Government Affairs Updates
Government Affairs Updates
Federal and New York State employment law developments, minimum wage schedules, and resources to keep your organization current.
On May 14, 2026, the DOL announced it is rescinding the Biden-era rule that raised overtime exemption salary thresholds, restoring the 2019 standards effective May 15, 2026. Federal courts in Texas had already struck down the Biden rule, and the DOL dropped its appeals. The federal overtime exemption threshold is now:
New York employers: New York's thresholds for administrative and executive positions are higher than the federal floor. You must comply with whichever standard is greater. See the New York Salary Thresholds table below.
The EEOC's new National Enforcement Plan (NEP) replaces the 2023 Strategic Enforcement Plan. It runs through 2029 and signals a significant shift in enforcement priorities. The NEP does not change federal law, but it tells you where the EEOC will focus its investigations and litigation resources for the next three years.
Key priorities under the new NEP include moving away from "disparate impact" cases in favor of "disparate treatment" (intentional discrimination), scrutinizing DEI programs as potential sources of race- or sex-based decision-making, and prioritizing religious accommodation cases and single-sex workplace spaces.
Practical action: Conduct a targeted review of recruiting materials, DEI-related initiatives, accommodation policies, and workplace access rules. State and local anti-discrimination laws remain in effect regardless of the NEP's priorities.
New York State codified disparate impact discrimination under the NYSHRL effective December 19, 2025. Under the new law, an unlawful discriminatory practice may be established where an employer uses a policy that predictably results in a disparate impact based on a protected characteristic — proof of discriminatory intent is not required.
However, on June 9, 2026, the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel issued a Memorandum Opinion concluding that disparate impact liability under Title VII is unconstitutional as currently applied. This aligns with President Trump's April 2025 Executive Order on Meritocracy and the EEOC's new NEP. New York's recently enacted law may face a constitutional challenge as a result.
Watch this space: New York employers must comply with the codified disparate impact standard today. Monitor developments — a constitutional challenge to the state law is plausible and could change the landscape.
Senate Bill S5922-A/A2725-A, signed December 12, 2025, requires private employers covered by OSHA that maintain first aid supplies to also make opioid antagonists (naloxone/Narcan) available for emergency use. Follow-up amendments (A9453/S8770, signed February 13, 2026) clarify that employers are not required to place naloxone in every individual first aid kit — they must ensure it is readily accessible wherever first aid is administered. Compliance deadline: December 12, 2026.
The NYS Department of Labor will issue regulations addressing dosage quantities by workplace size, training requirements, and additional implementation guidance. Those regulations are pending.
Do now: Audit your first aid protocols, identify where opioid antagonists will be stored, and plan for training once DOL regulations are released.
Both houses of the New York State Legislature passed Senate Bill S3460 on May 19, 2026. If signed by Governor Hochul, it would amend the New York Labor Law (new Section 210-b) to require employers to provide employees access to their personnel records within five business days of a written request, at no cost, up to twice per year.
Employers would also be required to notify employees within 10 days whenever negative information — meaning anything that "has been used or may be used to negatively affect the employee's qualifications for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation, or the possibility of disciplinary action" — is placed in their file. Employees would have the right to submit a written rebuttal, which must be included in the file and transmitted to any third party who receives the negative information. The Attorney General could fine violators $500–$2,500.
Prepare now: If signed, employers have only 60 days to comply. Start reviewing how your organization documents performance, discipline, and employment decisions. Update your handbook and build a process for timely notices before you need it.
| Location | Jan 1, 2025 | Jan 1, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| New York City, Nassau, Suffolk & Westchester Counties | $16.50/hr | $17.00/hr |
| Remainder of New York State | $15.50/hr | $15.50/hr |
| View official NYS minimum wage posters and schedules ↗ | ||
| Location | Jan 1, 2025 | Jan 1, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| NYC, Nassau, Suffolk & Westchester Counties | $1,237.50/wk ($64,350/yr) | $1,275.00/wk ($66,300/yr) |
| Remainder of New York State | $1,161.65/wk ($60,405.80/yr) | $1,199.10/wk ($62,353.20/yr) |
| Threshold | Amount |
|---|---|
| Minimum wage | $7.25/hr |
| Exec., Admin. & Professional overtime exemption (minimum weekly salary) | $684.00/wk ($35,568/yr) |
| Highly compensated employee exemption | $107,432.00/yr |
Got a question you'd actually like a real attorney to answer? Each month's BNHRA Members Briefing includes an Ask the Attorney segment, featuring questions submitted by members and answered by attorneys at Hodgson Russ LLP. Questions are kept confidential. Your question becomes a resource for every member who reads that issue.
Submit a Question| Governmental Affairs Committee | |
Governmental Affairs Director  Shannon Scott Iskalo Development Corp. 5166 Main Street Williamsville , NY 14221 716-579-4599 e-mail: shannoncscott@gmail.com | |
Phillips Lytle LLP Alert for BNHRA Members
EEOC Rescinds Pair of Affirmative Action Guidance Documents
Decision is in Line with EEOC’s New National Enforcement Plan
Employers with voluntary affirmative action plans should take note. On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it has rescinded several decades-old guidance documents relating to voluntary workplace affirmative action plans.
The now-rescinded documents include a 1979 interpretative rule called “Affirmative Action Appropriate Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” which outlined how employers could lawfully deploy affirmative action plans. The EEOC also struck a section of its compliance manual that was adopted in 1981—Section 607–which included a lengthy discussion about how affirmative action plans could be legally implemented.
Together, the now-rescinded guidance had explained that voluntary affirmative action plans were lawful when designed to “overcome the effects of past or present practices, policies, or other barriers to equal employment opportunity” or to address imbalances in traditionally segregated jobs. The guidance had required such programs to be carefully structured to avoid unlawfully disadvantaging other employees.
Importantly, the guidance had also provided employers with a potential safe harbor under section 713(b)(1) of the Civil Rights Act, which allows an employer to defend against an unlawful employment practice claim by showing that it acted in good-faith reliance on written EEOC guidance. Now that the guidance has been rescinded, employers facing legal challenges to affirmative action programs can no longer rely on that defense.
In rescinding this guidance, the EEOC cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which unanimously eliminated the higher evidentiary standard some courts had imposed on majority-group plaintiffs in workplace discrimination cases. As we previously reported, the EEOC’s new National Enforcement Plan (NEP) prioritizes cases and investigations that may apply, interpret or clarify recent Supreme Court decisions. The NEP specifically identifies cases involving voluntary affirmative action programs.
Thus, the EEOC’s rescission of guidance documents relating to voluntary affirmative action plans is consistent with the NEP. It further signals the agency’s shifting priorities and increased focus on workplace diversity programs. It does not, however, modify federal law or Supreme Court precedent, nor does it alter any state or local law. In light of this development, employers with established affirmative action programs should consider re-evaluating them and ensure continued compliance with federal, state and local laws.
