Workforce Bulletin

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re covering the new H-1B visa fee, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) closure of disparate impact cases, and recent key labor appointments.

New Fee for H-1B Visas

Employers must now pay $100,000 for each first-time H-1B petition filed on or after September 21, 2025. Current visa holders are not affected. Exceptions may apply, but details are limited.

EEOC Shuts Down Disparate Impact Cases

The EEOC has closed nearly all disparate impact cases following a recent executive order. These claims can still be pursued in court. The agency will also dissolve its Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics, although EEO-1 reporting requirements appear unchanged.

Key Labor Roles Confirmed

The Senate has confirmed Daniel Aronowitz as Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration. Additionally, the Senate has confirmed over 100 other labor-related appointments—including 11 top labor positions—restoring a quorum at both the EEOC and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

On September 19, 2025, President Trump signed a presidential proclamation titled Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers. The proclamation took effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time on September 21, 2025, and is slated to remain in force for 12 months (until September 21, 2026), unless extended. The core of the proclamation is the imposition of a $100,000 supplemental fee on new H-1B petitions (i.e., petitions “submitted after” the effective date).

However, the proclamation is not yet a complete, fully operational rule. Many specifics remain ambiguous. Below is a breakdown of what is known, what is uncertain, and what stakeholders should plan.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we examine the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) decisions to drop its appeal of a federal court ruling striking down its proposed non-compete ban and to issue warnings to health care employers about using unreasonable restrictive covenants in employment agreements.

Although the FTC’s decision to abandon its non-compete ban appeal may appear to favor employers, its recent warning letters to health care organizations make clear that regulatory scrutiny is far from over.

In this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys E. John Steren and David J. Clark discuss the FTC’s concerns for health care employers, offer guidance on revising non-compete agreements to withstand legal challenges, and explore alternative strategies to protect business interests.

The EEOC’s Shift Away from Disparate Impact Liability

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibit employers from implementing facially neutral procedures that unintentionally discriminate against individuals based on their protected categories. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the federal agency tasked with investigating claims of unintentional discrimination, called disparate impact.

According to an internal memorandum obtained by Bloomberg Law, the EEOC plans on closing all pending disparate impact discrimination charges based at the end of September 2025. Once these charges are closed, the EEOC is expected to issue right-to-sue letters allowing claimants to file their case in federal court. Charges that involve claims of both disparate impact and disparate treatment are likely to remain with the EEOC in normal course.

Last year, Massachusetts joined the growing list of states with pay equity legislation by passing an Act Relative To Salary Range Transparency (the “Law”). As we previously reported, the pay data reporting requirements of the Law went into effect earlier this year, requiring most large private employers to submit annual wage data reports to the Commonwealth. Employers need to be prepared to comply with the Law’s pay range disclosure requirements going into effect next month.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we examine how employers should address controversial employee social media activity, especially amid widespread social tension such as that seen after the murder of Charlie Kirk.

An employee’s off-duty conduct can be grounds for termination, but disciplining employees always carries some risk. Recent online discussions surrounding the public murder of Charlie Kirk have spurred firings across the nation, leaving employers exposed to backlash for their action or inaction.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Kimberly C. Carter offers guidance on addressing employee social media activity, emphasizing the importance of clear, proactive policies to set expectations and outline consequences.

In a June 2025 decision in Purl v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas vacated the 2024 HIPAA reproductive health rule (the “Rule”), which the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued to limit how reproductive health care information could be disclosed by HIPAA regulated entities (e.g., Covered Entities and business associates), as we wrote about here and here. Now, HHS has let the August 18, 2025 appeal deadline pass without challenging the Purl decision.

HHS’s decision not to appeal Purl, however, does not relieve HIPAA regulated entities from their obligations to protect reproductive health care information. HIPAA regulated entities must still ensure that their existing HIPAA policies and procedures adequately protect PHI, including reproductive health care information, even though the protections that were in the Rule are now defunct. 

Recent violence and political discord have led to a marked increase in social media activity. With that has come a new viral trend; let’s call it termination trolling. Influencers and activists have been amplifying social media posts calling for people to get fired based on their social commentary. One group claims to have located more than 50,000 posts that, in its view, should be grounds for employment termination.

A number of employers have publicly dismissed employees (either on their own or in response to public pressure) after becoming aware of their social media comments or posts. Given the volume of posts and efforts to get people fired based on their social media posts or other comments, employers should prepare to manage such demands.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: Starting October 1, 2025, new AI rules in California will change how businesses in the state use automated tools in hiring, promotions, and other workplace decisions.

Key Takeaways for Employers:

• Anti-Discrimination Measures: The new regulations specifically target discriminatory practices in employers’ use of automated decision systems (ADS).

• Recordkeeping Requirements: Employers are now mandated to retain all ADS records and data for a minimum of four years.

• Regulatory Precedent: California’s proactive stance on AI regulation is anticipated to influence similar regulatory frameworks nationwide, establishing a precedent for other states.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Frances M. Green provides an essential breakdown of the new California regulations, including actionable insights on conducting risk assessments and aligning them with existing cybersecurity and privacy audits to ensure compliance.

On September 3, 2025, the European General Court (General Court) dismissed an action challenging the EU–U.S. Data Privacy Framework (DPF), developed to provide U.S. organizations with a reliable means to transfer personal data from the United States to the European Union, consistent with EU law.

The General Court’s judgment in case T-553/23, Philippe Latombe v European Commission, confirms that “the United States ensured an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the European Union to organisations in that country,” the Court’s press release states. The General Court and the Court of Justice make up the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

This decision means that entities that have self-certified compliance with the DPF may, for now, continue to rely on that mechanism for personal data transfers to the United States from the European Union (EU). The self-certification process includes, for example, a description of an organization’s activities with regard to all personal data received from the European Union in reliance on the EU-U.S. DPF, the organization’s policies covering such data, the types of data processed and, if applicable, the type of third parties to which it discloses such personal information.