What next for Diversity and Inclusion initiatives in Financial Services? (UK)

By David Whincup and Laura Nelson on March 25, 2025 Posted in Diversity Equity and Inclusion

As was widely reported in the press, the FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority both recently issued announcements (FCA announcement / PRA announcement), the contents of which are variously being reported as “a retreat from efforts to help under-represented groups” (as per the Guardian) and, by contrast, a welcome “response to criticism that [the proposed new rules on D&I] would add an onerous reporting burden for firms and create overlap with government proposals to legislate in this area” (as per the Financial Times).

So is the FCA abandoning its D&I efforts, reducing the heat under them, or simply aligning its efforts with Prime Minister Starmer’s aims of reducing regulatory burdens and boosting economic growth?

Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eye of the beholder, or something like that (please excuse the potentially messy mixed metaphor), so to assist in sorting fact from fiction, here is our high-level summary of what has been announced and what it means, probably.

EEOC and DOJ Shed Light On What Constitutes “Illegal DEI” (US)

By Layla Khalid on March 20, 2025 Posted in Discrimination, Diversity Equity and Inclusion, EEOC

The Trump Administration’s recent targeting of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) initiatives in the workplace has left many employers both in the public and private sectors with uncertainty and unease regarding the scope of executive orders prohibiting “illegal DEI” and how they impact their diversity programming. Although the term “illegal DEI” has been discussed at length by the Trump Administration, it had remained undefined until March 19, 2025. On that date, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) jointly released guidance on how DEI initiatives can constitute unlawful discrimination under Title VII and the protections and recourse available to employees. The EEOC and DOJ released a joint one-page technical assistance document titled “What to Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work.” The EEOC also released a longer question-and-answer technical assistance document – “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work.” These guidance documents are aimed at helping employees know their rights and helping employers take action to avoid conduct that is now considered unlawful DEI-related discrimination by those agencies responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination legislation.

UK Home Office Announces New Visa and Sponsorship Fees Effective April 2025

By Carine Elliott on March 20, 2025 Posted in Immigration, Visa

On 19 March, the UK Home Office announced increases to visa and sponsorship fees to take effect from 9 April. There are increases for most fees listed which will impact almost everyone including Skilled Worker visa holders, sponsors, and those applying for settlement and citizenship. The increases range from as little as £8.50 (which leads one to wonder why bother, frankly? – the admin attached to that change must surely swallow all or most of the increased revenues) to a staggering £286. We have summarised the key changes in this post.

New York’s “No Severance Ultimatums Act” Sets a New Minimum Standard for Severance Agreements, Expanding Protections for New York Employees (US)

By Lauren Herz on March 17, 2025 Posted in Employment Agreements, Employment Law, New York, Severance

On March 4, 2025, the New York state Senate passed S.372, the “No Severance Ultimatums Act” a first of its kind legislation which, if enacted, will require New York employers to:

provide a minimum 21 business days for employees to review severance agreements (which is waivable by the employee), and a nonwaivable seven-day revocation period after signing, and
notify employees of their right to consult with an attorney before signing the agreement

These protections will apply to all severance agreements except those covered by collective bargaining agreements. This bill has now moved to the New York State Assembly (A.6480).

Difference from Existing Law

Under existing federal law, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) mandates that employers seeking a release of claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) for employees ages 40 years or older must provide 21 days to review the agreement (or 45 days for group layoffs), and a seven (7) day nonwaivable revocation period after signing.

The No Severance Ultimatums Act will expand these protections to all New York employees regardless of age and to all severance agreements, seeking waiver of all claims, not just age discrimination claims.

The law aligns with a broader push for greater transparency and fairness in employment agreements, similar to recent trends limiting nondisclosure agreements in workplace settlements. It seeks to prevent employees from feeling pressured into quickly signing severance agreements and to ensure employees have sufficient time to understand their rights, consult legal counsel and reconsider their decision after signing a severance agreement.

How Other States and/or Existing Laws Address Severance Agreements

Although the No Severance Ultimatums Act is the first in the nation to mandate a 21-business day review (and seven-day revocation period) for all severance agreements, other states have set minimum review and/or revocation periods in certain situations.

California: SB 331 (passed in 2022) requires employers to provide all employees at least five business days to review a severance agreement and notify employees of their right to consult with an attorney. California however does not require employers to require a revocation period after signing.

Minnesota: Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), prospective claims of the MHRA cannot be released in a severance agreement. Additionally, if a severance agreement includes a release of claims existing at the time of execution related to workplace discrimination, harassment or retaliation, employees have the right to rescind the release of MHRA claims within 15 days (written agreements) or 45 days (for electronic agreements) after signing.

New York: Existing New York law already requires a 21-day (waivable) review period and a mandatory seven-day revocation period for settlement agreements resolving discrimination, harassment or retaliation claims, when the employer includes a non-disclosure provision (at the employee’s choice) regarding the facts of the claim. Employers must provide this in a separate agreement for review and signature before signing the full settlement agreement. The No Severance Ultimatums Act expands these protections to all severance agreements, regardless of the types of claims involved.

Next Steps for New York Employers

If signed into law, the No Severance Ultimatums Act will take immediate effect. Employers in New York should be prepared to promptly update their severance agreements and policies to ensure compliance, as any severance agreement that violates the provisions of the No Severance Ultimatums Act shall be deemed void and unenforceable. Employers should plan to:

incorporate the new 21-business-day review period and nonwaivable seven-day revocation period.
add a notice to employees of their right to consult an attorney.
adjust severance timelines to account for these extended review and revocation periods.

As a reminder, these changes may prolong severance negotiations and employers will need to plan further ahead when offering severance packages. Contact Squire Patton Boggs’ Labor and Employment team for further guidance.

“Work of equal value” – if apples and pears were jobs (EU)

By Marga Caproni on March 13, 2025 Posted in Equal Pay, Litigation, Recent Cases, Wage and Hour

2023’s EU Directive 2023/970 to “strengthen the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value between men and women through pay transparency and enforcement mechanisms”, also known as the Pay Transparency Directive, must be implemented by European member states by no later than 7 June 2026.

With such a timescale you might be tempted to the view that this is an issue that can be pushed back until next year. We don’t recommend this. The Directive – which it is worth remembering sets the minimum standards employers must be ready to meet by June 2026 – sets out very clearly the potential implications of not being ready (information requests from individual employees, a joint pay assessment, claims and sanctions from national authorities, to name a few) . Employers would be well-advised to consider what it means for them sooner rather than later. Whilst 15 months may well be a long time in politics, when it comes to the Pay Transparency Directive, it is anything but.

Fashionably Late: Implementation of the New York Retail Worker Safety Act Delayed to June 2025 (US)

By Lauren Herz on March 10, 2025 Posted in New York, Policies, Training, Violence Prevention, Workplace Safety & Health

On February 14, 2025, the New York Retail Worker Safety Act, initially set to take effect March 4, 2025, was amended (S.B.740), and the new effective date moved to June 2, 2025.

Background

On September 4, 2024, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the New York Retail Worker Safety Act (the Act) (S.B. 8358-C/A. 8947-C) into law. The Act, which adds Section 27-e to the New York Labor Law, requires employers with ten or more retail employees to develop and implement workplace violence prevention programs. The law also mandates employers provide training on the workplace violence programs and to install silent response buttons (SRBs) in retail stores, defined as stores that sell “consumer commodities at retail and not primarily engaged in the sale of food for consumption on its premises.”

Update: Federal Judge Reinstates National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member (US)

By Mike Fussell on March 7, 2025 Posted in News, NLRB

President Donald Trump’s removal of Gwynne Wilcox, a Biden-appointed NLRB Member (which we discussed in a prior post), has been reversed by a federal judge. On March 6, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell held that the President does not have the authority to terminate NLRB Members at will, and thus President Trump’s removal of Member Wilcox violated the law. Member Wilcox’s removal had caused the NLRB to lose a quorum of three Members, meaning that since January 28, 2025, the NLRB had been without the authority to decide cases. With her status restored, that authority also has now been restored.

Blocked DOL Overtime Rule Set for Review in the Fifth Circuit (US)

By Chase Clark on March 6, 2025 Posted in Compensation, Department of Labor, Fair Labor Standards Act, News, Overtime, Pay, Wage and Hour, Wages

On February 28, 2025, the US Department of Labor (DOL) appealed a December 2024 Texas federal trial court’s decision that blocked a Biden-era overtime rule promulgated by the DOL. This is the DOL’s second appeal following an appeal in November by the then Biden-led DOL of another Texas district court’s ruling that similarly vacated and set aside the overtime rule nationwide. Both cases were appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

How honest is honest enough in your job application? (UK)

By David Whincup on February 27, 2025 Posted in Disability, Discrimination, Dismissal, Misconduct, Recent Cases, Recruitment, Victimisation, Whistleblowing

In 2019 a Mr Easton applied for a role with the Home Office to work in the Border Force. As part of that process he was required to fill in (without guidance) a blank box headed “Employment History” which he completed with details of prior roles held and the years in which each had begun and ended. While that information was true as far as it went, Easton’s taking that approach had the side-effect of obscuring that in 2016 he had been dismissed for gross misconduct and then been unemployed for three months, both matters which he accepted in cross examination in the Tribunal that the Home Office could well regard as relevant.

Federal Court Blocks Key Provisions of President Trump’s DEI Executive Orders (US)

By Jennifer Harper on February 25, 2025 Posted in Diversity Equity and Inclusion, Executive Order, Federal Contractors

On Friday, February 21, a Maryland federal court judge in Maryland issued a nationwide injunction temporarily preventing enforcement of three key provisions of President Trump’s Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 targeting DEI programs (links below). The court found the following provisions of the Orders were unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

The requirement that federal contractors and grantees certify that they do not operate “illegal” DEI programs and comply with federal discrimination laws for purposes of False Claims Act (the “Certification” provision in EO14173 Section 3(b));
The provision directing the Attorney General to deter “illegal” DEI programs or principles in the private sector by, in part, submitting a report identifying up to nine civil enforcement investigations of certain private sector companies, associations, and educational institutions (the “Enforcement Threat” provision in EO14173 Section 4); and
The requirement that federal agencies terminate federal equity-related grants or contracts (the “Termination” provision in EO 14151 Section 2(b)(i)).

The challenged provisions in President Trump’s DEI Executive Orders are Executive Order 14151 (Jan. 20, 2025) and Executive Order 14173 (Jan. 21, 2025).