Perspectives

A recent ruling from a federal judge in Texas has blocked the Department of Labor’s attempt to raise the salary threshold for employees to qualify for exemption from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This decision has significant implications for businesses and worker alike, particularly regarding how exempt status is determined for employees in executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) roles.

The FLSA and the EAP Exemption 

The FLSA mandates that covered employers pay employees at least the federal minimum wage and provide overtime pay for hours worked over 40 hours in a week. However, the law includes an important exception for EAP employees, meaning those in executive, administrative, or professional roles may be exempt from these requirements.

For employees to qualify for this exemption, they must meet certain criteria, which the Department of Labor (DOL) defines through regulations. One of these criteria is the salary level. The DOL periodically updates this salary threshold, and in its 2024 Rule, the Department aimed to raise the minimum salary for exempt employees to a higher level.

The 2024 Rule and the Court’s Decision

On November 15, 2024, a Federal Judge in Texas ruled against the DOL’s 2024 Rule, which had raised the salary threshold for EAP employees. The first phase of the rule, which took effect on July 1, 2024, increased the salary level from $684 per week ($35,568 annually) to $844 per week ($43,888 annually). This change would have made approximately one million employees who were previously considered exempt eligible for overtime pay.

The court ruled that the DO exceeded its authority under the FLSA by using a “salary -only” approach to determine whether an employee is exempt. According to the ruling, the FLSA requires the DOL to consider the duties of employees, not just their salary level, when applying the EAP exemption. The judge found that the department’s rule did not properly account for the role and responsibilities of the employee, violating the scope of authority granted by Congress.

What About the Other Phases of the 2024 Rule? 

The 2024 rule included additional phases that had not yet taken effect. The second phase was set to raise the salary threshold to $1,128 per week starting January 1, 2025. The third phase would have implemented automatic increases to the salary threshold starting in 2027 without requiring notice or public comment. The court also found the provisions to be beyond the DOL’s authority, finding that the Department lacked the power to make these changes unilaterally.

What Does This Mean for Employers?

If your company had already raised employee salaries outlined in the 2024 rule, you are not in violation of the law by rolling back those increase. However, it’s important to note that you cannot ask employees to return the additional pay they received, as that could lead to legal and reputational issues.

It’s also worth considering the impact that lowering salaries might have on employee morale. While the legal ruling may allow businesses to revert to the previous salary levels, doing so could cause dissatisfaction and erode trust within the workforce.

Could the Biden Administration Appeal?

While the decision may seem final, the Biden Administration could still choose to appeal the ruling, although a reversal seems unlikely. The court’s decision was notably supported by the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. In that case, the Supreme Court overturned decades of precedent by overturning what is known as Chevron deference, which had previously allowed agencies like the DOL considerable discretion in interpreting the laws they enforce. Now, courts are required to exercise their own judgement in determining whether an agency has stayed within its statutory authority. Given the court’s reliance on Loper Bright, it seems highly unlikely that the ruling will be overturned.

Conclusion

The Texas federal judge’s decision to strike down the Department of Labor’s 2204 salary threshold increase is a significant development for businesses and employees affected by the FLSA’s overtime and minimum wage exemptions. While the ruling halts the planned increases, employers must be careful about reversing salary adjustments that were already made. moreover, the possibility of an appeal remains, but the likelihood of a reversal is slim in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. Employers should continue to monitor the situation and ensure their compensation practices align with current legal standards.

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more integrated into employment processes like screening and hiring, it offers potential efficiencies but introduces new legal challenges. Employer are now navigating complex anti-discrimination laws that apply equally, whether decisions are made by humans or AI tools. This post covers key concerns for employers and how to mitigate the risks of AI-driven employment decisions.

Discrimination Risks in AI-Driven Hiring

AI tools can unintentionally lead to discriminatory outcomes, even when used with the best intentions. One concern is the potential for disparate impact-when seemingly neutral criteria disproportionately affects protected groups. For instance, if an AI system screens candidates based on years of experience, it may inadvertently discriminate against older applicants or recent graduates, violating federal or state anti-discrimination laws.

Moreover, the “black box” nature of AI means that decision-making processes are often opaque. When faced with claims of discrimination, employers may struggle to prove that their AI system made decisions for non-discriminatory reasons, posing a significant legal risk.

Privacy and Data Security Concerns

When using AI tools in recruitment, privacy issues must also be addressed. Employers should ensure compliance with data protection regulations like the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and U.S. laws concerning password privacy and biometric data. Additionally, tools that analyze physical characteristics, such as eye movements or voice tone, could violate laws like the Employee Polygraph Protections Act, which restricts lie detection practices in employment.

Wage and Hour Considerations

AI tools that monitor work activities, track employee time, or auto-populate time records could lead to wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). For example, AI that tracks keystrokes may miss compensable work activities, or it may not accurately track break times that must be compensated under the FLSA. Employers must oversee AI’s’ wage calculations to ensure compliance with regular and overtime pay rates.

AI and Disability Discrimination

Employers should also be aware of the risk of unintentional disability discrimination. AI systems that assess speech patterns, facial expressions, or physical movements may misinterpret characteristics associated with disabilities. For example, an AI system could penalize a candidate with a speech impediment or a disability that affects facial expression, even though they are fully qualified for the job.

States like Illinois are taking steps to regulate AI in employment through legislation such as the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act, which requires employers to notify candidates and obtain consent before using AI in video interviews.

Layoffs and Worker Protections

When automation leads to layoffs, employers must ensure compliance with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and state-specific laws that require advance notice before mass layoffs. Employers should also take care to avoid age discrimination in layoffs, as older workers may be disproportionately affected by automation and must be offered the same retraining opportunities as other workers.

Staying Ahead of State and Local AI Regulations

Several states and cities are leading the charge in regulating AI in employment. In New York City, for example, the Automated Employment Decision Tools Law requires bias audits for AI hiring tools and mandates that employers notify candidates when AI is being used. Similarly, Colorado’s Senate Bill 24-205, effective in 2026, will require “reasonable care” from employers deploying high-risk AI systems to prevent algorithm discriminatory outcomes.

As AI continues to transform hiring and employment practices, staying compliant with evolving laws is essential to protect your organization. Working with experienced legal counsel can help you navigate complex AI-related employment regulations, keep your policies up to date, and ensure your hiring practices are fair and legally sound. Don’t wait for compliance issues to arise-proactively safeguard your company and foster a workplace that values equity and transparency. Contact our team to review your current practices and build a robust compliance strategy that supports your organization’s growth. 

Strong contracts are the foundation of every successful business relationship. Without proper protections, businesses can face significant financial risk, disputes, and the possibility of non-payment. To minimize these risks, it’s essential to include specific provisions in every contract. Here are the key clauses that should be present in your contracts:

Payment Terms

What: Defines payment schedules, methods, penalties and consequences for late payment.

Why: 

• Ensures Cash Flow
• Reduces Financial Risk Against Late or Missed Payments
• Sets Clear Expectations

Key Elements:

• Payment Terms
• Late Payment Penalties
• Security Interests
• Dispute Resolution

Limitation of Liability

What:

• A contract provision that caps the amount and types of damages one party can recover from the other.
• Protects businesses from excessive claims and financial exposure in the event of disputes or equipment failure.
• Sets a maximum financial responsibility for the business.

Why: 

• Avoid exposure to excessive damages from customer claims.
• Help dealers estimate and manage their potential liability in worst-case scenarios.
• Protects businesses from liability from unseen circumstances.

Examples:

• Monetary Cap
• Exclusion of Certain Damages
• Time-based Limits

Indemnity Clauses

What: Contract provision where one party agrees to compensate the other for certain damages or losses.

Why:

• Mitigates Financial Risks
• Avoids Liability from Damages Caused by Misuse
• Coverage for 3rd Party Claims

Key Elements:

• Scope of Indemnity
• Types of Claims
• Geographical & Temporal Limits

Insurance

What: Contract provision requiring one or both parties to maintain specified insurance coverage.

Why:

• Transfers Risk from the dealer to an Insurance Company
• Ensures Financial Protection for Both Parties in Case of Loss or Liability

Key Types: 

• General Liability
• Property
• Product Liability
• Worker’s Compensation

Price

What: Cost for goods/services-protects against misunderstandings, unauthorized discounts and potential financial losses.

Why:

• Avoids Disputes
• Adjustment Clauses (Price Adjustment Mechanisms for Raw Material Price Changes or Fuel Surcharges.)
• Escalation Clauses (Allows for Gradual Price Increases.)

Key Components:

• Fixed vs Variable Pricing
• Payment Terms
• Currency & Exchange Rates

Performance Dates

What: Deadlines for:

• Delivery of Equipment
• Completion of Service
• Payment Milestones

Why:

• Establishes clear timelines to avoid misunderstandings
• Holds parties responsible for meeting their contractual obligations
• Prevents delays that can lead to operational disruptions or financial losses

Key Protections:

• Delay Clauses
• Extension Provisions
• Force Majeure

Security Agreement & Repossession

What: Legal document that grants a lender a security interest in the equipment sold, ensuring the right to repossess the equipment if the buyer defaults.

Why:

• Reduce risk if buyers fail to meet obligations
• Provides strong negotiation power if a customer defaults or requests an extension
• Outlines precise legal remedies available to the dealer, ensuring smoother enforcement

Key Components:

• Collateral Identification
• Obligations of the Buyer
• Default Conditions
• Right to Repossession

Warranty

What: 

• Contractual promise by the seller regarding the condition, performance, or lifespan of the equipment sold
• Express Warranties: Assurances made about the product
• Implied Warranties: Automatically applied under the law

Why:

• Limits Disputes

Strategies:

• Define Terms Clearly-specify duration, coverage limits, and conditions for repair
• Exclude Certain Warranties-use disclaimers to avoid unintended implied warranties
• Set reasonable limitations

Force Majeure

What: 

• Contract provision that frees parties from liability or obligation for events beyond their control
• Natural disasters
• Government actions or regulations
• Labor strikes or civil unrest
• Pandemics or public health emergencies

Why:

• Mitigates risk
• Provides contract flexibility
• Avoids breach of contract

In Practice:

• Supply chain disruptions
• Service interruption

By including these key provisions in every contract, your business can reduce financial risk, avoid disputes, and protect itself from non-payment. Ensuring that contracts are thorough and well-structured is essential for long-term business success. If you need assistance drafting or reviewing contracts, working with experienced legal counsel is a proactive way to safeguard your business interests.

If you have questions about contract provisions or need legal support, contact WFJ today. Our team of experienced attorneys can help you create robust contracts that help protect your business from risk and ensure your financial stability.

Jean-Paul Sartre put it best: “Nothing has changed, and yet everything is different.”

As you may know, the FTC proposed a nationwide ban on non-compete agreements which was set to go into effect on September 4, 2024. Now, the Northern District of Texas has struck down the rule nationally. This decision is a major blow to the FTC’s rule, but not its end.

What happened?

In July of 2024, the Texas court issued a preliminary injunction that only extended to the parties of the present lawsuit and chose not to address whether a national injunction was necessary. On August 20, 2024, the Texas court held that the FTC did not have the statutory authority to issue such a rule and that doing so was arbitrary and capricious. The court further explained that the rule needed to be set aside at the national level because of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). We anticipate that the FTC will file an appeal to the 5^th Circuit in short order.

What’s changed?

As Mr. Sartre put it, nothing. However, this does not mean that non-compete agreements are back on the menu for everyone. Many states have banned non-competes, and this ruling does not affect those state laws. It is up to you as an employer to make sure that you are still complying with your state’s laws while the FTC rule is in limbo. You should reach out to employment counsel if you have concerns or questions about whether you are properly complying with your state’s applicable laws.

What’s different?

With the Supreme Court of the United States’ recent decision regarding “Chevron deference” and the FTC’s likely appeal of this ruling down in Texas, there is a good chance that this case could be headed to the Supreme Court. As a result, we may see further changes to the agency state and executive powers in the near future. The legal landscape is different.

What now?

If you have not taken any steps to come into compliance with the FTC’s rule, you’re in luck! You can keep doing what you’ve been doing for a little while longer as the FTC pursues its appeal.

If you decided to take early action and issue FTC compliant notices to your employees and former employees, you should consult your employment counsel to determine how best to resolve the situation. Unwinding the clock may be impossible, but there are other ameliorative steps that you can take depending on the specific circumstances.

Regardless of how you have prepared for the FTC rule, this is a great time to review your restrictive covenants and focus your attention on the things you aim to protect: business information and relationships.

Estate planning might seem like a task best suited for later in life, but it’s actually a critical step for anyone who wants to ensure that their affairs are managed according to their wishes, both during their lifetime and after their death. This planning involves more than just deciding who will inherit your assets; it’s about making comprehensive decisions that will minimize stress and confusion for your loved ones, protect your legacy, and give you peace of mind.

Managing Your Affairs During Your Lifetime

One of the primary aspects of estate planning is managing your affairs while you’re still alive. This includes setting up directives that allow trusted individuals to make financial and healthcare decisions on your behalf if you become unable to do so. These arrangements can prevent a great deal of uncertainty and ensure that your wishes are followed.

For instance, durable power of attorney allows someone to handle your financial matters if you’re incapacitated, while a healthcare directive (or living will) lets you specify your preferences for medical treatment in situations where you cannot communicate them yourself. These tools not only protect your interests but also relieve your loved ones from the burden of making difficult decisions during emotional times.

Distributing Your Estate After Your Death

Another critical element of estate planning is determining how your assets will be distributed after your death. Without a will or a comprehensive estate plan, state laws will dictate the distribution of your estate, which might not align with your wishes. By creating a will or a trust, you can specify exactly how and to whom your assets will be distributed, whether it’s to family members, friends, or charitable organizations.

Additionally, proper estate planning can help minimize taxes and other expenses, ensuring that your beneficiaries receive as much of your estate as possible. This process can include setting up trusts, designating beneficiaries, and even making gifts during your lifetime to reduce the taxable value of your estate.

Minimizing Problems for Your Loved Ones

One of the greatest gifts you can give your loved ones is the gift of clarity. Estate planning allows you to clearly communicate your wishes, which can prevent disputes and legal battles among family members after your death. By taking the time to outline your desires in detail, you reduce the risk of misunderstandings and the potential for costly and time-consuming probate proceedings.

Key Decisions in Estate Planning

When engaging in estate planning, there are several key decisions everyone should make:

• Who Will Administer Your Estate?
  • You need to choose a trustworthy executor or personal representative to administer your estate. This person will be responsible for settling your debts, distributing your assets, and ensuring that your wishes are carried out.

• Who Will Serve as Guardian of Your Children?
  • If you have minor children, it’s crucial to designate a guardian who will care for them if something happens to you. This decision should be made carefully, considering both the potential guardian’s ability to provide for your children and their willingness to take on this responsibility.

• Making Your Healthcare Wishes Known
  • Your healthcare directive should clearly state your preferences for medical treatment, such as whether you want life-sustaining measures if you’re terminally ill or permanently unconscious. You should also design a healthcare proxy-someone you trust to make medical decisions on your behalf.

• Addressing Financial and Healthcare Matters While You’re Living
  • Beyond healthcare directives, you should also have a durable power of attorney to manage your finances if you become incapacitated. This ensures that your bills are paid, your investments are managed, and your financial interests are protected, even if you’re unable to oversee them yourself.

Estate Planning is about more than just passing on your wealth; it’s about ensuring that your legacy is preserved, your wishes are honored, and your loved ones are protected. By taking the time to plan your estate, you’re not only securing your own peace of mind but also providing a clear and thoughtful guide for your family during difficult times. No matter your age or the size of your estate, now is the time to start planning for the future.

Minnesota has experienced unprecedented levels of flooding this summer. Some businesses have shut down or limited operations because of the historic flooding. Businesses impacted by natural disasters may need to make temporary or permanent changes to their workforce due to the financial stress or lack of work caused by a national disaster. There are a few cost-saving measures that businesses can implement to blunt the effect of a natural disaster and start the path to financial recovery. Furloughs, layoffs, and reductions in force provide businesses with a possible solution. It is important, however, that businesses understand the differences between these three cost-saving measures and their legal implications.

What is a Furlough?

A furlough is when an employer requires employees to work fewer hours or take unpaid time off for a certain period of time. For example, an employer can reduce full-time employees’ hours to 30 hours a week or require employees take multiple weeks off of unpaid leave. Employers commonly use furloughs when they have financial issues or lack of work for employees. An employer should use a furlough when the employer wants to avoid terminating employees and intends to bring back employees to their regular work schedules. Furloughs, however, may turn into a layoff if an employer later decides not to recall employees and instead end the employees’ employment.

Employers must be aware of whether furloughed employees are non-exempt or exempt employees. Exempt employees must receive their full predetermined salary for any week where the exempt employee performs any work without regard to the number of days or hours worked. This is important because an employer deducting from an exempt employee’s pay, or reducing the exempt employee’s pay, based on the number of hours worked during a furlough will cause an employee to lose their exempt status. Employers can avoid this issue by requiring exempt employees to take at least one week of leave, or take other weekly increments of leave, because employers are not required to pay exempt employees for any workweek that an exempt employee did not perform any work. However, employers need to ensure exempt employees are still paid at least minimum wage to avoid employees losing their exempt status.

Furloughed employees normally stay on the employer’s payroll but still may be able to collect unemployment benefits. Furloughed employees may lose employer-provided benefits. Employers should therefore review their benefit plans and be aware of whether reducing employees’ hours or requiring periods of unpaid time off will cause employees to lose their benefits, which may require employers to send COBRA notices to the furloughed employees.

What is a Layoff?

A layoff is a temporary separation of employment due to lack of work or financial issues. The term “layoff” is used when employees’ temporarily end due to no fault of the employees, and the employer hopes or plans to recall employees back to work. Lad off employees do not stay on payroll and often lose employer-provided benefits but normally receive unemployment benefits. Employers should familiarize themselves with their benefit plans before laying off employees to see if a layoff will trigger any requirements by the employer, such as sending COBRA notices to the laid off employees.

Reduction in Force

A reduction in force (RIF) is when an employer permanently eliminates a job position within the company with no intention of filing the position with new hires. A layoff can turn into or be similar to a RIF if the employer permanently decides not to recall the laid off employees. A RIF causes employees to go off payroll and lose employer-provided benefits, but they can normally receive unemployment benefits.

Legal Obligations & Consideration

Volunteers

Deciding which employees to lay off or to include a RIF often involves tough choices for employers. To ease an employer’s burden, an employer can ask for employees to voluntarily be laid off or included in a RIF. One way to incentivize volunteers is for the employer to offer a severance package. Employers can also ask employees to voluntarily take early retirement.

Implementing Objective Criteria to Enforce a Layoff or RIF

However, an employer looking to perform a layoff or RIF will likely have to make its own decision on which employees to layoff or include in a RIF. It’s imperative that employers develop objective criteria to determine how to select employees for a layoff or RIF to avoid or prevail against discrimination claims and retaliation claims. Common selection criteria include seniority, employment status (full-time and part-time or exempt and non-exempt), skill-based, merit based, and job position. Employees may try to argue the layoff or RIF was discriminatory because it had a disparate impact on a protected class-such as race, ethnicity, sex, gender, age, etc.-or argue they were retaliated against for engaging in protected activity, such as making a whistleblower claim, taking Family and Medical Act Leave, or taking Minnesota Earned Sick and Safe Time Leave. Employers implementing objective criteria to select employees for a lay off or a RIF will greatly minimize the employer’s liability risk in a discrimination claim or retaliation claim. Employers must simply be able to show that the employees selected for a layoff or RIF would have been chosen regardless of their protected class status or recent engagement in protected activity.

Severance Agreements and the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act

Additionally, employers can protect themselves by asking employees to sign a severance agreement before being laid off or subject to a RIF. A severance agreement is a contract where an employee agrees to waive and forego many potential legal claims they may have against the employer usually in exchange for a sum of money that the employees is not otherwise entitled to receive. In other words, an employee agrees not to sue the company in exchange for receiving payment and such payment is in addition to any earned wages or earned commissions the employer is already owed. Both Minnesota and federal law require that a severance agreement to be enforceable but there are some noteworthy requirements to be aware of. A Minnesota employee, regardless of age, always has 15 days to rescind a severance agreement after signing it. If a Minnesota employee is at least 40 years old, then the federal Older Worker Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”) requires that an employee must also have at least 21 days to consider signing the severance agreement; the 15-day rescission period remains the same. furthermore, the OWBPA requires the consideration period be extended from 21 days to 45 days if there are at least two employees subject to a layoff or RIF; again, the 15-day rescission period remains the same. When two or more employees are subject to a layoff or RIF, the employer must give written notice of the following information to each adversely affected employee:

• the class, unit, or group of all individuals selected for the layoff or RIF
• the eligibility factors used to select employees for the layoff or RIF
• time limits of the layoff (if applicable)
• the job titles of all employees selected for the layoff or RIF
• and the ages of all employees selected for the layoff or RIF

Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act

Finally, large employers may also be subject to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act. If an employer has at least 100 full-time employees or at least 100 employees who, in the aggregate, work at least 4,000 hour per week (not including overtime), then the employer must comply with the WARN Act when:

• the employer permanently or temporarily (at least 30 days) closes a plant that causes at least 50 full-time employees to permanently or temporarily lose their jobs
• the employer conducts a mass layoff that causes at least 33 percent of full-time employees, or at least 50 full-time employees, to lose their jobs, be laid off for more than six months, or have their work schedule reduced by more than 50 percent during each month of a six-month period.

Employers subject to WARN generally must give a 60-day advance notice to the following parties; all the affected employees or their collective bargaining representative; the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development; and to the chief elected official of the unit of local government within which such closing or layoff is to occur. The 60-day notice requirement, however, can be shortened if a plant closing or mass layoff is caused by “business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable.” A natural disaster would likely qualify as an unforeseeable event that allows employers to substantially shorten the 60-day notice period.

The flooding in Minnesota and the surrounding areas this summer has inflicted significant hardships on employers but there are options available that employers can implement to ease the burden. WFJ is here to help. Please contact us if you have any questions about furloughs, layoffs, or RIFs. 

An employer in the state of Washington recently agreed to pay monetary damages to a former supervisor after managers and other employees intentionally misgendered the supervisor. The supervisor filed an employment discrimination charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and alleged that after the supervisor disclosed their gender identity and pronouns to the employer, fellow co-workers repeatedly and intentionally referred to the supervisor with pronouns inconsistent with the supervisor’s gender identity. The EEOC’s investigation found that the supervisor’s co-workers intentionally misgendered the supervisor for over six months, and the employer failed to intervene to stop the sex-based harassment despite receiving complaints about the misgendering.

The EEOC concluded the intentional misgendering violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits the discrimination and harassment based on sex, which includes gender identity, and gender identity encompasses transgender, non-binary, and other gender non-conforming individuals. After the EEOC’s investigation, the employer agreed to pay the supervisor monetary damages, revise its non-discrimination policies, conduct employee training, and provide additional training to managerial-level- employees and other employees involved in investigating complaints of discrimination and harassment. The EEOC emphasized that employers have a duty to intervene when an employee is harassed or discriminated against because of the employee’s gender identity.

The outcome in Washington is an important reminder to employers to be aware that it is illegal for an employee to be discriminated against or harassed based on the employee’s gender identity. This means an employee cannot be fired, demoted, or have any other aspect of employment negatively affected because of the employee’s gender identity. Furthermore, harassing an employee based on gender identity becomes illegal harassment when the harassment is either so pervasive or severe that it creates a hostile work environment.

The recent ruling in Washington is an example of pervasive harassment that created a hostile work environment because the supervisor endured intentional misgendering abuse for over six months. It is important to note that the EEOC’s finding of gender identity harassment was based on intentional misgendering over an extended period of time. Accidentally misgendering an employee, minor teasing, or offhand comments made about an employee’s gender identity, or isolated incidents of intentional misgendering generally do not rise to the level of illegal harassment unless they are so severe that they create a hostile work environment.

Moving forward, employers should review their non-discrimination policies to ensure they clearly inform employees that discrimination and harassment based on gender identity are prohibited. Employers should also consider providing their employees, especially managerial-level employees, with discrimination and harassment prevention training to create a healthy work culture and to equip employees with the tools to prevent and eliminate any discrimination or harassment in the workplace.

The recent case in Washington serves as a crucial reminder for employers to maintain a work environment free from discrimination and harassment based on gender identity. Ensuring compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not only a legal requirement but also a fundamental step toward fostering an inclusive and respectful workplace. Employers must proactively revise their non-discrimination policies and provide comprehensive training to all employees, particularly managers, to prevent and address any incidents of harassment or discrimination.

WFJ is here to support you in creating a healthy and legally compliant work environment. We offer expert training, advice, and consultation services to help your organization avoid the costly legal consequences of non-compliance with the Title VII. Let us assist you in building a workplace where all employees feel respected and valued.