The EEOC’s New National Enforcement Plan: Key Changes and Takeaways for Employers

How Employers Can Prepare for New York State’s Bill Governing Personnel Records

Overtime Exemptions Under Fair Labor Standards Act Rolled Back to 2019 Standards

Overtime Exemptions Under Fair Labor Standards Act Rolled Back to 2019 Standards

Written By: James R. O’Connor and Natalie Turney, May15, 2026 

$684.00 Weekly Minimum for Executive, Administrative, and Professionals Exemption Now in Effect

On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced that it is rescinding a regulation issued during former President Joe Biden’s administration, restoring earlier and significantly lower salary thresholds for overtime exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). A technical amendment to the “Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales, and Computer Employees” regulation removes invalidated language and restores the 2019 standards. The amendment is effective May 15, 2026.  

However, in late 2024, federal courts in Texas struck down the Biden-era rule, finding that the DOL exceeded its authority by placing too much emphasis on salary level rather than job duties. In early May 2026, the DOL dropped its appeals of these rulings, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the cases, leaving the lower court rulings in place. In addition, the DOL has ended its defense of the Biden-era rule in related litigation.

The technical amendment cites the Texas court rulings and Fifth Circuit decision as justification for reverting the regulation to the 2019 standards. As a practical matter, the federal overtime exemption threshold is now:

• $684.00 per week minimum for the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions; and
• $107,432.00 annual salary for certain highly compensated employees.

The DOL is not accepting public comment because it is merely conforming the regulation to reflect the recent court decisions.

Employers should assess their wage-and-hour policies and, if necessary, communicate this new rule change to their employees. Employers should also continue to follow all applicable state and local laws, paying close attention to those states that provide higher thresholds, such as New York, to ensure they are in compliance with all relevant standards.

U.S. Department of Labor Unveils Joint Employer Rule Proposal

Four Factors Establish Joint Employer Control

On April 22, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, (DOL) announced a proposed rule that, if
finalized, would revise the standard for joint employer status under three federal wage and hour laws: the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA); the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act (MSPA). This structure mirrors the DOL’s plan for its independent contractor rule, as we previously
reported.

In sum, the DOL seeks to create a single nationwide standard for when two or more employers can be jointly liable for
workplace offenses under federal laws that protect wages, unpaid leave, and migrant and seasonal farm employees. This
rule, if enacted, will impact franchises, staffing agencies, gig workers, businesses that outsource their labor, and
employers in the health care and construction industries, among others.

The first Trump Administration’s DOL issued a rule that required one business to exert “actual” control over another
company’s workers to be jointly on the hook for wage, overtime and other labor violations. After a federal court largely
vacated the Trump 1.0 rule, the Biden Administration’s DOL rescinded that rule.

The current proposed rule takes a different approach from Trump 1.0, stating that a set of four factors should “weigh the
economic reality of the potential joint employer’s control, direct or indirect, over the employee.”

The four factors are whether a company:
1. Has the power to hire or fire a worker.
2. Supervises or controls a worker’s schedule or conditions of employment to a substantial degree.
3. Determines the rate and method of payment.
4. Maintains a worker’s employment records.

According to the proposal, additional factors may be relevant in assessing joint employment, but a unanimous finding on
the above four factors in either direction would establish a "substantial likelihood" regarding whether an individual or
entity is a joint employer with another business.

The rule is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2026. The DOL will accept public comments until
June 22, 2026. Employers affected by this rule should consider submitting comments during this 60-day period. If the
proposed rule is finalized, employers should reassess their work-sharing agreements, wage-and-hour policies and FMLA
leave procedures through the lens of the new standard, ensuring that all joint employer issues are properly addressed.
In the meantime, employers should recognize that the proposed rule does not affect the analysis for determining joint
employer status under other laws or standards, including state law. Employers should continue to follow all applicable
state and local laws to ensure they are in compliance with all relevant standards.

Additional Assistance
For further assistance, please contact any of the attorneys on our Labor and Employment Practice Team or the Phillips
Lytle attorney with whom you have a relationship.

What Employers Need to Know About New York State’s Trapped at Work Act

What Employers Need to Know About New York

State’s Trapped at Work Act

Written By: James R. O’Connor, Linda T. Prestegaard, Colleen R. McMullen

January 7, 2026 

Workers Cannot Be Required to Repay Certain Advances, Stipends, or Reimbursements if Leaving a Job Before a Set Amount of Time 

Does your business require employees who leave before a set period of time to repay the business certain advances, stipends, or reimbursements the employee received—such as for training costs? If your business is located in New York State, a major development in New York Labor Law may apply. 

On December 19th, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the “Trapped at Work Act” (the “Act”) into law. The Act, which takes effect immediately, mandates that “no employer may require, as a condition of employment, any worker or prospective worker to execute an employment promissory note.” If any employment promissory notes are executed, the “note shall be null and void.” 

WHO IS AFFECTED BY THE TRAPPED AT WORK ACT? 

The Act broadly defines an affected “employer” as “an individual, partnership, association, corporation, limited liability company, trust, government or government subdivision, or any organized group that hires or contracts with a worker to work for the employer.” 

An affected “worker” is also broadly defined to include “an employee, independent contractor, extern, intern, volunteer, apprentice, sole proprietor . . . [or] an individual who provides service through a business or nonprofit entity or association.” Individuals who solely interact with an employer as a vendor of goods are not considered “workers” for purposes of the Act. 

WHAT DOES THE ACT PROHIBIT? 

The Act prohibits any covered employer from requiring a worker to execute an employment promissory note as a condition of the worker’s employment. 

An “employment promissory note” is defined as “any instrument, agreement, or contract provision that requires a worker to pay the employer, or the employer’s agent or assignee, a sum of money if the worker leaves such employment before the passage of a stated period of time.”

The Act specifically notes that this definition includes “any such instrument, agreement, or contract provision which states such payment of moneys constitutes reimbursement for training provided to the worker by the employer or by a third party.” 

EXCEPTIONS TO THE ACT 

Notably, the Act lists four distinct categories of agreements between workers and employers that are not prohibited: 

1. An agreement that “requires the worker to repay to the employer any sums advanced to such worker by the employer, unless such sums were used to pay for training related to the worker’s employment with the employer” (emphasis added). 

2. Agreements requiring a worker to pay the employer for any property it has sold or leased to such worker.

3. Agreements requiring educational personnel to comply with sabbatical leaves.

4. Agreements entered into as part of an applicable collective bargaining agreement. 

Future agreements between employers and workers that seek to include employee repayment provisions must be carefully drafted to ensure that the language of each agreement falls within one of these four exceptions. 

CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATING THE ACT 

If an employer is found to have required a worker to execute an employment promissory note in violation of the Act, the New York State Department of Labor may issue a fine ranging from at least $1,000 up to a maximum of $5,000. 

Notably, each individual agreement that an employer executes with a worker constitutes a separate violation of the Act, which may be fined separately. This means that if an employer were to execute multiple employment promissory notes with various employees, a fine between $1,000-$5,000 could be imposed for each prohibited agreement. 

Employees do not have a private right of action to sue an employer for violations of the Act. However, workers may recover “attorney’s fees upon a successful defense” of any action where an employer sues an employee based on a promissory note that violates the Act. 

CURRENT AMBIGUITIES WITHIN THE ACT 

Although the Act is currently in effect, the New York State Department of Labor has yet to issue any guiding regulations pursuant to the Act. Thus, any ambiguities within the Act remain uncertain, pending additional guidance. 

For example, it is unclear based on the text of the Act alone whether it applies retroactively to agreements entered into before December 19, 2025. If the Act does apply retroactively, employers will likely be extremely limited in enforcing such agreements. 

Gov. Hochul herself noted this lack of clarity in the Act and stated that her signature was based on her “agreement with the Legislature to address these concerns in the upcoming legislative session.” 

However, until these ambiguities are addressed, employers must rely on interpreting the text of the Act itself. Phillips Lytle will continue to track statutory updates and can assist employers with interpreting and applying the Act to the employer’s unique needs.

HOW TO PROCEED

Moving forward, New York employers should carefully review all policies, onboarding materials, and agreements for potential repayment provisions that violate the Act. Employers should also keep alert for forthcoming guidance from the New York State Legislature and/or New York State Department of Labor, which may further clarify which agreements are impacted and how employers are expected to comply with the Act. 

Phillips Lytle’s experienced Labor and Employment attorneys can assist in drafting or reviewing repayment agreements to ensure compliance with the Act. 

Additional Assistance

Our Labor and Employment attorneys remain ready to provide advice and guidance on complying with these new laws or any other workplace issues. For further assistance, please contact any of the attorneys on our Labor and Employment Practice Team or the Phillips Lytle attorney with whom you have a relationship.

EEOC Rescinds Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace

EEOC Rescinds Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace

Written By: James R. O’Connor 

January 27, 2026 

Employers Must Continue to Follow Title VII and Protections Set Forth by State Law 

On January 22, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted to rescind its Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. This is one of the first acts the EEOC has taken since it achieved a quorum in October 2025. 

The rescission took effect immediately. EEOC guidance is certainly an instructive resource for employers and practitioners, but it is not binding law. Thus, the rescission does not significantly change federal law, and employers must remain vigilant that they are also complying with state and local laws, which are often more favorable to workers than federal law. 

THE HARASSMENT ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE 

In September 2023, the EEOC published proposed Enforcement Guidance; that document was approved and finalized in April 2024. The Guidance consolidated previous EEOC publications and expanded the harassment protections in the

workplace. It was widely viewed as a response to the impact of the #MeToo movement. It also provided guidance on LGBTQ+ discrimination in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Of note, the Guidance stated that sex-based harassment under Title VII includes conduct based on an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including how that identity is expressed. This would include “outing” a person’s sexual

orientation or gender identity, repeated or intentional misgendering (using a pronoun inconsistent with a person’s gender identity) and “dead naming” (using a name used by a person prior to their transition), as well as denying a person access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the person’s gender identity. The Guidance also stated that harassment also includes conduct directed toward a person because the person presents themselves in a manner that is different from that which would be stereotypically associated with that person’s sex. 

In May 2025, a federal court concluded that the EEOC’s guidance improperly “expand[ed] the scope of ‘sex’ beyond the biological binary” and “contravene[d] Title VII by defining discriminatory ‘harassment’ to include transgender bathroom, pronoun, and dress preferences.” Among other things, the court vacated those sections of the Guidance relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. After the decision, the EEOC revised its website to indicate precisely which provisions of the guidance were voided. But the Guidance remained otherwise valid because the EEOC could not formally rescind or repeal it without a quorum. 

THE RESCISSION OF ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE ON HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE 

Current EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas has long signaled a desire to rescind the Guidance, which she voted against in 2024. On January 22, 2026, the EEOC rescinded the entire Guidance document, not just the items vacated by the court. Rather, the Commission repealed the Guidance in its entirety. 

Employers should still proceed with caution where these issues arise in the workplace. All complaints of harassment should be taken seriously and investigated per company policy. 

The Bostock decision remains valid Supreme Court precedent. Thus, Title VII protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, although the full scope of those protections is not yet entirely clear. When it decided Bostock, the Supreme Court expressly noted that it was not “addressing bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind” and that those were “questions for future cases.” After Bostock, courts have come to differing conclusions as to the scope of the decision. 

Importantly, many state and local laws, including the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human RightsLaw, expressly prohibit discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Employers still must comply with these laws, and employees can still bring such lawsuits under both state and federal law on these grounds. 

Additional Assistance
Our Labor and Employment attorneys remain ready to provide advice and guidance on complying with these new laws or any other workplace issues. For further assistance, please contact any of the attorneys on our Labor and Employment Practice Team or the Phillips Lytle attorney with whom you have a relationship.

New York State Budget Brings Changes to the Workplace

Written By: James R. Grasso
May 17, 2024
Three new updates to New York State labor laws.
Each year, the New York State budget negotiations are a time ripe for the governor and legislature to include substantive
legislation as part of the budget negotiation process that might not otherwise be considered during the regular legislative
session, and this year was no different. For employers, the recently enacted New York State budget for fiscal year 2025
includes a first-in-the-nation paid prenatal leave law, mandated paid lactation breaks, and a future repeal of the nation’s
sole remaining paid COVID-19 leave law.
Paid Prenatal Leave
As a result of an amendment to New York’s Paid Sick Leave law (§ 196-b of the New York Labor Law), effective January 1,
2025, all pregnant employees in New York State will be entitled to 20 hours of paid leave during any 52-week calendar
period to obtain health care services received during the pregnancy or related to the pregnancy. Covered health care
services include physical examination, medical procedures, monitoring and testing, and discussions with a health care
provider related to the pregnancy.
Paid prenatal leave may be taken in one-hour increments and must be paid at the employee’s regular rate of pay or the
minimum wage, whichever is higher. Unused leave time is not required to be paid out upon separation from employment.
Paid prenatal leave is in addition to the paid leave an employee is entitled to under the Paid Sick Leave law. Paid prenatal
leave applies regardless of an employer’s size, and there is no waiting time or accrual period for employees to use the
leave.
Paid Lactation Breaks
Effective June 19, 2024, New York Labor Law § 206-c will require employers to provide employees who wish to express
breast milk for a nursing child with paid break time for 30 minutes “each time such employee has reasonable need to
express breast milk.” Currently, employers are only required to provide unpaid break time. The law’s language that
employees may take a 30-minute paid break “each time such employee has reasonable need to express breast milk”
suggests that employees may be able to take more than one paid 30-minute break per day to express breast milk, but it is
unclear whether the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) will interpret the law to allow that. In addition to the
newly required 30-minute paid break time, employees retain the right to use existing paid break or meal time for time in
excess of 30 minutes. Employees have the right to express breast milk in the workplace for up to three years after the birth
of a child.
Employers should remember that § 206-c requires employers to: (1) provide a designated room for the expression of breast
milk, other than a restroom or toilet stall, that is: (a) in close proximity to the work area, (b) well lit, (c) shielded from view,
and (d) free from intrusion from other persons in the workplace or the public; and (2) provide to each employee upon hire
and annually, and to employees returning to work following the birth of a child, the notice issued by the DOL informing
employees of the right to express breast milk in the workplace. It is expected that the DOL will be updating the notice to
reflect the new requirement to provide paid break time.

Repeal of COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave
Enacted in March 2020, the New York State COVID-19 Paid Leave law requires employers to provide leave, paid or unpaid
depending on their size and net income, for employees who are subject to a mandatory or precautionary order of isolation
or quarantine due to COVID-19. The governor’s initial budget proposed repealing the law on July 31, 2024, but after
negotiations, the approved budget contains a provision that will repeal the law on July 31, 2025.

Our attorneys remain ready to provide advice and guidance on complying with these new laws or any other workplace
issues. For further assistance, please contact any of the attorneys on our Labor and Employment Practice Team or the
Phillips Lytle attorney with whom you have a relationship.