California’s Assembly Bill (“AB”) 692 took effect on January 1, 2026, significantly limiting the use of commonplace “stay-or-pay” clauses in offer letters and agreements, which require employees or prospective employees to repay certain costs if their employment ends.
AB 692 underscores California’s commitment to limit the use of contractual provisions restricting or disincentivizing workforce mobility. Although the new law does not apply retroactively (essentially grandfathering in “stay-or-pay” clauses entered into before January 1, 2026), employers must audit agreements and practices, and plan for compliance to avoid significant potential liability going forward.
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.
The United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a Field Assistance Bulletin (“FAB”) on June 27, 2025, putting to bed, hopefully once and for all, the DOL’s unauthorized practice of requiring employers to pay liquidated damages in pre-litigation wage and hour matters. For years, during administrative investigations, the DOL would seek to impose, and/or threaten litigation over the imposition of, liquidated damages when it found violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Not anymore.
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.
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?
Massachusetts now joins a growing list of states and other localities with pay transparency laws.
On July 31, 2024, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey signed into law Bill H.4890. The Bill contains new pay transparency and wage reporting requirements applicable to certain employers with employees in Massachusetts. The law requires employers with 25 or more employees in the Commonwealth to disclose salary range information on job postings, and to provide pay range information to current employees in certain circumstances.
