New CLE from Andrew Lieb: Reverse Discrimination: McDonnell Douglas in Trump's America

Andrew Lieb's 1 credit CLE is now available on Lawline. This continuing legal education course examines how courts handle reverse discrimination claims using the McDonnell Douglas framework. With Affirmative Action over per SCOTUS in SFFA v. Harvard, minority status can no longer be a plus factor in hiring. Yet, the EEOC’s outdated Affirmative Action Guidance puts employers at risk of lawsuits. Victims of illegal DEI policies need to know how to sue and recover for their employer’s discriminatory actions. Available for credit in most states.

Click Here For Course Link

EEOC Targets Reverse Discrimination for Anti-American Bias - International Staffing Agencies Be Warned!

On 2/19/2025, EEOC Announced a Crackdown on Anti-American Bias with a target of those engaging in unlawful national origin discrimination, including employers and staffing agencies. By emphasizing staffing agencies in its Press Release, it appears that EEOC is targeting staffing agency that focus on foreign workers and they should lawyer-up immediately. 

What You Need to Know

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced a renewed focus on combating national origin discrimination, with a particular emphasis on protecting American workers from unlawful hiring preferences that favor non-American employees. Acting Chair Andrea Lucas made it clear that the agency will be increasing enforcement efforts against employers, staffing agencies, and other entities that engage in illegal hiring practices that disadvantage American workers. Read the full EEOC press release here.

Summary of the EEOC’s Announcement

The EEOC is intensifying enforcement against employers that unlawfully prefer non-American workers over American workers, citing violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The agency aims to deter illegal migration and curb the abuse of legal immigration programs by holding employers accountable for discriminatory hiring practices.

What Employers Need to Know

Employers should immediately review their hiring, recruitment, and staffing policies to ensure compliance with Title VII’s prohibition on national origin discrimination. Common illegal practices include:

• Preferring non-American workers over American workers due to perceived cost savings or ease of exploitation.
• Hiring practices that intentionally exclude U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents in favor of visa holders.
• Making employment decisions based on biased stereotypes about work ethic, productivity, or compliance.
• Complying with client demands for a foreign workforce over qualified American workers.

The EEOC has made it clear that these discriminatory practices will not be tolerated, and businesses found to be in violation may face significant legal and financial penalties.

What Employees Need to Know

Employees, whether American or non-American, are protected under federal law from national origin discrimination. If you suspect that an employer is favoring foreign workers over qualified American workers—or engaging in any other form of national origin discrimination—you have the right to file a complaint with the EEOC within 300 days (in NY, but may be 180 days elsewhere) of the discriminatory action. Employees are protected from retaliation for reporting discrimination, and the EEOC can investigate claims and, if necessary, give you a right to sue letter so you can sue in Federal Court to recover lost wages, emotional support damages, and your attorneys' fees.

Non-competes & Non-disclosures Usefulness Enhanced by National Labor Relations Board's Rescissions of Guidance

On February 14, 2025, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rescinded enforcement memorandums that had made companies exposed to suit for utilizing certain non-competes and non-disclosures. In fact, the memorandums provided guidance on how employees could demonstrate harm and how employers were exposed from utilizing such non-competes and non-disclosures for lost wages, benefits, and other expenses incurred by the employee. 

Specifically, the NLRB rescinded: 

1. GC 23-08 Non-Compete Agreements that Violate the National Labor Relations Act
2. GC 25-01 Remedying the Harmful Effects of Non-Compete and “Stay-or-Pay” Provisions that Violate the National Labor Relations Act
3. GC 23-05 Guidance in Response to Inquiries about the McLaren Macomb Decision

The core argument is that non-compete provisions and stay-or-pay provisions (i.e., nullifying debt incurred by employee only if they stay in employment for a period of time) can restrict employees' rights to engage in protected concerted activities, such as organizing or advocating for better working conditions. Further, The McLaren Macomb ruling determined that broad confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements could violate employees' rights under Section 7 of the NLRA.

AI Discrimination and the 10-Step Bias Elimination Audit

AI's rapid growth comes with significant risks, particularly the potential for unchecked discrimination. As a result, new laws may soon require mandatory audits and enhanced training to ensure compliance and fairness.

In this New York Law Journal article, attorneys Andrew Lieb and Claudia Cannam outline the essential steps for conducting a proper AI audit—helping businesses stay ahead of evolving regulations and mitigate legal risks.

🔗 Read more here

SCOTUS Makes It Harder for Workers to Recover Wages

On January 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera that employers only need to prove that employees are exempt under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by a "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not) to defeat a wage and hour claim. This decision replaces the tougher "clear and convincing" standard that had been applied by some courts prior to this decision.

The FLSA requires an employer to pay overtime to employees unless the employer can prove that the employees fall under an exemption, such as being an Executive, Administrative, Professional, Computer & Outside Sales Employees.

In the case before SCOTUS, the employees claimed that they were misclassified as outside salesmen and sued their employer for overtime pay, liquidated damages (double damages), and attorneys' fees. 

The lower court sided with the employees, in using the tougher "clear and convincing" standard, but the employer appealed while arguing that it only had to prove that the exemption applied by a preponderance of the evidence. SCOTUS agreed with the employer and sent the case back to the lower court to reexamine the facts to determine the applicability of the exemption under the preponderance of the evidence standard. 

Regardless, the message is clear: Employers now have a lower hurdle when defending a wage and hour case in proving that an exemption applies to a wage and hour claim under the FLSA.