New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law significant amendments to the New Jersey Employer Political Communication Restrictions Act (the “Act”) on September 3, 2025. These amendments, which take effect on December 2, 2025, make New Jersey one of 12 states in the nation to prohibit employers from holding captive audience meetings to discuss unionization with employees.
KEY PROVISIONS
The Act Will Prohibit Employers from Holding Mandatory Meetings on Unionization
Employers and their agents will be prohibited from requiring employees to attend meetings or participate in communications where the purpose is to convey the employer’s opinion about unionization. This restriction will apply to all employers in New Jersey, including those in both the private and public sectors.
On June 1, 2025, New Jersey’s Pay and Benefit Transparency Act (“the Act”) took effect, ushering in a new era of openness around pay and benefits for job applicants and employees. This law is part of a growing national movement toward pay transparency, but it introduces several unique requirements and has a broad reach. Employers operating in or hiring employees from New Jersey must act quickly to ensure compliance.
On May 27, 2025, Mayor Cherelle Parker signed the Protect Our Workers, Enforce Rights (“POWER”) Act into law, which expands the Philadelphia Department of Labor’s enforcement options for violations of the City’s expanding roster of worker protection laws. Under this new ordinance, which is now in effect, workers in Philadelphia have expanded protection against labor infractions; and employers face a host of new and enhanced compliance requirements.
Uncertainty for companies when making business decisions is a new norm. Tariffs aren’t going to be the only thing that is on again and off again. The same is happening with directives governing diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives. In the first two days of President Trump’s second term, he signed two DEI-related executive orders (“EOs”), EO 14151 (Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing) and EO 14173 (Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity). While they were in effect, these EOs caused widespread concern throughout the public and private sector as entities scrambled to understand the implications for their businesses. Approximately a month later, a federal judge in Maryland issued a preliminary injunction that stopped the government from implementing key provisions of the two EOs. However, the tide turned on Friday, March 14, 2025, when a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted the government’s motion to stay the injunction pending appeal. This ruling empowers the government to resume the implementation of EO 14151 and EO 14173.
While the preliminary injunction was in effect, the government was precluded from (1) terminating “equity-related” contracts and grants pursuant to EO 14151, (2) requiring that government contractors and grantees sign a DEI certification pursuant to EO 14173, and (3) bringing any False Claims Act (“FCA”) or other enforcement action premised on the DEI certification. (As we have previously explained, the certification requirement in EO 14173 is intended to deter contractor and grantee DEI-programs by invoking the specter of FCA liability.)
Now that the injunction is stayed, an emboldened government will likely move swiftly to terminate contracts and grants that it views as being “equity-related” and to require contractors and grantees to execute the DEI certification. We have previously recommended general steps that contractors and grantees can take as they navigate a rapidly changing environment in which the president signs new EOs almost daily. Below, we offer recommendations specific to the government’s renewed ability to implement the previously enjoined provisions of the DEI-related EOs.
On February 21, 2025, a federal judge in the District Court of Maryland granted a temporary injunction blocking portions of President Trump’s Executive Orders “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit Based Opportunity” (“14173”) and “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs” (“14151”) (collectively the “EOs”). To learn more about each EO’s directives read Blank Rome’s previous coverage on 14173 here and 14151 here. This is a temporary nationwide ban on certain portions of the EOs.
After pointing out that the Trump Administration has declared “DEI to be henceforth illegal”, the Court found the EOs do not “define any of the operative terms” such as “illegal DEI”, “equity-related”, “promoting DEI”, or “illegal discrimination or preferences”. This vagueness fails to provide companies and organizations with proper notice as to what types of programs are prohibited. Further, the Court found that the EOs likely violate the First Amendment by expressly threatening “the expression of views supportive of equity, diversity and inclusion.” This is a nationwide ban.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development recently published FAQs that provide guidance on the Commonwealth’s new Salary Range Transparency Act (“the Act”). The Act requires employers with 100 or more employees at any time during the prior calendar year to submit their Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”)-1 reports to the Commonwealth by February 1 of each year. The FAQs include information for employers on their reporting requirements under the Act. Individual data will not be made public; only aggregated data will be published.
Key Takeaways and Clarifications from the FAQs:
Employers need not create new reports or make changes to their existing EEO-1 report. Employers may “file the same copy of the EEO report you filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).” Employers have the option, however, to customize a report reflecting the required data for only Massachusetts-based employees.
Employers are not required to submit W-2 income earnings data by race/ethnicity, sex, and job category to the Commonwealth, since pay data is not part of the current EEOC reporting requirements.
The initial EEO-1 report is due by February 1, 2025, and annually on the same date thereafter. Since February 1 falls on a Saturday this year, reports will be accepted until Monday, February 3, 2025. The other EEO reports are due by the same deadline but on a biennial basis: EEO-3 and EEO-5 this year (2025), and EEO-4 next year (2026).
Employers must submit the report in PDF, JPG, or PNG format to the Secretary of State’s office through the web portal. The web portal for filing the EEO-1 reports is live, and can be accessed here.
In addition to the February deadline for wage data reporting, the Act also requires Massachusetts employers to disclose salary ranges for most employment postings by October 29, 2025. We expect the Commonwealth to release additional guidance for employers on the pay disclosure requirements. In the meantime, more general information on the upcoming requirements can be found in our recent Workplace blog post: Massachusetts Governor Signs Pay Transparency Law – Blank Rome Workplace.
As reported in all forms of media, the Trump administration has launched a nationwide blitz of immigration enforcement that is not likely to abate in the short term. Raids, which the administration has characterized as focused on detaining and deporting those who pose a threat to public safety and national security, have been conducted in New York City, Chicago, Newark, New Jersey, the suburbs of Atlanta, Boston, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Austin and San Antonio, Texas, among other places. More than 2,000 arrests have been reported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), with close to 1,000 detainers (a request that a law enforcement agency hold an inmate for another agency) lodged since this past weekend. Significantly, while immigration enforcement was typically handled almost exclusively by ICE, the recent raids have seen participation by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as well as the U.S. Marshals Service.
In another development, ICE has reversed a policy in place during the Biden administration and now permits its agents to raid “sensitive locations” including schools, hospitals, and churches, leading the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to condemn the new policy as “contrary to the common good” and to declare that it would “turn places of care, healing, and solace into places of fear and uncertainty for those in need, while undermining the trust between pastors, providers, educators, and the people they serve,” and “will not make our communities safer.”
It is inevitable that the administration’s focus on securing the borders and preserving employment opportunities for individuals who are lawfully authorized to work in the country will spill over to the workplace, especially in industries that traditionally employ significant numbers of immigrant workers. We anticipate that there will be enhanced enforcement of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”), with emphasis on audits of I-9 forms and removal of undocumented individuals from the workplace. Enforcement actions focusing on the employment relationship can take the form of scheduled document (I-9) audits, which are preceded by receipt of a Notice of Inspection that gives the employer three business days to provide requested documents, as well as unscheduled workplace raids. The remainder of this alert will provide guidance to employers when an agent of ICE, or other law enforcement personnel, show up at a worksite seeking documents or access to the entity’s workers.
WHAT TO DO BEFORE IMMIGRATION AGENTS SHOW UP AT YOUR DOOR
There are certain action items all employers should take now in anticipation of a visit from ICE or Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). They include:
Appoint a person with authority to be the primary contact in the event of a visit by ICE/CBP or other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies and conduct necessary training to ensure the point person is prepared to:
Review warrants,
Contact counsel for advice, and
Monitor agents while they are on site and document what occurs during the visit.
Perform an internal audit of I-9s and other documents that an agent may request to review.
Confirm you have I-9s for all current employees and those who recently have been terminated from employment (and ensure that they have been properly completed and that the forms, as well as any documents that the employee presented in support of their I-9 declarations and maintained by the employer, are stored apart from personnel files), destroying those forms that the employer is no longer required to maintain;
Make sure you have a list that contains the names of all current employees and should have access to payroll records as well as quarterly wage and hour reports;
To the extent you use E-Verify, have confirmations available.
Consider utilizing E-Verify, a web-based system that allows enrolled employers to confirm the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States, for all new hires.
If you utilize contractors, leased workers, or temporary employees, review your vendor contract to ensure the requisite safeguards are in place confirming service providers are legally authorized to work in the United States.
To the extent you have a question about an employee’s immigration status, do not panic or jump to conclusions. Have a conversation with the employee and come up with a plan of action.
IF YOU RECEIVE A NOTICE OF INSPECTION (BY CERTIFIED MAIL OR DELIVERED IN PERSON)
Review the Notice of Inspection to identify what documents are being requested and share with counsel to review what needs to be produced. Don’t panic.
Gather the documents requested in the Notice within the three-business day window and do not plan to offer any additional documents or information other than those required for inspection; do not waive your right to the three-day waiting period.
Make copies of all documents being made available for inspection, as the ICE agent will want to review originals.
Make a record of all documents that are provided to the agent for inspection.
Make notes of any alleged noncompliance raised by the agent during the inspection and do not make any untruthful statements about the company’s immigration policies or I-9 collection processes.
Review any identified compliance issues with counsel.
IF AN ICE AGENT OR AGENT OF ANOTHER FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHOWS UP AT YOUR DOOR
Demand to see a judicially issued warrant permitting a search. If there is none, then you can refuse ICE/CBP entry into your workplace.
If there is a warrant, then review it with counsel to ensure it is valid. This includes checking that it is signed by a judge or magistrate, has the correct address for the workplace to be searched, provides a duration for the search, and describes the scope of the search.
There are different types of warrants or subpoenas that might come into play, including:
A judicial warrant, which allows ICE/CBP to conduct any search as authorized by the warrant. You must comply with a valid judicial warrant.
An administrative warrant, which allows ICE/CBP to conduct an arrest or seizure. Administrative warrants do not authorize searches and therefore you do not need to permit a search in this instance.
A judicial subpoena, which allows an enforcement agency to request information and/or documents from third parties, like you the employer. Unless you have a legitimate basis to oppose the subpoena, you should generally comply with it.
An administrative subpoena, which similarly allows ICE/CBP to request information and/or documents from third parties, like you the employer. You do not need to comply with an administrative subpoena, penalties may occur only after the issuer takes additional steps to enforce the subpoena in federal court.
If the judicial warrant is valid, you should comply with the request for inspection.
During the inspection, you should watch the agent the entire time.
Document everything:
Record the names and ID numbers of all agents, and
Memorialize any conversations with agents.
If any employee is arrested, ask the agent where the employee is being taken.
The Administration’s emphasis on enforcement of immigration laws can be costly for employers, since fines and penalties for I-9 noncompliance are significant, and the disruption of work caused by removal of employees from the workforce can be devastating. Attorneys in the Labor & Employment practice group at Blank Rome are prepared to assist as issues arise.
It is nearly impossible to think about the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) without thinking about the chaos caused by the non-compete ban it approved last year over vociferous dissent only to have the ban vacated and set aside nationwide by the Northern District of Texas. Curiosity remains about what the impact of the change in administration will have on the FTC’s approach to this issue of paramount importance to employers. But with President Trump’s appointment of Andrew Ferguson to lead the FTC, what follows is some insight on the current state of play and the FTC’s probable mindset.
Where We Were Last Year
As a recap, the FTC’s “Final Rule” announced on April 23, 2024, would have banned nearly all non-compete provisions and provisions functioning as non-competes (in the FTC’s view). That Final Rule, which was set to go into effect on September 4, 2024 (the “Effective Date”), would have impacted not only traditional restrictive covenant agreements with employees and contractors but likely also agreements with employee equity holders as well as claw-back and repayment agreements with employees presented with signing bonuses or training and education opportunities.
As expected, businesses and trade organizations swiftly challenged the Final Rule, with lawsuits filed against the FTC in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Texas seeking to set aside the Final Rule: a lawsuit brought by a tree-service company, ATS Tree Services, LLC in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; a lawsuit brought by the Properties of Villages Inc.in the Middle District of Florida, and lawsuits brought by tax-advisory firm Ryan, LLC and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the Northern and Eastern Districts of Texas, respectively. The lawsuits yielded distinct outcomes. The Texas court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the Final Rule as to the plaintiff only, pending a final ruling on the merits. The Pennsylvania court upheld the Final Rule. The Florida court preliminarily enjoined the Final Rule as to the plaintiff only, on similar but not identical grounds to the Texas court, even while accepting some of the Pennsylvania court’s analysis.
The limited holdings and contradictory outcomes made the chaos sewn by the FTC even worse in the weeks leading up to the Effective Date. Ultimately, the Texas court provided clarity, issuing its final ruling on the merits and vacating and setting aside the Final Rule nationwide holding that its issuance was outside FTC’s authority granted by Congress and that the Final Rule was otherwise arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The FTC has appealed both the Florida and Texas rulings, and the plaintiff in the Pennsylvania ruling voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit after the Texas court ruling.
On January 21, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order (“EO”) titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” explicitly revoking Executive Order 11246, which mandated federal contractors comply with certain diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) related requirements, including the dissemination and enforcement of nondiscriminatory policies, establishing a written affirmative action plan and placement goals for women and minorities, and implementing action-oriented programs for accomplishing these goals.
Salary threshold. . .$35,568.00. . .the Eastern District of Texas. . .not the classic answers you expect to hear from your loved ones around the Thanksgiving table when you ask, “Hey guys, what are you most thankful for?” While family, friends, food, and a roof over your head are all great, the fact that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas shot down the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) attempt at increasing the overtime salary threshold to $58,656.00 is right up there for employers.
The DOL’s Not-So-Final “Final Rule”
Back on April 23, 2024, the DOL announced their “final rule,” which entailed a multi-phase increase of the “white-collar exemption” (the executive, administrative, and professional employees (“EAP”)) salary threshold from $35,568.00 to $43,888.00, starting on July 1, 2024, and then up to $58,656.00, starting on January 1, 2025 (with increases automatically occurring every three years thereafter). Notably absent were any changes to the DOL’s “duties” test, which must be analyzed in conjunction with a salary when determining whether an EAP employee is exempt from overtime. At the time of its announcement, the DOL projected their final rule would make four million workers newly eligible for overtime payments and cost employers nationwide roughly $1.4 billion in the first year alone. Being thankful for a $35,568.00 threshold is looking more and more understandable now, isn’t it?
