September 2026 Newsletter

Newsletter Highlights:

The California lawmakers are considering legislation that would expand the state’s mandatory workplace harassment prevention training requirements to include antihate speech training. Assembly Bill (AB) 1803, introduced on February 10, 2026, would require employers with five or more employees to incorporate anti-hate speech content into the training they already provide to supervisory and non-supervisory employees. The proposal would not create a separate training program, but would add the new subject to California’s existing workplace training framework.
Illinois, Philadelphia, and California are moving to strengthen workplace protections for employees experiencing menstruation, perimenopause, menopause, and related medical conditions. Illinois has enacted legislation extending existing anti-discrimination and reasonable-accommodation protections to menopause-related conditions, while Philadelphia has adopted similar protections expressly covering menstruation, perimenopause, and menopause. California is considering legislation that would expressly incorporate perimenopause, menopause, postmenopause, and related medical conditions into its existing sex-discrimination protections. Together, these developments reflect a growing trend among state and local governments toward expressly recognizing menopause-related conditions within workplace discrimination and accommodation laws.
Workplace violence prevention continues to generate new and expanding compliance obligations for employers in California and New York. California is advancing regulations implementing its general-industry workplace violence prevention law, with proposed requirements expanding existing planning, hazard assessment, training, incident-recordkeeping, and response obligations. New York, meanwhile, has enacted new workplace violence requirements for hospitals and nursing homes and is preparing for a January 2027 deadline requiring larger retail employers to provide workers with silent response buttons. Together, these developments reflect increased state-level attention to workplace violence prevention and a shift toward more detailed requirements concerning employee training, written prevention programs, security measures, and incident response.
The EEOC reached a $925,000 settlement with three affiliated Austin-area car dealerships resolving allegations that managers subjected female sales employees to sexual comments, unwanted touching, physical assault, and other sexually hostile conduct, while also retaliating against a male manager who reported the alleged harassment. The three-year consent decree requires the dealerships to adopt policies and procedures designed to prevent sexual harassment and retaliation, provide non-discrimination training to employees, and provide additional training on conducting harassment, discrimination, and retaliation investigations to employees responsible for those functions. The settlement highlights the EEOC’s continued use of mandatory employee and investigator training as a component of remedial relief in harassment and retaliation cases.
The EEOC has taken a series of significant steps in 2026 to reshape federal enforcement of workplace discrimination laws, particularly with respect to DEI and race- and sex-conscious employment practices. The agency’s new National Enforcement Plan makes DEI-related discrimination a central enforcement priority and emphasizes intentional discrimination over disparate impact theories; the EEOC has sued Washington University over alleged retaliation following an employee’s objection to race-based separation during mandatory DEI training; the Commission has rescinded decades-old affirmative action guidance; and it has proposed eliminating federal EEO demographic reporting requirements. At the same time, Colorado has moved in the opposite direction by requiring certain employers to continue submitting EEO-1 demographic data at the state level even if the federal requirement is eliminated. Together, these developments reflect a significant recalibration of federal discrimination enforcement while demonstrating that employers may continue to face separate state-level demographic reporting obligations.
Federal and Illinois authorities are moving in opposite directions on disparate-impact discrimination. In June 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the EEOC’s disparate-impact guidelines raise constitutional concerns and interpreted Title VII as permitting disparate-impact liability only within significantly narrower limits, reinforcing the federal government’s retreat from disparate-impact enforcement. Illinois responded in the opposite direction by enacting the Civil Rights Safeguard Act, which expressly codifies disparate-impact liability under the Illinois Human Rights Act beginning January 1, 2027. The developments create an increasingly important federal-state divide: although federal agencies are moving away from disparate-impact enforcement, private federal claims remain possible and states such as Illinois are establishing independent statutory protections.

California AB 1803 Would Add Anti-Hate Speech Training to Mandatory Workplace Training

California Assembly Bill 1803 would amend Government Code Section 12950.1 to require employers with five or more employees to incorporate anti-hate speech training into their existing harassment prevention programs. Covered employers currently must provide at least two hours of training to supervisory employees and one hour to non-supervisory employees every two years. AB 1803 would add anti-hate speech to the required subjects rather than creating a separate training obligation. Notably, the bill does not currently define “hate speech,” and legislative analysis recognizes that hate speech itself is not necessarily unlawful, although workplace speech or conduct may violate employment discrimination and harassment laws when it crosses the applicable legal threshold.

If enacted, employers may need to review their existing training materials, trainer qualifications, and recordkeeping procedures to ensure the new anti-hate speech component is properly incorporated and documented. AB 1803 remains proposed legislation and may be amended as it moves through the legislative process, particularly regarding the definition of hate speech, so California employers should continue monitoring developments rather than treating the proposed requirements as currently effective law.

Read more: California Assembly Bill 1803

Illinois, Philadelphia, and California Expand Menopause-Related Workplace Protections

Illinois. The Illinois Menopause Equity and Care Act, signed into law on August 7, 2026, amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to include perimenopause, menopause, and associated medical or symptomatic conditions within existing pregnancy-related employment protections. Effective January 1, 2027, covered employers will be required to provide reasonable accommodations for known menopause-related conditions unless doing so would impose an undue hardship and will be prohibited from discriminating against applicants or employees because of those conditions or their need for accommodation. Employers should prepare by reviewing accommodation policies, handbooks, required notices, and procedures and by training HR personnel and managers on handling menopause-related accommodation requests.

Philadelphia. Philadelphia has amended its Fair Practices Ordinance to expressly make menstruation, perimenopause, and menopause protected categories beginning January 1, 2027. Employers will be prohibited from discriminating, harassing, or retaliating against employees based on these characteristics and, where the statutory requirements are satisfied, will need to provide reasonable accommodations for related workplace needs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. Philadelphia employers should review their discrimination, harassment, and accommodation policies and prepare managers and HR personnel to recognize and appropriately address requests involving these conditions.

California. California lawmakers are considering AB 1940, which would amend the Fair Employment and Housing Act to expressly include perimenopause, menopause, postmenopause, and related medical conditions within the definition of “sex.” The bill would also require updated workplace discrimination notices and a statewide public awareness campaign concerning menopause-related workplace rights by July 1, 2027. Unlike the Illinois and Philadelphia measures, AB 1940 remains proposed legislation and may change as it proceeds through the legislative process, so California employers should monitor its progress while reviewing whether existing accommodation, leave, and anti-discrimination policies adequately address menopause-related conditions.

Read more: ⁠HOUSE BILL NO. 5284 | ⁠BILL NO. 250849 | ⁠ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 1940

California and New York Expand Workplace Violence Prevention Requirements

California. Cal/OSHA released an updated proposed general-industry workplace violence prevention standard on April 24, 2026, as part of its implementation of SB 553 and Labor Code § 6401.9, with public comments accepted through June 1. The proposal builds on workplace violence prevention requirements that have applied to covered California employers since July 2024 and would expand or clarify obligations concerning covered workplaces and employer-provided transportation, hazard identification and correction, incident reporting, employee participation, post-incident procedures, training, and recordkeeping. Among other changes, employers would be required to retain certain workplace violence reports, evaluations, and corrective-action records for five years. Cal/OSHA is required to adopt the implementing regulation by December 31, 2026, so employers with California operations should monitor the final rule and assess whether their existing workplace violence prevention plans and procedures will require revision.

New York – Healthcare. New York enacted new workplace violence prevention requirements for general hospitals and nursing homes through Chapter 618 of the Laws of 2025, adding Public Health Law §§ 2832 and 2832-a. Beginning September 18, 2026, covered general hospitals will face new emergency-department security requirements, including requirements for trained security personnel or off-duty law enforcement depending on hospital location and classification. Beginning January 1, 2027, general hospitals must conduct annual Safety and Security Assessments and adopt corresponding plans addressing identified workplace violence risks, including employee and security personnel training. By September 18, 2027, general hospitals and nursing homes must also establish Workplace Violence Prevention Programs designed to protect healthcare workers, patients, residents, and visitors, significantly expanding formal violence-prevention obligations in New York healthcare settings.

New York – Retail. New York’s Retail Worker Safety Act, codified at Labor Law § 27-e and subsequently amended, imposes workplace violence prevention requirements on covered retail employers, including written prevention policies and employee training. A significant additional requirement takes effect January 1, 2027, when retail employers with 500 or more employees statewide must provide workers access to a silent response button capable of requesting immediate assistance from an internal security officer, manager, or supervisor. The button may take the form of a fixed device, wearable technology, or a mobile application, and employees must be trained on its use. Larger New York retailers should use the period before implementation to evaluate not only the required technology but also their internal response and escalation procedures to ensure alerts can result in timely assistance.

Austin Car Dealerships to Pay $925,000 and Implement Training Under EEOC Harassment Settlement

The EEOC alleged that managers at South Austin Nissan subjected four female sales employees to a sexually hostile work environment involving frequent sexual comments, unwanted touching, and physical assault, including allegedly instructing female sales associates to “show more, sell more.” The agency also alleged that the dealerships retaliated against a male sales manager after learning that he had reported the harassment. The federal court subsequently found sufficient evidence for certain claims to proceed to trial and determined that the affiliated dealerships operated as an integrated enterprise for purposes of potential Title VII liability.

The parties ultimately settled before trial, with the federal court approving a three-year consent decree requiring $925,000 in monetary relief for five affected workers. In addition to the payment, the dealerships must implement anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies and procedures, provide non-discrimination training to employees, provide specialized investigation training to personnel responsible for handling harassment, discrimination, and retaliation complaints, report future complaints to the EEOC, and comply with additional monitoring requirements.

EEOC Reshapes Federal Enforcement Approach to DEI, Affirmative Action, Training, and Workforce Reporting

National Enforcement Plan. On June 4, 2026, the EEOC issued its National Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2025–2029, replacing the prior Strategic Enforcement Plan and identifying DEI-related race and sex discrimination as a leading enforcement priority. The plan highlights practices including job advertisements seeking “diverse candidates,” race- or sex-based quotas or goals, diverse-slate requirements, restricted training and mentorship opportunities, diversity statements, demographic-based executive incentives, and sharing demographic information with decision-makers. The EEOC also states that it will prioritize intentional discrimination claims and discontinue disparate impact litigation, signaling increased scrutiny of employer programs that use race, sex, or other protected characteristics in recruitment, training, promotion, compensation, and other employment decisions.

Washington University DEI Training Lawsuit. The EEOC filed suit against Washington University in August 2026 alleging that the university retaliated against a Black employee after she complained about being separated from white colleagues based on race during mandatory DEI training and subsequently filed an EEOC charge. According to the agency, the employee had objected in advance to race-based separation during the training and was later stripped of responsibilities before her position was eliminated. The case provides a particularly direct warning regarding mandatory training formats that separate or assign employees according to protected characteristics and also reinforces that employees who object to perceived discrimination in workplace training are protected against retaliation under Title VII.

Affirmative Action Guidance Rescinded. The EEOC has rescinded its longstanding Affirmative Action Guidelines and related Compliance Manual guidance, which for decades provided a federal framework for employers implementing voluntary affirmative action programs. The Commission concluded that the guidance was inconsistent with Title VII and subsequent Supreme Court precedent emphasizing equal statutory protection for individuals regardless of protected characteristics. The rescission removes an important source of agency guidance for employers maintaining race-, sex-, or national-origin-conscious employment initiatives and increases the importance of reviewing affirmative action, targeted development, training, mentorship, and other programs that provide opportunities based on protected characteristics.

EEO Reporting Requirements. On July 23, 2026, the EEOC proposed eliminating its longstanding EEO workforce demographic reporting requirements, including the EEO-1 Component 1 report, together with associated federal recordkeeping provisions. The agency argues that mandatory collection and reporting of race and sex information is unnecessary for enforcement and may raise legal concerns, while estimating substantial compliance savings for employers. If finalized, the proposal would eliminate annual federal EEO reporting obligations, although the EEOC would retain authority to obtain relevant employment records during investigations and employers would remain subject to other federal record-retention requirements and applicable state or local reporting laws. Until a final rule is issued, existing reporting obligations remain in effect.

Colorado EEO-1 Reporting. Colorado has established a state-level backstop to the potential elimination of federal EEO-1 reporting through HB 26-1207, signed on June 4, 2026. Beginning July 1, 2027, private employers conducting business in Colorado with 100 or more employees will be required to submit EEO-1 demographic workforce data to the Colorado Secretary of State as part of their periodic reports. Significantly, the reporting requirement will continue even if the federal government eliminates the EEO-1, meaning covered employers will need to continue collecting and maintaining the relevant demographic data regardless of whether the EEOC’s proposed federal reporting repeal is finalized.

Federal Government and Illinois Take Opposing Approaches to Disparate-Impact Liability

DOJ Disparate-Impact Opinion. On June 9, 2026, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion concluding that the EEOC’s existing disparate-impact guidelines are inconsistent with Title VII and raise serious constitutional concerns when they impose liability based on statistical disparities without evidence of discriminatory intent. The opinion specifically questions the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures and takes the position that common selection practices—including aptitude and knowledge tests, background checks, educational requirements, and standardized assessments—should generally be presumed job-related rather than creating liability merely because outcomes differ among demographic groups. Importantly, the OLC opinion governs the executive branch’s legal position but is not a court decision and does not repeal Title VII’s statutory disparate-impact provisions. Private plaintiffs therefore may continue bringing disparate-impact claims under federal law, subject to controlling judicial precedent.

Illinois Civil Rights Safeguard Act. Illinois has taken the opposite approach through SB 3777, the Civil Rights Safeguard Act, signed on July 31, 2026 and effective January 1, 2027. The law expressly codifies disparate-impact liability under the Illinois Human Rights Act, creating an independent state-law basis for challenging facially neutral employment practices that disproportionately affect protected groups even without proof of discriminatory intent. Employers defending a challenged practice may need to establish that it is job-related and consistent with business necessity and address whether a less discriminatory alternative could accomplish the same purpose. The law is particularly relevant to hiring requirements, employment testing, promotion standards, disciplinary policies, and criminal-history screening and ensures that disparate-impact exposure will remain significant for Illinois employers regardless of changes in federal enforcement policy.