plans “in the spring of 2025” according to the Division. The Minnesota Department of Commerce recently published a checklist  for employers to submit along with their Equivalent Plan application.

The Division is set to provide more information about Equivalent Plans soon. According to the Division, the information is likely to include a cost estimation calculator for employers and employees, and more details about the application process employers must follow to secure an approved Equivalent Plan.

Minnesota’s Paid Leave Division published final proposed rules in December, that, if adopted, will regulate the state’s Paid leave Law. We are monitoring these developments and will continue to provide updates as we approach the January 2026 rollout.

If you have questions about Minnesota’s statewide mandatory leave laws, local leave laws, or mandatory employee leave laws throughout the country, please reach out to a Jackson Lewis attorney.