Imagine a job seeker who has spent weeks tailoring applications, paying for a premium subscription on a major hiring platform and refreshing listings every morning, only to discover that many of the positions were never real. The listings were ghost jobs 鈥� postings for roles that do not exist or are not actively being filled. It sounds like a bad dream, but the problem is well documented.

But why might a company have ghost jobs posted? For one, increased job postings may help a company look healthier than it is. Companies that want to present a high-performing image may use the hiring ads as an indicator of growth, signaling to employees, customers and other stakeholders that the business is thriving when it may not be.

According to recruiting software platform Greenhouse’s 2024 analysis, between 18% and 22% of job postings on its platform in any given quarter qualified as ghost jobs. Further, a 2025 survey by Clarify Capital found that “1 in 5 employers intentionally leave roles unfilled to reduce costs while appearing active in hiring.”[1]

While the numbers are difficult to track, the reported this month that there were 7.3 million job openings in July, but only 5.1 million hires.[2] This continues a trend from last year, where June 2025 saw similar numbers.[3] This gap is noticeable and consistent, and regulators are starting to pay attention.

On July 14,a first-of-its-kind investigation into whether advertises and profits from ghost jobs, alleging the platform may have misled consumers who paid up to $69.99 per month for premium subscriptions to access job opportunities that may have never been real.[4]

This issue has also garnered bipartisan and federal attention. On June 18, Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., sent letters to the the and the BLS demanding answers on how the administration plans to combat the ghost jobs epidemic.[5]

At the same time, state legislators across the country are pushing bills that would require employers to disclose hiring timelines, flag inactive postings and reveal the use of artificial intelligence in recruiting.[6]

Together, these developments signal what employment attorneys have described as a shift from pay transparency to hiring transparency 鈥� and employers that fail to adapt risk regulatory scrutiny, consumer protection claims and significant financial penalties under emerging state and federal frameworks.

Texas’ LinkedIn Investigation

What makes the Texas investigation particularly noteworthy is its legal theory. The core allegation is not an employment law claim, but a consumer protection one. The theory rests on the premise that LinkedIn has a duty to provide the services it advertises and to ensure that premium subscribers are actually receiving access to legitimate job postings.

Specifically, Texas is examining whether LinkedIn violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the attorney general’s office has issued a civil investigative demand seeking documents, data and internal communications related to the platform’s advertising, marketing and verification practices.

LinkedIn has pushed back, maintaining that its policies require posted job openings to be authentic and accurately represented. It also pointed to features that display company response times and whether positions are actively reviewing candidates.[7]

Still, by framing ghost jobs as a consumer protection violation, Texas is establishing a model that other state attorneys general could replicate. Such actions should get the attention of employers and platforms alike, because it means this issue sits at an increasingly crowded intersection of consumer protection, advertising law and data practices.

State Legislation

The Texas investigation is not happening in a vacuum; other states have been noticing as well. A new wave of state legislation is moving beyond pay transparency requirements toward hiring transparency.

On June 2, the second chamber of the New York State Legislature passed S.B. 8877, which would require employers with 100 or more employees to disclose 鈥� in bold, capitalized text 鈥� whether a position is expected to be filled within 90 days, more than 90 days, or is simply a resume collection exercise for future openings.[8] Employers would also be required to remove postings within two weeks of filling a role, and violations would carry penalties starting at $2,500 per noncompliant posting, and escalating to $5,000 if uncorrected within 30 days.

Critically, while the bill has yet to come before Gov. Kathy Hochul, it would take effect immediately upon signing, giving covered employers virtually no lead time to adjust their practices.[9]

New Jersey lawmakers are considering a similar measure, and California and Kentucky have proposed comparable bills in recent sessions.[10]

At the federal level, the grassroots organization Truth in Job Ads is advocating for the Truth in Job Advertising and Accountability Act, which would set national standards for transparency and prohibit fake or misleading job ads. In November, it collected more than 50,000 signatures in support of its campaign.[11]

If past trends are any guide, the movement could spread quickly. Once one or two states pass such laws, others tend to follow.

Pennsylvania is taking an especially comprehensive approach with a catchall bill that was introduced in March. H.B. 2321 would require job ads to include salary ranges, a hiring timeline or disclosure that the company is not actively hiring, as well as information about the use of AI tools in the recruiting process.[12]

A separate New York bill, S.B. 9208, which is pending before the Senate Labor Committee, would mandate that employers notify third-party job posting websites once an advertised

position has been filled or the ad is otherwise inactive, and then require the platform to remove the listing within seven days.[13]

The message is clear: Legislators want applicants to know whether a job is real, whether a human is evaluating their application and how long they can expect the process to take.

Another wrinkle that is folded into many of these bills are requirements that employers disclose when AI tools are used in hiring decisions. At least a handful of states, including Colorado and Illinois, already have laws or regulations addressing algorithmic decision-making in employment.[14]

New York is also advancing a separate bill, S.B. 8706A/A.B. 9581B, that would require publicly traded companies and businesses with more than 50 employees to submit annual reports to the state Department of Labor regarding how AI affects their hiring and workforce decisions, including estimates of employees who were displaced or whose hours were reduced because of AI.[15]

Practical Tips for Employers

With those guideposts in mind, what should a practical employer do right now? The trend lines are clear enough that waiting for a patchwork of new laws to take effect is not a sound strategy.

A good starting point is an audit of existing job postings. Employers should review all active listings to confirm that they correspond to genuine, currently open positions, and remove or update postings for roles that have been filled, paused or eliminated, as stale listings could now present a legal risk.

Alongside that review, employers should develop clear internal protocols for deactivating postings when a position is filled or put on hold. If a company is collecting resumes for pipeline building purposes, which can be a legitimate practice, it should consider whether disclosure of that intent is appropriate or may soon be required.

There are additional implications for workforce management. For example, if a company suddenly takes down all of its present postings, its current team members may learn of 鈥� or suspect 鈥� a hiring freeze long before management is prepared to navigate those discussions.

Employers should develop a job posting hygiene plan and start cleaning up the inactive postings sooner rather than later to be ready not just to comply with any regulations that may be issued, but also to ensure that they are able to direct the narrative, rather than respond.

To be sure, the implication that employers are being deceptive is not always fair. There are often legitimate reasons to build a pipeline, and headcount requirements, budgets and role approvals can shift unexpectedly. But whatever the reason a listing lingers, employers should lean toward transparency with their listings.

Employers should also map the AI tools and automated systems used in their hiring workflow, from resume screening to chatbot interviews, and prepare disclosure language that can be adapted as state requirements continue to develop.

For multistate employers in particular, the question of whether to adopt a single national compliance standard or manage obligations state by state is already pressing. Given the

pace of legislative activity, a harmonized, more transparent approach may prove to be more efficient, easier to manage and less risky in the long run.

While the Texas investigation may be the first of its kind, it is unlikely to be the last. As such, employers and platforms should be tracking attorney general actions, legislative developments and agency guidance across key states.

If there is a silver lining for employers, it is that much of this legislation is still in the proposal stage, and the contours of enforcement are just beginning to take shape. But that window will not stay open indefinitely. The ghost jobs phenomenon 鈥� whether the result of deliberate deception or simply outdated operational practices 鈥� is now squarely in regulators’ crosshairs.

Companies that get ahead of these changes by cleaning up their postings, building clear internal protocols and preparing for broader disclosure obligations will be best positioned not only to manage compliance risk, but also to build the kind of trust with applicants and the public that no premium subscription can buy.

• Dinah Alobeid, Ghost Jobs and Bots: Candidates Reveal Their Top Challenges in the Greenhouse 2024 State of Job Hunting Report, Greenhouse, Ghosting (Dec. 10, 2024), (last visited Sept. 15, 2026) (finding 18-22% of jobs posted on the Greenhouse platform classified as ghost jobs in any given quarter); Bryan Gerson, Ghost Jobs 2.0: The Hiring Mirage in 2025, Clarify Capital, (last visited Sept. 15, 2026) (finding nearly one in three employers admit to posting job listings with no intention of hiring). See also , 3 in 10 Companies Currently Have Fake Job Postings Listed (Jun. 18, 2024),(last visited Sept. 15, 2026) (survey of 1,641 hiring managers finding 40% of companies posted a fake job listing in the past year).
• Bureau of Lab. Stats., U.S. Dep’t of Lab., Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary (Sept. 3, 2026),(last visited Sept. 14, 2026).
• Bureau of Lab. Stats., U.S. Dep’t of Lab., Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary (July 29, 2025),(last visited Sept. 14, 2026).
• Press Release, Off. of the Tex. Att’y Gen., Attorney General Ken Paxton Investigates LinkedIn for Advertising Fake and Misleading Job Opportunities (Jul. 14, 2026), (last visited Sept. 14, 2026).

• Press Release, U.S. Sen. Ruben Gallego, Gallego Demands Answers from Trump Administration on Combatting Ghost Jobs (Jun. 18, 2026), (last visited Sept. 14, 2026), (last visited Sept. 14, 2026).
• Chris Marr, State Job Ad Bills Shift From Pay Ranges to ‘Ghost Jobs,’ AI Use, Bloomberg Law (May 1, 2026),(last visited Sept. 14, 2026).
• Michael Sinkewicz, Texas Investigates LinkedIn Over Alleged ‘Ghost Jobs’ Targeting Job Seekers, Fox Business (Jul. 15, 2026),(last visited Sept. 14, 2026).
• Leni Battaglia, et. al, New York Severance Agreement and Job Posting Bills, JD Supra (Jul. 13, 2026),(last visited Sept. 14, 2026).
• Amanda M. Blair & Melissa Camire, New York’s Ghost Job Bill Could Reshape Hiring Practices, JD Supra (Jun. 9, 2026),(last visited Sept. 14, 2026).
• N.J. S2136 (2026); Cal. AB 1251 (2025) (requiring private employers to disclose in job postings whether the posting is for an existing vacancy); Ky. HB 57 (2025) and Ky. HB 342 (2026) (prohibiting the posting of ghost jobs and requiring disclosure of whether a posting is for an existing vacancy). See also Cong. Rsch. Serv., “Ghost” Job Postings, IF12977 (Apr. 25, 2025), (last visited Sept. 15, 2026).
• Laurel Kalser, New York Passes a Bill Aimed at Halting ‘Ghost Jobs’, HR Dive (Jun. 11, 2026), (last visited Sept. 14, 2026); 50,000 Americans Demand an End to Ghost Jobs, (Nov. 14, 2025), (last visited Sept. 15, 2026).
• Pa. H.B. 2321, 2025鈥�2026 Reg. Sess. (introduced Mar. 26, 2026), (last visited Sept. 15, 2026).
• N.Y. S. 9208, 2025鈥�2026 Leg. Sess.,

(last visited Sept. 15, 2026).

• See Colo. S.B. 24-205, Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence Act (signed May 17, 2024) (requiring developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems to use reasonable care to protect consumers from algorithmic discrimination in consequential decisions, including employment), repealed and reenacted by Colo. S.B. 26-189 (signed May 2026); 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 42/1 et seq., Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (eff. Jan. 1, 2020) (requiring employers using AI to analyze video interviews to notify applicants, explain how the AI works, and obtain consent).
• Joseph Lazzarotti, AI in the Empire State, Two Bills Could Create New Compliance Obligations, JD Supra (Jun. 29, 2026),(last visited Sept. 14, 2026).

This article was originally published in on September 25, 2026, and is republished here with permission.

Connecticut employers soon face new pay transparency requirements. Beginning October 1, 2026, employers must include both the wage range and a general description of benefits in every internal and external job posting.

These amendments are the latest in a growing wave of state pay transparency developments. As we have previously reported, Delaware recently signed a wage transparency law, 惭补颈苍别鈥檚 and 痴颈谤驳颈苍颈补鈥檚 pay transparency statutes have recently taken effect, and New Jersey has proposed implementing regulations under its wage transparency law.

Proactive Wage and Benefit Disclosure for all Connecticut Employers

The change to Connecticut鈥檚 pay transparency law comes from (Public Act 26-12), signed into law by Governor Ned Lamont in May 2026. The law builds upon Connecticut鈥檚 original pay transparency law, which took effect in 2021. Under the 2021 law, employers were required to disclose the wage range to applicants either upon request or before or at the time of making a compensation offer (whichever occurred first). Employers must still provide wage range information to applicants and current employees upon request. H.B. 5003 adds a new proactive requirement: employers must now include those disclosures in job postings, rather than waiting for an applicant to ask.

Under the new requirements of H.B. 5003, employers must provide job applicants who view a posting on an external job board, an intranet site, or in an internally circulated email with the position鈥檚 wage range and a general description of benefits:

• The law redefines 鈥渨age range鈥� as the range of wages an employer 鈥渟ets in good faith for a position,鈥� replacing the prior definition (the 鈥渞ange of wages an employer anticipates relying on when setting wages鈥�).
• The law defines 鈥渂enefits鈥� broadly to include 鈥渉ealth insurance benefits, retirement benefits, fringe benefits, paid leave and any other compensation other than wages to be offered with a position.鈥�

Connecticut now joins other states like California, Colorado, and New York in requiring employers to make proactive disclosures in job postings. Unlike in some other states, however, Connecticut鈥檚 disclosure requirements are not tied to employer size and instead apply to all employers.

Proactive 鈥淧ay Code鈥� Disclosure for Connecticut Employers with 100+ Employees

Although Connecticut鈥檚 disclosure requirements apply to employers of all sizes, the new law imposes an additional obligation on employers with 100 or more employees relating to 鈥減ay codes.鈥� These larger covered employers must now create an employee guide to pay codes that explains the most commonly used pay differentials. The guide must identify at least 10 pay codes and include contact information for employees who wish to dispute how their hours or differentials were calculated. Employers must post the guide on their internal website in English, Spanish, and the most common language spoken in the workforce or, if they do not maintain an internal website, provide a written copy to employees upon hire.

The law also expands existing protections for employees to disclose or inquire about their compensation. Employers remain prohibited from restricting employees from discussing their wage or asking about compensation (including the wages of other employees), requiring employees to waive rights relating to wage disclosure or discussion, or inquiring into an applicant鈥檚 wage or salary history unless the applicant voluntarily discloses it. The new law goes a step further by expressly prohibiting retaliation or discrimination against an applicant or employee for exercising rights under the statute.

Extraterritorial Application Depends on Connecticut-Based Supervisor

The law applies to positions performed in Connecticut as well as positions performed outside the state if they report directly to a Connecticut-based supervisor. Similar to New York鈥檚 approach, remote positions located outside of the state are subject to disclosure requirements only when the position would report directly to a supervisor or worksite in the state.

As for enforcement, an aggrieved applicant or employee has a private right of action and may bring suit within two years of an alleged violation.

Act Now

With only a few weeks remaining before the October 1 effective date, employers should act now to ensure compliance. For example, employers should confirm that all covered job postings include wage ranges and benefits descriptions and that those wage ranges are supported by a consistent, good-faith methodology. Employers should also ensure they are capturing every covered posting, including positions that report to a Connecticut-based supervisor, and, if they have 100 or more employees, prepare the required pay code guide.

As the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continues its strict enforcement of federal immigration law, DHS is sharpening the tools that it has available to encourage employer compliance. DHS recently has expanded the to provide employers with additional information on the revocation of various types of temporary employment authorizations. Without action in response to this expanded report, employers are at higher risk of knowingly employing an individual who is unauthorized. In addition, DHS, through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has expanded the types of deficiencies that can lead to immediate fines. can be substantial.

E-Verify Status Change Report Updates

As explained in a prior post, DHS created the E-Verify Status Change Report in 2025 to provide information on employees for whom certain types of temporary employment authorization have been revoked. E-Verify employers are required to review these periodic reports to confirm whether any current employee is listed. If a current employee is listed, E-Verify employees must meet with the employee and ask to reverify the Form I-9. DHS recently expanded the types of invalidated temporary employment authorizations covered by the E-Verify Status Change Report. The report now covers revoked temporary employment authorizations for applicants for asylum, adjustment of status to permanent residence, and temporary protected status (TPS). The report also covers revoked temporary employment authorization for those whose TPS or parole has been terminated.听

DHS is issuing an updated report roughly every two weeks. E-Verify employers must check this report regularly and complete I-9 reverifications, if needed. 

I-9 Violations Expanded

When an employer fails to complete Form I-9 properly, the deficiency can be classified as (1) technical or procedural or (2) substantive. When the mistake is technical or procedural, ICE notifies the employer and allows the employer ten business days to correct. If the employer does not or cannot correct, the deficiency becomes a substantive violation. For those deficiencies that are substantive, ICE will not provide the employer with an opportunity to correct before issuing fines. In 2026, by placing more deficiencies into the substantive column.听

Expanded Substantive Violations (Previously Technical or Procedural Violations)

Violations that would likely have been treated as technical or procedural in the past, but are now substantive include the following:

General

Use of the Spanish language version of Form I-9 outside of Puerto Rico

搂 1, Employee鈥檚 Section

• No date of birth
• No Alien Registration or USCIS Number after checking the Lawful Permanent Resident ground for employment authorization (box 3) (previously ICE might have treated the deficiency as technical if the information was stated in 搂 2)
• No Alien Registration or USCIS Number, Form I-94 Admission Number, or Foreign Passport Number after checking alien authorized to work for a temporary period (box 4) (previously ICE might have treated the deficiency as technical if the information was stated in 搂 2 or in the reverification section)
• No date by the employee鈥檚 signature

Although 搂 1 is the new hire鈥檚 statement under penalty of perjury, the employer is required to review 搂 1 promptly to confirm that it is complete and appears correct. An employer can be fined for certain deficiencies in 搂 1, including those stated above.

搂 2, Employer鈥檚 Section

• No document title, issuing authority, document number, and/or expiration date (if any) for the List A, List B, or List C document entry (previously ICE might have treated the deficiency as technical if the employer had retained good quality copies of the document with the Form I-9)
• No job title stated for the employer representative
• No date of hire
• No date of signature

Supplement A, Preparer or Translator Section

• Incomplete preparer or translator data

Supplement B (formerly 搂 3), Rehire and Reverification

• No date of rehire (when applicable)
• No document title, document number, and/or expiration date for a List A or List C document to show continued employment authorization (previously ICE might have treated the deficiency as technical if the employer had retained good quality copies of the document with the Form I-9)

New Substantive I-9 Violations

ICE also has provided new guidance on I-9 mistakes that the federal agency had not formally addressed as technical or substantive. ICE has clarified that the following deficiencies are substantive violations:

• Failure to state the expiration date for temporary employment authorization in 搂 1, box 4 (exception 鈥� new hires who hold asylum or refugee status may enter 鈥淣/A鈥� where the date is requested)
• Failure to verify a replacement document within the ninety-day period following the employee鈥檚 presentation of a valid receipt for 搂 2 or Supplement B (formerly 搂 3)
• Failure to check the alternative procedure box in 搂 2 or on Supplement B if using a remote verification procedure authorized by DHS
• Failure to be an active E-Verify employer (or registered in another DHS Remote Document Examination procedure, if any) when stating that the employer is using the alternative procedure
• Failure to meet the standards for electronic I-9 completion, retention, document security, reproduction, electronic signature, and related matters (e.g., audit trails) for electronically generated or electronically stored Forms I-9

These newly characterized substantive violations are in addition to those traditionally treated by ICE as substantive.

I-9 Fines

For 2026, ICE may fine employers from $288 to $2,861 per Form I-9 for substantive violations. For knowingly employing individuals who are authorized, ICE may fine the employer from $716 to $5,724 per individual. The fines will be higher if the employer has been previously fined. The fine levels are likely to increase in 2027. With more substantive deficiencies and increased I-9 inspections, employers are at greater risk of liability.

Best Practice

• Prepare now for encountering ICE through a Notice of I-9 Inspection.听
• E-Verify employers should review the Status Change Report frequently and use that information to complete timely Form I-9 reverifications when needed.
• Ensure that Human Resources or other staff who handle I-9 compliance duties are trained.
• If using electronic I-9 software, ensure that it complies with the federal rules for electronic systems and that staff understand the steps required to use the system properly.
• Use the alternative (remote) verification procedure only if an E-Verify employer in good standing.
• Complete periodic I-9 internal audits to identify mistakes and correct to the extent possible before a government inspection.

For assistance in addressing these complex I-9 and E-Verify issues, please contact your 麻豆直播 & Lardner LLP employment attorney.

The Illinois General Assembly has been laser-focused on expanding workplace protections and benefits for employees in recent years 鈥� from amending the Illinois Human Rights Act to bar discrimination against employees acting as family caregivers to strengthening employees鈥� rights to raise concerns about workplace conditions, wages, or safety concerns under amendments to the Illinois Workplace Transparency Act. Next up: (some) paid jury duty.

On July 31, 2026, Governor JB Pritzker鈥檚 signed into law. While the bill only makes a minor change to the Section 4.1 of the Illinois Jury Act and Section 10.1 of the Illinois Jury Commission Act (the Statutes), the change will likely have major impacts on larger employers when their Illinois-based employees are called for jury service.

Effective January 1, 2027, HB 4844 requires employers with over 25 employees (Covered Employers) to compensate employees at their regular rate of pay for time spent performing jury duty. Before the amendments, Illinois employers 鈥� regardless of size 鈥� were generally required to provide unpaid 鈥渢ime off鈥� for jury duty and were prohibited from retaliating against employees from taking time off to do so.

With only a few months left in 2026, Covered Employers should start taking steps now to ensure they have the proper procedures in place to begin providing and tracking paid leave to employees performing jury service. Those steps should include, for example, the following:

• Review employee handbooks and company policies concerning paid and unpaid leave;
• Modify payroll practices to ensure eligible employees receive their regular rate of pay for time spent performing jury service;
• Train supervisors, managers, and human resources personnel on Illinois鈥� amended jury service law, and
• Update any procedures for taking time off for jury duty, receipts of jury summons, and documenting leave taken for jury service.

Violating Illinois鈥� jury service law can result in legal consequences for non-compliant employers, including being held in contempt of court and potential exposure to civil liability if an aggrieved employee files suit (and being required to pay the employee鈥檚 reasonable attorneys鈥� fees if the employee prevails). Thus, making any necessary changes now will help reduce the potential for liability once HB 4844 takes effect.

On August 19, 2026, the Department of Labor鈥檚 Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) , which regulated the OFCCP鈥檚 race and sex bias enforcement regime. If Executive Order (EO) 11246 is well and fully dead, it had a truly epic run. But, as any good employment lawyer knows, the end of one regulation is often just the beginning of new compliance headaches. So, grab your coffee 鈥� here鈥檚 what employers, HR teams, and in-house counsel need to know about the EO 11246 and what comes next.

EO 11246 Fell Just Shy of Social Security Age

Signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 24, 1965 鈥� back when the Beatles were still touring and a gallon of gas cost about 31 cents 鈥� EO 11246 became the backbone of equal employment opportunity obligations for federal contractors and remained as much for nearly six decades. It required nondiscrimination, affirmative action plans, and gave the OFCCP the authority to audit companies doing business with the federal government for race and sex bias.

However, almost immediately after President Trump took office in 2025, he issued Executive Order 14173 to rescind EO 11246; courts from Illinois to the Fourth Circuit were asked to weigh in on the constitutionality of EO 14173鈥檚 rescission of EO 11246; and federal contractors were left in the proverbial twilight zone between the regulations that had been required for sixty years and the expectations of the new administration under the new Executive Order. Now? The curtain has fallen.

The Final Nail: Regulations Officially Rescinded

While it should not come as a surprise, the Trump administration recently finalized the elimination of the regulations implementing EO 11246. The former regulations under EO 11246 required federal contractors to create affirmative action plans (AAPs) and allowed OFCCP to conduct compliance audits for potential race and sex bias. Those obligations (and related audits) are now formally off the books.

The administration also finalized rules to remove cross-references to EO 11246 from two other anti-bias laws enforced by OFCCP: the Vietnam Era Veterans鈥� Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibit bias against veterans and individuals with disabilities, respectively. And, in a particularly significant move, the administration eliminated the 7% utilization goal under Section 503 that had encouraged federal contractors to recruit and employ qualified individuals with disabilities.

These changes shake the very foundations of the federal contractor management regime. Think of it this way: if the OFCCP were a house, EO 11246 was a load-bearing wall. Since 2025, the White House鈥檚 budget plans have sought to defund the agency entirely, raising serious questions about whether the OFCCP 鈥� an office that, like EO 11246, has been around for decades 鈥� will continue to exist in any meaningful form.

But Wait 鈥� Is EO 11246 Really Dead?

Here鈥檚 where it gets interesting, and where the dutiful readers of this blog earn their keep. While EO 11246 itself is gone, federal contractors are not free to just throw their compliance binders into the office shredder. The replacement framework under EO 14173 introduced its own set of obligations, including a requirement that contractors certify they do not operate any programs 鈥減romoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.鈥� That certification is tied to the False Claims Act, meaning a contractor who later turns out to have been running an 鈥渋llegal鈥� DEI program could face significant financial liability.

The catch? EO 14173 never actually defined what constitutes an 鈥渋llegal鈥� DEI or DEIA program, which is a bit like being told you must certify that you鈥檝e never committed a 鈥渂ad鈥� act without anyone telling you what 鈥渂ad鈥� actually means. This ambiguity has become the central battleground in ongoing litigation. That hasn鈥檛 stopped the Department of Justice (DOJ) from pursuing False Claims Act actions over 鈥渋llegal DEI鈥� programs.

The Courts and DOJ Weigh In: A Legal Rollercoaster

The legal challenges were anything but boring. In late February 2025, a federal district court entered a nationwide injunction blocking enforcement of EO 14173鈥檚 DEI-related provisions, finding the certification requirement unconstitutionally vague and potentially a violation of the First Amendment. The reasoning was straightforward: how can contractors certify compliance with a standard that hasn鈥檛 been defined? But the Trump administration appealed swiftly, and on March 14, 2025, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the nationwide injunction, holding that the executive order itself merely directs agency action and is likely not unconstitutional on its face. The appellate court essentially said: let鈥檚 wait to see how federal agencies actually implement these directives before declaring them unconstitutional.

Similarly, on March 27, 2025, a parallel chapter opened. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly of the Northern District of Illinois issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the Department of Labor (DOL) from enforcing certain provisions of EOs 14173 and 14151 against Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT), a nonprofit receiving federal DOL funding. Judge Kennelly found that the certification provision was problematic precisely because EO 14173 fails to define what 鈥渋llegal鈥� DEI means, and that CWIT was likely to succeed on its First Amendment claims. Notably, the court鈥檚 ruling on the certification provision extended beyond CWIT to all DOL grants and contracts 鈥� though it did not reach other federal agencies.

For its part, the government sought to clarify the issue, first with the DOJ on March 19, 2025, and formal rulemaking in .

What Employers Should Do Right Now

So, what should a well-meaning employer, HR professional, or in-house employment lawyer do now? Here are our thoughts:

• Don鈥檛 assume the old rules still apply. EO 11246 is officially rescinded and its implementing regulations are gone. Contractors are no longer officially required to maintain written AAPs under the old framework.
• Don鈥檛 assume you’re off the hook, either. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal anti-discrimination statutes remain fully in effect. The end of EO 11246 does not mean the end of nondiscrimination obligations 鈥� it means the end of the specific affirmative action obligations as they existed under EO 11246.
• Take the DEI certification seriously. If your organization contracts with the federal government, be prepared in the event your organization is asked to certify that you do not operate programs promoting DEI that violate federal anti-discrimination laws. Given the False Claims Act exposure, treat this certification the way you would any representation to the government: carefully, with legal review, and with documentation to back it up.
• Conduct a risk assessment. Review your existing diversity programs, training, and policies. As we鈥檝e previously written about, the goal is not to abandon efforts to build a fair and inclusive workplace 鈥� it is to ensure those efforts are grounded in lawful, merit-based practices that do not cross into the kind of race- or sex-based preferencing the current administration views as illegal.
• Watch the courts. The legal landscape is shifting in real time. What is enforceable today may be enjoined tomorrow and vice versa. Build a relationship with outside counsel who can keep you current on this ever-shifting landscape and continue to monitor for the next installment of this legal drama.

Takeaways

EO 11246 had a remarkable 60-year run; longer than most executive orders survive. The official rescission of its implementing regulations marks a genuine sea change in the federal contractor compliance world. With this announcement, the OFCCP appears to be substantially diminished. So too are race and sex-related affirmative action plans leaving the legal grey area. But, at bottom, the obligation to treat workers fairly, and the legal risk of getting it wrong, is not going anywhere, and employers must keep these bedrock guiding principles in mind as they chart their next course.

Employee Complaints Don鈥檛 Always Give Rise to Legal Protection, but Employers Must Tread Carefully

Most companies want their employees to bring legitimate concerns to their attention. Sometimes those concerns are about the employee鈥檚 belief that he or she is being treated less fairly based on their race, age, disability, or any other protected characteristic.听These complaints are easy to spot and triage as protected activity.听But increasingly common in today鈥檚 workplace are complaints broadly directed to the job itself: micromanaging or unfriendly supervisors, unwanted reassignments, and not being heard.

Employers must understand the difference. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals helped clarify this distinction in ., confirming that the federal anti-retaliation law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) protects employees who oppose unlawful discrimination or harassment, not employees who simply report being unhappy at work. 

Turning Up the Volume: The Plaintiff-Employee Complained Early and Often

Becky Joseph worked for Thomas-Grace Construction (TGC) as a Lead Installer for roughly four months, generating a substantial email trail in the process. The complaints commenced almost simultaneously with her employment:

• Day two. She complained that her supervisor 鈥渓et [her] know he knows the best way鈥� and was 鈥減revent[ing] [her] from doing [her] part.鈥�
• Day three. She emailed to resign, saying she had been 鈥渕isled鈥� and 鈥渄isrespected鈥� 鈥� then withdrew the resignation after TGC explained her shift rotation was part of training.
• On a new supervisor鈥檚 first day. She complained that he 鈥渨ant[ed] everything his way,鈥� that 鈥淚鈥檓 ahead at knowing what we have and what we need,鈥� and that 鈥淚 feel they are demeaning, don鈥檛 want my opinion, and don鈥檛 respect my own way.鈥� She emailed him directly: 鈥淚鈥檓 not going to be criticized or demeaned, because of your self proclaimed prick title.鈥�

None of these mentioned sex, gender, or discrimination. In one email, Joseph did reference a supervisor鈥檚 鈥渙ld fashioned ideals when it comes to females and the work鈥� 鈥� but days later she apologized, writing that she was 鈥渂eginning to see [the supervisor] as a kind man,鈥� that she felt 鈥渆mbarrassed and ashamed鈥� at her reaction, and that she 鈥渨as wrong.鈥�

It was not until Joseph was responding to TGC鈥檚 request for evidence in its investigation that she wrote that 鈥淸t]he men are always right in the eyes of the company . . . [and] are treated as more valuable.鈥� Even then, in her own investigative interview a week later, she did not mention sex discrimination by anyone at TGC.

Courts Turn the Volume Back Down

The district court granted summary judgment on Joseph鈥檚 retaliation claims squarely on the protected-activity element: 鈥渘one of [Joseph鈥檚] complaints, even broadly construed, included allegations . . . [of] sex discrimination,鈥� and 鈥淸a]s such, her complaints . . . do not amount to protected activity.鈥�

The Eighth Circuit affirmed without reaching the protected activity question, holding that 鈥渆ven if we assume [Joseph] has established a prima facie case of retaliation, [s]he has failed to establish pretext.鈥� But the same distinction drove the Eighth Circuit鈥檚 pretext analysis. Joseph鈥檚 best evidence was an email from TGC鈥檚 Director of Operations, stating 鈥淸w]e need to terminate [Joseph]鈥� and calling her complaint 鈥淏S.鈥� The court dispatched it in a sentence that is the heart of the opinion: 鈥淸T]he record does not show that the email in question was responding to protected activity at all, given that it was reacting to Joseph鈥檚 email to [her supervisor], in which she did not mention sex or discrimination but merely complained about his leadership style.鈥�

The court then reiterated the principle that courts should 鈥渇ilter out complaints attacking 鈥榯he ordinary tribulations of the workplace.鈥� Timing sealed it: the company鈥檚 鈥渢erminate her鈥� email came one day before Joseph鈥檚 first discrimination-flavored complaint 鈥� and there was no evidence of any negative reaction to that later complaint.

TGC鈥檚 legitimate reasons for terminating Joseph鈥檚 employment were also straightforward: repeated conflicts with successive supervisors (sometimes on their first day), a forklift accident within her first week at a jobsite, and an incident in which she screamed at hotel staff. As the court noted, 鈥淭itle VII . . . does not prohibit employment decisions based on . . . job performance . . . [or] personality conflicts.鈥� Rather than accept a transfer to the only open jobsite 鈥� at the same pay and benefits 鈥� Joseph resigned.

The Takeaways:

• Content, not volume, determines protection. The volume 鈥� whether in the content or the number of complaints 鈥� can often overtake the substance. A complaint becomes protected activity when it conveys opposition to conduct that Title VII makes unlawful. Complaints about methods, autonomy, respect, and being overruled read as workplace friction, not opposition to discrimination 鈥� no matter how many such grievances are filed.

• Sequence can break the causal chain. If the decisionmaker鈥檚 adverse reaction predates the first arguably protected complaint, causation can fail. In Joseph, that one-day gap is a key reason why the plaintiff鈥檚 strongest exhibit did not get her to a jury.

• The employee鈥檚 own record cuts both ways. Joseph鈥檚 apology (鈥淚 was wrong鈥�) undercut her later claim that the same supervisor discriminated against her from the start. Both the district court and Eighth Circuit also cited her silence on discrimination during her own investigative interview.

The Next Steps:

• Don鈥檛 let managers triage protected activity. Escalate anything touching a protected characteristic to HR 鈥� but document聽what the employee actually said, because that record may later define the legal question.

• Keep documenting performance and conduct. TGC contemporaneously documented the hotel incident and the forklift accident, even though it did not impose discipline at the time. That documentation became the core of its defense.

• In an investigation, ask for the employee鈥檚 evidence in writing. TGC requested witnesses, documents, and comparators; the thin response was powerful at summary judgment. Joseph later called the investigation a 鈥渟ham鈥� but 鈥渄[id] not identify any issues with the investigation nor how alleged bias affected it.鈥�

• Mind your internal emails. A managerial employee鈥檚 email comments stating 鈥淲e need to terminate her鈥� and calling her complaint 鈥淏S鈥� nearly bought TGC a trial. What saved the employer was the prompt reversal, the real investigation, and a no-loss alternative assignment 鈥� not the email鈥檚 innocence.听 Coaching managers on how to communicate about these matters (and the likelihood that they will be examined down the line) is as important on teaching them how to document misconduct.

Bottom Line

Joseph is not permission to ignore complaints. It confirms that retaliation liability attaches to opposition to unlawful conduct, and that an employee who spends months complaining about supervision style before belatedly invoking discrimination needs more than her own say-so to reach a jury.

What Employers Need to Know as Legal Requirements Try to Catch Up with Algorithmic Hiring Tools

Artificial intelligence is becoming more mainstream in employers鈥� hiring workflows. Tools that screen resumes, analyze video interviews, predict candidate success, and optimize scheduling are often standard offerings from HR technology vendors. But rapid adoption of these tools can overlook the legal frameworks governing them. Employers should approach AI-powered hiring tools not as just technology purchases but as regulated employment practices that carry litigation risks, including the following.

Disparate Impact and Algorithmic Bias. AI hiring tools are susceptible to disparate impact claims under federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Even small algorithmic biases arising from biased training data, flawed model design, or so-called 鈥減roxy鈥� variables like zip code, educational institution, or commute distance can produce selection ratios that may systematically disadvantage protected groups without any discriminatory intent on the part of the employer or tool developer. Historical data used to train the AI tool may replicate or amplify prior discriminatory hiring patterns, making bias a systemic rather than incidental risk. As we have previously written, cases like Mobley v. Workday and the EEOC鈥檚 settlement with iTutorGroup demonstrate that AI-related employment discrimination claims are actively being litigated and enforced.

Disability Accommodation. Under the ADA, employers remain responsible for ensuring that third-party AI tools do not unlawfully screen out individuals with disabilities. When an AI assessment method disadvantages applicants with disabilities, employers may need to provide alternative assessment methods. Reliance on a vendor鈥檚 assurance that the tool is 鈥淎DA-compliant鈥� does not relieve the employer of its independent legal obligations.

Black-Box and Vendor Issues. Many AI hiring tools operate as proprietary 鈥渂lack boxes鈥� with limited transparency into their decision-making logic. Yet employers, not vendors, bear responsibility when these tools produce discriminatory outcomes. Vendor assurances alone are insufficient; employers need access to validation studies, adverse impact analyses, and audit documentation. Ultimately, if a hiring decision is challenged, employers should be able to explain why they made it.

Patchwork Federal, State, and Local Requirements. Federal, state, and local jurisdictions are each moving independently to regulate AI hiring, as we have previously written about. Given the patchwork of requirements and uncertainty regarding uniform federal guidelines, employers must both monitor their own usage of AI in hiring and stay apprised of updates to federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

Practical Compliance Checklist for Employers. Employers using or contemplating AI hiring tools should consider the following steps:

• Inventory all AI tools used in recruitment, screening, interviewing, and selection, including those embedded in broader HR platforms.
• Demand vendor documentation, including validation studies, model methodology, training data descriptions, and adverse impact testing results.
• Conduct or commission independent bias audits and adverse impact analyses, and do not rely solely on vendor-supplied assessments.
• Implement meaningful human oversight at key decision points to ensure that algorithmic outputs are reviewed before consequential employment actions.
• Establish accommodation alternatives so applicants who cannot engage with AI-driven tools due to disability have access to equivalent evaluation methods.
• Provide required notices and obtain consents where applicable under applicable laws and regulations.
• Retain records of model versions, audit results, validation studies, and decision logs sufficient to demonstrate compliance and defend against claims.
• Monitor multijurisdictional requirements, as new AI-specific employment laws continue to emerge at the federal, state, and local levels.

While the efficiency and convenience gains of AI hiring tools may be genuine, so are the legal exposure risks. The safest use of AI in hiring combines explainability, oversight, and documentation. Employers will be positioned to capture the efficiency benefits of AI while managing litigation risk by understanding how their tools work, building governance structures around them, and treating compliance as a design requirement for them. Those that treat AI hiring as a procurement decision rather than a regulated initiative may find themselves on the wrong end of an enforcement action or class claim.

The past few weeks have brought significant developments in U.S. immigration law that directly impact employers and human resource (HR) professionals. From the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nationals of multiple countries to new enforcement priorities and policy shifts, HR teams must stay informed to ensure compliance and support affected employees. This article summarizes the key changes and offers practical guidance for employers navigating this evolving landscape.

TPS Terminations: What Employers Need to Know

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced the termination of Temporary Protected Status for nationals of several countries. TPS is a humanitarian designation that allows nationals of designated countries to live and work lawfully in the United States when conditions in their home countries 鈥� such as armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary circumstances 鈥� temporarily prevent safe return.

Recent announcements have terminated or announced termination dates for TPS for nationals of Venezuela, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Nepal, and Sudan, among others. The largest number to lose TPS status are Haitian nationals working under Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) in categories A12 and C19. Employees with those categories of work authorization lost their status effective July 27, 2026. Unless they obtained some other basis for work authorization, . Some news estimate that as many as 300,000 workers lost work authorization on July 27. The complete list of terminated TPS and their effective dates can be found on the .

Heightened Enforcement and Compliance Priorities

As also reported in various[KW1] [LH2]  news outlets this past week, the Trump administration is focusing enforcement inside U.S. airports and arresting foreign citizens with expired U.S. visas as they travel domestically.

On July 16, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security changes to the J-1 (work- and study-based cultural exchange programs) and F-1 (student) visa programs. Historically, students in these categories were admitted for the “duration of status,” meaning they could remain in the U.S. as long as they maintained their educational program and related authorized activities. Under the new rule, students will instead be admitted for a fixed period tied to their program, capped at four years per admission period.

This could negatively impact the availability of for companies. Employers who rely on these talent pipelines should monitor regulatory developments closely and consider diversifying their recruitment strategies.

The Trump administration has signaled increased worksite enforcement activity. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has expanded I-9 audits and worksite investigations, and employers should anticipate more frequent and rigorous scrutiny of their employment eligibility verification practices.

HR professionals should take this opportunity to conduct internal I-9 audits to identify and correct any errors before government inspection. Common deficiencies include incomplete or missing forms, late completion, and improper document retention. Additionally, employers should ensure that their I-9 policies are applied consistently to all employees, regardless of national origin or perceived immigration status to avoid discrimination claims. Employers may be fined from $288 to $2,861 per form for purely technical errors in the form, even if the employee has valid work authorization.

Changes to Legal Immigration Programs

The administration has also introduced policy changes affecting legal immigration pathways. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued updated guidance affecting the adjudication of certain visa petitions and applications, with a general trend toward increased scrutiny of applications and a higher volume of Requests for Evidence. Employers sponsoring workers for H-1B visas should prepare more robust documentation supporting the specialty occupation nature of positions and the qualifications of beneficiaries.

What Employers Must Do to Stay Compliant

• Review Form I-9 for existing employees to know which employee鈥檚 status has been or will be revoked in the near term.
• If an employee鈥檚 status has been terminated, ask them if they have obtained alternative status. If not, the employee must be terminated. If they claim to have obtained alternative status, they must prove it by presenting valid documentation.
• Employers should be on the lookout for increased use of fraudulent identity and work authorization documents. The for the Social Security Administration and each state鈥檚 driver鈥檚 license bureau have samples of what authentic documents should look like.
• Employers should check of the I-9 Handbook for Employers to understand the variety of documents that can prove work authorization.
• Remind employees who travel for business to always carry up-to-date identification necessary to clear TSA security and, if travelling internationally, a valid passport and necessary visas. Both the United Kingdom and the European Union have announced plans to implement mandatory admission documents even for U.S. citizens who previously did not need a visa to travel to those countries.

Looking Ahead

The immigration landscape is shifting rapidly, and HR professionals must remain vigilant. Many of these policy changes are subject to ongoing litigation, and court decisions could alter implementation timelines or block certain actions entirely. Employers should establish relationships with experienced immigration counsel who can provide timely updates and guidance tailored to their specific workforce needs.

Proactive compliance efforts, regular training for HR staff on I-9 procedures and anti-discrimination requirements, and clear internal policies on responding to government inquiries will help employers navigate this challenging environment. By staying informed and prepared, HR professionals can protect both their organizations and their employees during this period of significant change.

For questions or assistance with immigration compliance matters, please contact the authors or your 麻豆直播 & Lardner LLP relationship partner.