
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 Without a quorum, the regulations cannot be rescinded or modified.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 18
Two major New York City unions endorse Cuomo for mayor; Committee on Education and the Workforce requests an investigation into a major healthcare union’s spending; Unions launch a national pro bono legal network for federal workers.
April 17
Utahns sign a petition supporting referendum to repeal law prohibiting public sector collective bargaining; the US District Court for the District of Columbia declines to dismiss claims filed by the AFL-CIO against several government agencies; and the DOGE faces reports that staffers of the agency accessed the NLRB’s sensitive case files.
April 16
7th Circuit questions the relevance of NLRB precedent after Loper Bright, unions seek to defend silica rule, and Abrego Garcia's union speaks out.
April 15
In today’s news and commentary, SAG-AFTRA reaches a tentative agreement, AFT sues the Trump Administration, and California offers its mediation services to make up for federal cuts. SAG-AFTRA, the union representing approximately 133,000 commercial actors and singers, has reached a tentative agreement with advertisers and advertising agencies. These companies were represented in contract negotiations by […]
April 14
Department of Labor publishes unemployment statistics; Kentucky unions resist deportation orders; Teamsters win three elections in Texas.
April 13
Shawn Fain equivocates on tariffs; Trump quietly ends federal union dues collection; pro-Palestinian Google employees sue over firings.