A federal judge has blocked a recent effort by the Trump administration to roll back Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 600,000 Venezuelan immigrants living in the United States. The ruling preserves the protections currently in place, allowing beneficiaries to remain in the country without immediate risk of deportation.

TPS was originally extended to Venezuelans due to the ongoing political and economic crisis in their home country. The program allows individuals from designated nations to live and work legally in the U.S. if returning to their home country would pose a threat to their safety.

The court’s decision emphasized the potential hardship that could result if protections were removed, particularly given Venezuela’s continued instability. While the administration had sought to narrow the program, the judge found that doing so at this time would be premature and potentially harmful to those affected.

Immigrant advocacy groups have responded positively to the ruling, citing the importance of maintaining humanitarian protections. The decision adds to the broader legal and political conversation surrounding U.S. immigration policy, particularly in how it addresses individuals fleeing crisis situations abroad.

Those currently protected under TPS are encouraged to monitor official updates and consult with legal professionals to stay informed about any future developments.

If you have any questions regarding TPS, please feel free to contact Forework.

In recent years, employers have encountered evolving federal and state requirements related to discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace. These developments arise from changes in agency guidance, such as the EEOC’s revised stance on sexual harassment, new legislation expanding protected classes, and shifting judicial standards that lower the threshold for proving harm in employment discrimination cases.

A critical component of any effective response to a complaint is a properly conducted workplace investigation. Investigations serve to gather relevant facts from the complainant, the accused, and any witnesses, and to review documentation and other evidence so that employers can take appropriate corrective action when necessary.

Key Considerations for Workplace Investigations

• Tailor the investigation to the situation: There is no one-size-fits-all approach. The scope and formality of an investigation should reflect the seriousness of the complaint. While some cases may call for formal interviews or external counsel, others may be addressed with a more streamlined approach. At a minimum, investigations should include interviews with both the complainant and the alleged wrongdoer and should be thoroughly documented.
• Investigate informal complaints: Employers should not wait for a formal, written complaint. An investigation should be initiated when an employee makes a verbal or informal report suggesting a potential policy or legal violation.
• Consider external investigators when appropriate: While internal HR personnel often conduct investigations, the use of external, impartial investigators may be preferable in certain scenarios, such as serious allegations, potential litigation, or when termination of employment may be a potential outcome.
• Remote interviews are acceptable: Interviews may be conducted in person or via video conferencing, especially when logistics or costs make in-person meetings impractical. Video interviews are generally preferred over phone calls for better assessment of witness credibility. Oral interviews, supported by thorough documentation, may be more effective than requiring written witness statements.
• Preserve evidence early: Depending on the nature of the allegations and the likelihood of litigation, employers should consider issuing evidence preservation notices to relevant parties. These can be formal written letters or informal verbal instructions, reminding individuals not to delete potentially relevant records or communications.
• Communicate investigation outcomes thoughtfully: While confidentiality is important, employers should generally inform both the complainant and the alleged wrongdoer of the outcome, i.e., whether a policy violation was substantiated. Details of disciplinary action, however, need not be disclosed. Employers should also take steps to prevent retaliation and consider following up periodically with the complainant to monitor for ongoing issues.
• Invest in training and prevention: Proactive employers are better positioned to manage workplace complaints. Organizations should implement clear reporting procedures and train employees on policies related to harassment, discrimination, and workplace conduct.

By taking a thoughtful and flexible approach to investigations, as well as documenting each step, employers can respond effectively to complaints, reduce legal risk, and foster a respectful workplace environment.

If you have any questions regarding workplace investigations, please feel free to Forework.

In recent weeks, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have announced the formation of new task forces, both public and private, aimed at identifying and eliminating practices that restrict competition. These initiatives reflect heightened federal attention to labor market fairness and regulatory reform under the Biden and Trump administrations, respectively.

DOJ: Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force

On March 27, 2025, the DOJ unveiled its Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force, which will focus on eliminating state and federal laws that suppress free-market competition.

Key initiatives include:

• Public engagement: The DOJ is soliciting public comments through May 26, 2025, on laws and regulations that hinder competition in key sectors, including:
  • Housing
  • Transportation
  • Food and agriculture
  • Healthcare
  • Energy
• Interagency collaboration: The DOJ will partner with federal and state agencies to identify and repeal regulations that restrict competition.
• Advocacy efforts: The DOJ will support deregulation through legal briefs, public comments on legislation, and litigation support.

These efforts align with President Trump’s Executive Orders 14192 and 14219, which direct federal agencies to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and promote small business growth.

FTC: Joint Labor Task Force

On February 26, 2025, FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson announced the formation of a Joint Labor Task Force to investigate and address unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive practices in labor markets.

The task force will:

• Prioritize investigations and enforcement actions targeting:
  • Noncompete and non-solicitation agreements
  • No-poach or no-hire agreements
  • Wage-fixing and labor monopsonies
  • Deceptive job advertising and business opportunities
  • Occupational licensing barriers and job scams
• Coordinate internally across FTC bureaus to share best practices and enhance enforcement.
• Promote research on harmful labor practices and advocate for policy reforms.
• Conduct outreach to educate workers and encourage reporting of violations.

This initiative builds on previous FTC enforcement priorities and reinforces the agency’s continued focus on labor market competition, despite shifts in broader regulatory policy.

Looking Ahead

While the DOJ and FTC are approaching competition enforcement from different angles, both initiatives signal an aggressive posture toward removing structural barriers to market entry and worker mobility. Employers and industry participants should monitor these developments and assess potential compliance risks under evolving federal enforcement strategies.

If you have any questions regarding these newly established task forces, please feel free to reach out to Forework.

Generally speaking, public accommodations must allow service animals accompanying individuals with disabilities onto their premises.  A recent Florida federal court’s decision provides insight on how to handle a situation where allowing service animals places others with severe allergies at risk.

In the Florida federal court case, the plaintiff had a service dog which was trained to perform tasks to alert plaintiff to, and mitigate, self-harming behavior caused by post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), anxiety, and bipolar disorder. The plaintiff brought the service dog to an appointment with a new doctor who, upon seeing the dog, informed her employee that she was severely allergic to dogs and could not see the plaintiff with the dog.  The employee then informed the plaintiff of possible modifications to her visit with the doctor, explaining that the plaintiff could either see the doctor while the service dog waited outside, or she could see a different doctor.   The plaintiff then accused the medical practice of violating the ADA.

In analyzing the facts of the case and the law, the court noted the Department of Justice’s guidance that “allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals” and “when a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.”  However, the court held that “despite this rule, a service animal may nonetheless be excluded if it poses a direct threat to the health and safety of persons providing or receiving services from an accommodation.”  Per the court, the medical practice had properly conducted “an individualized assessment” of the direct threat to the doctor and considered “reasonable modifications” to mitigate those risks, and its conclusion was objectively reasonable.  The court emphasized that the regulation (28 C.F.R. § 36.208(b)) requires only a “reasonable judgment,” not a perfect one.  

Employers should ensure that they have practices in place to ensure that assessment of a situation posing a direct threat to someone else as a public accommodation aligns with the court’s reasonableness test, and that accommodations are made while simultaneously mitigating the risk to the health and safety of others.  If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact Forework.

On March 25, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District vacated the Northern District of New York’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Whitehall Central School District (the “District”) on a failure-to-accommodate claim brought by a teacher in the District under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  In reversing the lower court’s decision, the court held that the ADA does not require employers to provide only necessary accommodations and that a reasonable accommodation may be required even when the employee can perform the essential functions of their job without the accommodation.  Accordingly, employers cannot simply deny an individual an accommodation just because an employee can perform their job without it; instead, employers must consider the overall reasonableness of the accommodation and whether it will cause an undue hardship on the employer to provide the accommodation.

In Tudor, a teacher sued the District for failing to provide an accommodation in the form of a 15-minute break off campus during her scheduled prep period.  The teacher had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) related to sexual harassment and sexual assault by a supervisor in her former workplace which affected her neurological functioning and interfered with her ability to perform daily tasks, among other things.  The District had previously provided accommodations to the teacher, allowing her to leave campus for one fifteen-minute break during certain periods in the morning and afternoon when she was not responsible for overseeing students.  However, following a change in school administration, the District implemented a prohibition on teachers leaving school grounds during the day.  

Initially, the District still allowed the teacher to take breaks when another staff member could supervise the students, but when another staff member was generally unavailable to cover for the teacher, the teacher still left, knowing that taking breaks in this way violated the District’s policy.  The teacher claimed that this awareness heightened her anxiety but admitted that she could still perform the essential functions of her job without the accommodation.  This admission led the district court to grant summary judgment in favor of the District, holding that the teacher’s ability to perform her job without an accommodation meant that she could not establish the District had failed to provide her with one.

The Second Circuit reversed on the basis of the third element required for the teacher’s failure-to-accommodate claim, i.e., whether the employee was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of their job, with or without reasonable accommodation.  The court found that the ADA does not require employers to provide only necessary accommodations and instead requires employers to offer reasonable accommodations to all qualified individuals even if an employee can perform the essential functions of their job with or without the accommodation.  The court explained than an employee may qualify for an accommodation even if it is not strictly necessary to their performance of the essential job functions and thus, absent undue hardship on the employer, reasonable accommodations must be offered.  This holding is in line with the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Tenth, Eleventh and DC Circuits.

Employers in New York, Connecticut and Vermont should review their process for evaluating employee accommodations requests under the ADA and ensure compliance with the Second Circuit’s decision.  If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact Forework.garding employee performance evaluations, please feel free to contact any member of Forework.   

Performance evaluations are a crucial component of effective management, serving as a tool for both employee development and legal protection. This article describes key aspects of performance evaluations, including their importance, best practices, legal considerations, and the evolving role of AI in the process.

Importance of Performance Evaluations

Performance evaluations help set expectations, provide constructive feedback, and ensure employees understand how their work aligns with company objectives. One common pitfall is the reluctance to provide honest feedback, especially when it is negative. Avoiding critical feedback can lead to confusion when employment decisions, such as layoffs or terminations, arise. Employees who have only received positive feedback may question the reasons behind their dismissal, potentially leading to legal claims.

Creating a Consistent and Interactive Evaluation Process

A well-structured evaluation process should be both consistent and interactive. Employers should establish clear, standardized criteria for evaluating employees to ensure fairness and uniformity across teams. Training managers on these standards can help eliminate inconsistencies.

Engaging employees in the process is equally important. Encouraging a two-way dialogue allows managers to identify miscommunications, clarify expectations, and foster a more collaborative work environment. Employees who feel heard are more likely to accept constructive criticism and improve their performance.

The Role of AI in Performance Reviews

While AI can assist in gathering and analyzing performance data, it lacks the nuance required for meaningful evaluations. Performance assessments should be dynamic, considering changing business needs and individual progress. Relying solely on AI-generated evaluations can lead to impersonal and potentially flawed assessments. Instead, AI should be used as a supplementary tool rather than a replacement for human judgment.

Legal Considerations and Implications

Performance evaluations play a significant role in defending against employment-related claims. In legal disputes, past evaluations serve as key evidence demonstrating an employer’s rationale for personnel decisions. If performance issues were never documented, employees may argue that termination or other adverse actions were based on discrimination or retaliation rather than legitimate business reasons.

To mitigate legal risks, employers should ensure performance evaluations accurately reflect an employee’s strengths and areas for improvement. Specific examples should be included to substantiate assessments and create a clear record of performance trends over time.

Best Practices for Delivering Constructive Feedback

While providing constructive feedback can be challenging, it is essential for employee growth and business success. Managers should focus on delivering feedback in a supportive, objective, and balanced manner. Highlighting strengths alongside areas for improvement can make critiques more palatable.

Additionally, offering resources and support, such as training programs or mentorship, can help employees address performance gaps. When employees feel that their employer is invested in their success, they are more likely to respond positively to feedback.

Key Takeaways for Employers

• Be Honest and Direct: Avoid sugarcoating performance issues in order to prevent future misunderstandings.
• Ensure Consistency: Use standardized criteria and train managers to apply them uniformly.
• Engage Employees: Encourage open discussions and solicit employee input during evaluations.
• Document Thoroughly: Maintain accurate records of performance assessments to support employment decisions.
• Balance Feedback: Combine positive reinforcement with constructive criticism to foster growth.

A well-executed performance evaluation process benefits both employers and employees by promoting transparency, improving productivity, and mitigating legal risks. By incorporating these best practices, organizations can create a fair and effective system that supports long-term success.

If you have any questions regarding employee performance evaluations, please feel free to contact any member of Forework.   

On November 15, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in State of Texas v. United States Dep’t of Labor held that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) exceeded its rulemaking authority when it released its updated federal overtime rule in April 2024 increasing the minimum salary for exemption as an executive, administrative, or professional (“EAP”) employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act from $684 per week ($35,568 annualized) to $844 per week ($43,888 annualized) effective July 1, 2024 and to $1,128 per week ($58,656 annualized) effective January 1, 2025.  The DOL’s new rule also increased the minimum total annual compensation level for exemption as a “highly compensated employee” (i.e., one who customarily and regularly performs any one or more of the exempt duties or responsibilities of an EAP employee) and provided for automatic triennial increases in the minimum compensation levels for exemption beginning on July 1, 2027.

The Court’s November 2024 decision declared the DOL’s rule an “unlawful exercise of agency power” and vacated it nationally.  The DOL filed an appeal with the United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  However, after President Trump took office, the DOL requested a 30-day extension of time, through March 7, 2025, to file its opening brief on appeal.  We do not anticipate that the DOL will make future filings under the Trump administration challenging the DOL’s authority; perhaps at most there will be a stipulation withdrawing the DOL’s appeal.

Beginning July 1, 2027, and every three years thereafter, the DOL will implement further increases in the minimum salary for exemption as an EAP employee and the minimum annual compensation level for exemption as a highly compensated employee, tied to current earnings data. Employers should determine which employees will be impacted by the new thresholds, consider whether they will increase their salaries to the new minimum or reclassify them to overtime-eligible, and if they do reclassify certain employees to overtime-eligible, consider their supervisor’s management of the overtime costs and have a clear understanding of what hours are considered “hours worked”. If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact your Forework HR representative.

Employers should ensure compliance with all relevant provisions of the New Jersey Domestic Workers Bill of Rights (“NJ Bill of Rights”) which went into effect on July 1, 2024, and outlines the rights of domestic workers employed in private households.  Specifically, the NJ Bill of Rights provides protections for, and establishes guidelines related to, the hiring of hourly or salaried individuals who work in a residence to provide services such as childcare, care for the elderly or disabled, housekeeping, cooking, food service, parking cars, cleaning, laundry, gardening, personal organizing, or other household duties. 

A domestic worker is an hourly or salaried employee, whether full-time, part-time, or temporary, who works in a residence to provide services such as childcare, care for the elderly or disabled, housekeeping, cooking, food service, parking cars, cleaning, laundry, gardening, personal organizing, or other household duties.  Note that the term domestic worker explicitly excludes several categories, including: (1) family members; (2) individuals primarily engaged in house sitting, pet sitting, or dog walking; (3) individuals working at a business primarily run from the residence, such as a home day-care business; (4) individuals who primarily work in household repair or maintenance such as roofers, plumbers, or painters; (5) employees of the state or federal government; and (6) kinship legal guardians.

Under the NJ Bill of Rights, employees are entitled to regular pay of at least the state minimum wage.  If an employee works over 40 hours per week, that employee is entitled to 1.5 times his/her hourly rate for those hours.  Employers must provide up to 40 hours of earned sick leave for employees to care for themselves or loved ones.  Additionally, employers must provide their employees with 10-minute paid breaks every four hours and cannot prevent or discourage employees from taking rest breaks, and the employees are entitled to a 30-minute meal break after more than five hours worked consecutively.  Employers should not—and cannot, under the law—keep original copies of any personal documents belonging to their employees.  At all relevant items, employers must have Workers’ Compensation insurance for their employees, and employees are entitled to at least two weeks’ notice before any termination of employment.

Employers should ensure the proper classification of each employee; if an employee is misclassified as an independent contractor but is actually an employee, or if they are compensated in cash off the books, that worker is still entitled to his/her rights under the New Jersey Domestic Workers Bill of Rights.  Under New Jersey law, a worker is presumed an employee unless the employer is able to adequately demonstrate that the worker is free from control or direction over the performance of service; that the service provided by the worker is either outside the usual course of the business for which the service is performed or is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise; and that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.

Under the NJ Bill of Rights, employers of domestic workers working five or more hours per month must execute written contracts with their employees; this includes domestic workers such as babysitters and/or nannies who commonly have had informal arrangements with private households, but under the law, will have executed written contracts.  Employers are responsible for creating the contracts and cannot retaliate against their employees for requesting a contract.  To that end, under the law, workers are also protected under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which prohibits discrimination and harassment in employment, housing, and public accommodations based on various characteristics, including race, nationality, and gender.

To comply with the NJ Bill of Rights, employers should ensure that they are aware of each of the requirements under the law; ensure accurate classification of employees versus independent contractors; have a standard written contract in place for domestic workers with the terms of employment, hours of work, compensation, and responsibilities; ensure recordkeeping of hours worked and wages paid, including any other benefits provided to the employee; provide worker’s compensation coverage and comply with all applicable occupational health and safety standards.  If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact your Forework HR representative.

The cost of doing business includes the risk of getting sued by a former employee, whether it be for wrongful termination, discrimination, breach of contract, or unpaid wages, and employers must be prepared.

An employer may first become aware of a lawsuit filed by a former employee when the company receives a demand letter, which is typically from the former employee’s attorney and asserts legal claims that it believes the former employee has against the company and outlines certain demands that the former employee has before they actually proceed to filing a lawsuit.  Or, a former employee may decide to go straight to litigation, and the company may therefore be served with a formal legal complaint.  In either case, employers must ensure that they do not delay their response.

First and foremost, legal counsel should be contacted as soon as possible to discuss what immediate action is required and to ensure that no key deadlines are missed.  For instance, demand letters often indicate a timeline in which they are seeking a response, and if no response is provided, then the former employee will file a formal lawsuit.  In this case, the employer who fails to respond timely misses the opportunity to negotiate a settlement with the former employee and therefore faces the risk of incurring expensive litigation costs that may have been avoided.  Formal lawsuits filed, regardless of the court, operate on strict timelines.  For examples, employers who are served with a lawsuit filed by a former employee in a United States federal court must file a response to the complaint within 21 days.  If this deadline is missed, there may be a judgment against the company for failure to respond timely.

Other immediate action that will likely be required of the employer is a review of any relevant insurance policies, agreements that the former employee entered into with the company, and document retention.  For instance, many businesses carry insurance policies for former employee claims, such as a employment practices liability insurance (EPLI) coverage that can provide payment or reimbursement of legal fees, judgments and settlements.  It is imperative that employers contact their insurance broker or carriers immediately to ensure they are aware and knowledgeable of their coverage ranging from which attorneys can represent the business, what claims are covered, what the deductibles are and the coverage levels.

Employers should also check all agreements, specifically, any arbitration agreements, that the former employee signed with the company that requires employment claims to be handled through arbitration instead of through the court system.  Arbitration differs from litigation in significant respects, so it is imperative to determine whether the dispute should be arbitrated. Employers should ensure that all agreements are forwarded to their legal counsel for review and to discuss the legal implications and next steps to be taken.  Keep in mind that sometimes, arbitration agreements, or agreements that have arbitration clause, are signed as part of employee’s onboarding paperwork. 

Employers must also ensure that they and their organization have an obligation to preserve all evidence, whether physical or electronic (including evidence on messaging apps like Zoom, Teams, Slack, etc.) and that they do not delete any evidence that may be relevant to a former employee’s claim.  This obligation exists if the business has received a demand letter or has been served with a formal complaint.  The obligation to preserve evidence includes taking care not to wipe out an ex-employee’s returned company property, such as their laptop and mobile phone, and employers may need to immediately suspend automatic document destruction or deletion procedures to ensure that any potentially responsive documents are not deleted.  Employers must consider all places where relevant documents may reside, including with particular people and on any relevant company systems.  Contacting legal counsel immediately will allow a business to develop a plan for document preservation.

Finally, to prepare for initial conversations with attorneys and insurance carriers, employers should ensure that they have compiled the former employee’s personnel file, including the employee’s offer letter, job description, payroll records, any disciplinary records, performance evaluations and supporting documentation, and any agreements signed by the employee.  Employers should also have their employee handbook that was in effect during the former employee’s employment period readily accessible as well as any other relevant policies or procedures.  Employers should also assess who within the company have information relating to the allegations, whether it be the former employee’s supervisor or any other decision-makers that may have been involved in any adverse employment action alleged by the former employee.

Getting sued by a former employee can be stressful, but legal counsel is always there to assist you through the process.  If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact your Forework HR representative.

Employers should ensure that their employees are well versed in security awareness and that the proper training is provided to them to protect the privacy and security of the company’s sensitive data.  Not only is this a best practice for employers and their employees, but it can also ensure compliance with the numerous data privacy and cybersecurity laws that mandate employee data protection training.

One such mandate is under HIPAA whereby covered entities or business associates are required to provide HIPAA privacy training as well as security awareness training to all workforce members.  Note that this training requirement may apply to employers in their role as a plan sponsor of a self-insured health plan.

Another mandate falls under the New York Department of Financial Services’ cybersecurity requirement for financial services companies whereby covered entities are required to provide cybersecurity personnel with cybersecurity updates and sufficient training to address relevant cybersecurity risks.  Similarly, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information Rule requires covered financial institutions to implement a written information security program to safeguard non-public information, and the program must include employee security awareness training.  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) expanded the definition of financial institutions in 2023 to include additional industries such as automotive dealerships and retailers that process financial transactions.

Most recently, effective February 2, 2025, the EU AI Act requires all providers and deployers of AI models or systems to ensure their workforce is “AI literate”.  This means training the employer’s workforce to achieve a sufficient level of AI literacy, taking into consideration various factors such as the intended use of the AI system.  The training should incorporate privacy and security awareness given the potential risks.  Note that the Act applies broadly and has extraterritorial reach and therefore this training obligation may apply to organizations including but not limited to: (a) providers placing on the market or putting into service AI systems or placing on the market general-purpose AI models in the Union, irrespective of whether those providers are established or located within the Union or in a third country (e.g., U.S.); (b) deployers of AI systems that have their place of establishment or are located within the Union; and (c) providers and deployers of AI systems that have their place of establishment or are located in a third country (e.g., U.S.), where the output produced by the AI system is used in the Union.  Additionally, under the EU General Data Protection Regulation, a Data Protection Officer is tasked with, among other things, training staff involved in the organization’s data processing activities.

Employers should also be aware of other security awareness training obligations in numerous other laws and regulations, whether express or implied.  This includes certain Department of Homeland Security contractors, licensees under state insurance laws modelled on the NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law, and organizations that process payments via credit cards in accordance with PCI DSS.

Providing training on employee privacy and security is imperative to safeguard an organization’s sensitive data.  All workforce members that have access to the organization’s sensitive data and information systems—not just the IT professionals—are responsible for protecting data.  Employers should ensure that they, along with their stakeholders and HR professionals, are aware of and are providing support for such training to its workforce.  If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact your Forework HR representative.