
Ted Parker is a student at Harvard Law School and a member of the Labor and Employment Lab.
In today’s news and commentary, state legislatures across the country consider E-Verify bills that would hurt undocumented workers, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) shows it will continue to enforce the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), though pressure points remain untested.
Reporting in Bloomberg draws together the efforts of legislatures in more than a dozen states to mandate heightened employer use of the federal E-Verify system. Currently, the federal government requires all employers to check their employees’ identity and employment authorization documents when filling out an I-9 form but not to confirm that authorization through E-Verify. Federal efforts to mandate E-Verify have mostly reached only federal employees and federal contractors. States like Florida, Texas, and Idaho are now targeting private-sector employees through a variety of bills. This crackdown is especially concerning in light of the Trump administration’s plan to cancel Temporary Protected Status for Haitian and Venezuelan refugees, which could leave more than half a million workers without employment authorization. Some of these bills have already failed (as in New Hampshire, Kansas, and Kentucky), potentially because of employer opposition.
The EEOC announced on Thursday that Kurt Bluemel, Inc., defendant in a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the agency in September 2024, has agreed to settle. The Maryland plant nursery is alleged to have discriminated against a worker attempting to return from maternity leave only to be told that no work was available for her. Now, the employer will pay the worker $40,000 and notify other workers of its violation and their rights. An attorney with the agency announced, “The EEOC will continue to enforce this vital federal law,” referring to the PWFA. The EEOC’s enforcement of the PWFA has been uncertain since Acting Chair Andrea R. Lucas reiterated her previous opposition to the agency’s 2024 PWFA regulations, which she criticizes as an overbroad implementation of the Act. Without a quorum, the regulations cannot be rescinded or modified. This and other cases show that the EEOC will continue to enforce at least parts of the PWFA regulations. Notably, all these cases involved people who were actually pregnant, meaning they did not test the zone of “overbroad” application that Acting Chair Lucas opposes.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
April 28
WA strike bill goes to governor; MLBPA discloses legal expenses; Ex-Twitter employees seek class certification against Musk.
April 27
Judge thwarts Trump's attempt to strip federal workers' labor rights; AFGE to cut over half of its staff; Harvard unions rally amid attacks.
April 24
NLRB seeks to compel Amazon to collectively bargain with San Francisco warehouse workers, DoorDash delivery workers and members of Los Deliveristas Unidos rally for pay transparency, and NLRB takes step to drop lawsuit against SpaceX over the firing of employees who criticized Elon Musk.
April 22
DOGE staffers eye NLRB for potential reorganization; attacks on federal workforce impact Trump-supporting areas; Utah governor acknowledges backlash to public-sector union ban
April 21
Bryan Johnson’s ULP saga before the NLRB continues; top law firms opt to appease the EEOC in its anti-DEI demands.
April 20
In today’s news and commentary, the Supreme Court rules for Cornell employees in an ERISA suit, the Sixth Circuit addresses whether the EFAA applies to a sexual harassment claim, and DOGE gains access to sensitive labor data on immigrants. On Thursday, the Supreme Court made it easier for employees to bring ERISA suits when their […]