Below is an excerpt of an article authored by Manufacturing Law industry team partner Jennifer L. Shanley and M. Carmen Ruiz, both Immigration group members, that was published in Industry Today on October 28, 2025.

The current administration has ushered in an era of increasing immigration complexity, especially in the area of Temporary Protected Status.

What is TPS?

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a country-specific humanitarian program impacting thousands of workers across industries, including manufacturing. In fact, according to a March 2025 report, an estimated 570,000 TPS beneficiaries are working in the U.S. labor force; 70,000 of which are in the manufacturing industry.

TPS is an immigration status for foreign nationals whose home countries the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has determined to be unsafe due to conditions such as environmental disasters, armed conflicts, epidemics, or other extraordinary conditions.  Not only does TPS temporarily protect eligible individuals from deportation but also allows beneficiaries to work legally in the U.S. throughout the duration of their designated status, which is defined through a TPS-based Employment Authorization Document (EAD).

As of October 10, 2025, there are currently 12 countries designated for TPS: Burma, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Yemen. Several of these designations are the subjects of active and ongoing federal litigation, the basis of which is largely the Trump administration’s efforts to terminate various TPS designations.

In recent months, DHS has issued key updates regarding TPS extensions, redesignations, and EAD validity – all of which impact how employers complete and update Form I-9, DHS’s Employment Eligibility Verification form. Understanding how to best navigate these changes is critical for employers to ensure compliant employment practices, avoid potential penalties, and maintain workforce stability. Read the article.

This post was co-authored by Labor + Employment Group lawyer Bryce Simmons.

In a landmark move, Rhode Island has become the first state in the United States to mandate workplace accommodations for employees and applicants experiencing menopause and related medical conditions. The law became effective on June 24, 2025, amending the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act, to explicitly include menopause as a protected condition. This requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for menopause, joining pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.

What the Law Requires

The new law applies to employers with four or more employees, and requires such employers to engage in a timely, interactive process to identify reasonable accommodations for individuals experiencing menopause or related conditions, such as vasomotor symptoms, commonly referred to as hot flashes and night sweats. Under the law, employers are prohibited from: (1) denying employment opportunities based on the need for menopause-related accommodations; and (2) requiring employees to take leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided.

While the law does not yet define specific accommodations for menopause, it builds on the existing framework for pregnancy-related accommodations, which may include flexible scheduling, modified work environments, or additional breaks.

Notice and Posting Obligations

Employers subject to this new law must update their workplace postings and written notices to reflect these new rights. Specifically, they are required to:

  • Post a notice in a conspicuous location accessible to employees;
  • Provide written notice to new hires at the start of employment;
  • Notify existing employees by October 22, 2025, by providing the notice referenced below; and
  • Provide notice within 10 days of an employee reporting menopause symptoms.

The Rhode Island Commission of Human Rights has posted the updated notice requirement on their website which can be accessed here.

Implications for Employers

For manufacturers, where physical demands and environmental conditions can exacerbate menopause symptoms, this law presents both a compliance obligation and an opportunity to lead on workplace inclusivity. In the wake of this new law, Rhode Island employers should review and revise their current accommodation policies and procedures. They should also prepare to engage in individualized assessments of accommodation requests, particularly in roles involving heat exposure, shift work, or physically strenuous tasks.

This legislation reflects a growing recognition that menopause is not merely a personal health issue but a workplace equity issue. Other legislatures around the country are considering similar laws so there may be a flurry of similar state laws. Employers should review their current policies and procedures to ensure that they are in compliance with this new law. 

This post was co-authored by Labor + Employment Group lawyer Christopher Costain.

In recent years, certain manufacturers are requiring workers to use wearable technologies at work to increase efficiency and productivity and mitigate health and safety risks. Although the use and application of wearable technology continues to expand and change the manufacturing industry landscape, the employment law implications remain the same, and should be a key focus for manufacturers exploring use of such technology.

Wearable Technologies: What Are They?

Wearable technologies are smart devices worn by manufacturing workers that collect and transmit information and perform important efficiency and safety-focused functions.  Common wearables include smart helmets (which provide enhanced head protection, fatigue monitoring, hazard identification, and augmented reality features), vests and other smart clothing (which transmit real-time vital sign monitoring to workers to mitigate heat and stress-related health risks), and ergonomic sensors (which monitor a worker’s body position to ensure proper lifting, carrying, and transfer techniques to reduce the risk of work-related injuries). Most wearable devices incorporate global positioning system (GPS) monitoring so that the device is also able to warn workers of pertinent safety risks or make relevant recommendations based on where the worker is located within a facility with respect to lifting, sorting, and retrieving tools, equipment, finished goods, and other materials. For example, a worker retrieving materials near a highly trafficked area of a warehouse may receive an audible warning to be aware of nearby forklift or other machinery activity.

Employment Law Risks and Challenges

Notwithstanding the benefits of such technology, these devices also create legal risks and challenges of which manufacturers should be aware as they look to implement or expand the use of these technologies. First, manufacturers that monitor workers’ vital signs, such as blood pressure or heart rate, using wearable technologies, or that require workers to disclose personal health information in connection with wearing certain smart devices should be aware that such practices may implicate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or other federal and state laws. To provide background, the ADA limits an employer’s ability to make “disability-related inquiries” or require “medical examinations” unless they are job-related and consistent with business necessity. Employers are also prohibited from using information collected from wearable technologies to make adverse employment decisions that impact workers based on their protected characteristics; for example, an employer may not use the biometric data, or the unique and measurable characteristic of the human body, such as heart rate variability, blood pressure fluctuations, or activity and stress levels, collected from an employee’s wearable technology to infer that the employee has a medical condition, such as diabetes, and then subject the employee to disparate treatment because of their medical condition. The ADA further requires employers to store medical information, which may include biometric data collected by a wearable device, in a confidential medical file separate from the employee’s personnel file. 

Wearable technologies also implicate various privacy, surveillance, and security related concerns as it pertains to the collection, monitoring, and storage of employee biometric information. For example, manufacturers considering the use of smart glasses, which assist workers in identifying potential safety hazards or completing a task in the most efficient manner, should be mindful that workers may inadvertently record other employees in private areas, such as a restroom or locker room, or record conversations, and thereby improperly collect information about other workers, which may implicate state privacy, workplace surveillance, or other laws. Additionally, as noted above, the ADA and state law requires that employee medical or disability-related information be stored in a separate confidential medical file. Although many wearable technologies use GPS as described above to warn workers of potential hazards, workers may view these features as an invasion of privacy as they take rest or meal breaks or use the restroom during their shift. Lastly, manufacturers should also be mindful of the importance of data security which may include certain wearable devices and the biometric information they collect. As the use of wearable technologies continues to expand and increase productivity, manufacturers should be aware of these important employment law issues that may be implicated.

Manufacturers should consult competent employment counsel for assistance with ensuring compliance with federal and state anti-discrimination laws and other important employment law issues. 

This week’s post is authored by Emilee Mooney Scott and is also available on Robinson+Cole’s Environmental Law + blog. Thank you to Emilee for contributing. Emilee is a partner in the firm’s Environmental, Energy + Telecommunications group, focusing her practice on a variety of environmental compliance and transactional matters, including the Connecticut Transfer Act and Release Based Cleanup Regulations. On March 1, 2026, the Connecticut Transfer Act will be sunset and a new set of remediation regulations will go into effect. These new regulations will be much more similar to what we see in other states (e.g., Massachusetts ch. 21E and the Massachusetts Contingency Plan).

The Release Report series highlights key features of the new release-based cleanup regulations (referred to as “RBCRs”) so interested parties can get ready.

Background

At present, much of the environmental remediation in Connecticut is driven by the Connecticut Transfer Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-134 et seq.). The Transfer Act requires site-wide environmental investigation and potential remediation when an “establishment” is “transferred.” Establishments include specifically identified types of businesses (e.g., dry cleaners, vehicle body repair shops, furniture strippers) and sites or businesses that generated 100 kg of hazardous waste in any one month since November 1980.  

Since the Transfer Act is triggered by real estate or business transfers, one could avoid the Transfer Act by avoiding becoming involved in a transfer. Unfortunately, that kills deals and chills economic development. Furthermore, many sites that have not been transferred have not been subject to clear investigation and remediation triggers, leaving contaminated sites with no obvious impetus for anyone to clean up. Both of these factors lead to a pivot away from the Transfer Act through Public Ac 20-09 and the implementing regulations that followed.

New Law

After March 1, 2026, new transfers of establishments will no longer require action under the Transfer Act. Instead, Public Act 20-09 (codified as Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-134pp et seq.) requires releases to be investigated and remediated when they occur or are discovered, not as part of a mandated site-wide program.  Specifically, § 22a-134qq provides that “[n]o person shall create or maintain a release to the land and waters of the state in violation of” the statute. 

While it appears that the word “create” will be understood in its ordinary sense, the word “maintain” deserves attention. The RBCRs provide that a person is “maintaining” a release if they own a parcel of land on or under which such release (or portion of the release) is located. If a tenant discovers an existing release, they must notify their landlord or may be deemed to be maintaining the release themselves. In other words, any business with operations in Connecticut has the potential to “create” a release, and any property owner in Connecticut has the potential to “maintain” a release on its property. 

The spill reporting regulations at R.C.S.A. 22a-450-1 et seq. set forth the procedure for reporting newly occurring releases, with the new RBCRs providing new requirements for cleanup and closure. For existing releases, obligations to investigate and remediate begin with the “discovery” of such release. The next blog post, and companion episode, in this series will discuss in more detail what it means to discover an existing release.

What’s Next?

Between now and March 1, 2026 the Release Report will be a regular feature on our Environmental Law + blog. A discussion of what it means to “discover” an existing release under Connecticut’s new regulations is available in Episode 2 with deep dives on other topics coming soon. Subscribe at: https://www.environmentallawplus.com/subscribe/.

This post was co-authored by Labor + Employment Group lawyer Christopher Costain.

With fall approaching and school back in session, the end of 2025 is on the horizon. The beginning of the new calendar year serves as an opportune time for manufacturers to revisit their wage and hour practices for compliance with applicable state and federal law; below are several important reminders of such laws that may impact Connecticut employers.  

Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increasing to $16.94 Effective January 1, 2026

Beginning January 1, 2026, Connecticut’s minimum wage will increase from the current rate of $16.35 per hour to $16.94 per hour. The increased minimum wage is required pursuant to Public Act 19-4, which was signed by Governor Ned Lamont in 2019 and requires the state minimum wage to be adjusted annually based on data published by the U.S. Department of Labor. To prepare for the increase in minimum wage, manufacturers should determine which employees will need to receive an increase in their hourly rate to meet the new minimum wage and ensure new hires are receiving wages that are at or above minimum wage. Manufacturers with employees in multiple states should review applicable minimum wage laws to ensure compliance.

Lastly, manufacturers should ensure that their workplace posters reflect the correct minimum wage.

Exempt/Non-Exempt Status

Manufacturers should also consider conducting a review of employee salaries to ensure employees who are classified as exempt are making a salary that is at or above the salary threshold under applicable state and federal law. The current minimum salary that most executive, administrative, and professional workers must be paid in order to be exempt from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is $684 per week or $35,568 annually. Additionally, manufacturers should be aware that in other states and locales, the minimum salary thresholds are significantly higher than the FLSA threshold (such as at $1,237.50 per week or $64,350 annually in New York City).

Permitted Payroll Deductions

Manufacturers in Connecticut should consider reviewing the deductions taken from employee wages to ensure they are either taking only those deductions allowed under federal or state law, such as federal and state income tax, or that they have received special permission from the Connecticut Department of Labor (CTDOL) to make a separate deduction, using the CTDOL’s approved form. Examples of other types of separate deductions include the costs to replace broken equipment, tools, or machinery, the cost for a required uniform, or other items necessary for employment.

Connecticut Paid Sick Leave Eligibility Expansion Continues in 2026

The Connecticut Paid Sick Leave law was amended significantly beginning January 1, 2025, expanding the scope of employers covered by the law, increasing the number of workers eligible for leave, and broadening the qualifying reasons for the use of leave, among other key changes. Currently, employers with 25 or more employees are subject to the law but starting January 1, 2026, employers with 11 or more employees in Connecticut will be subject to the law and in 2027, all employers in Connecticut will be subject to the law. To determine whether paid sick leave must be provided to workers beginning January 1, 2026, manufacturers should review their payroll for the week that contains January 1 to confirm whether they meet the 11-employee minimum threshold.

Manufacturers should consult competent employment counsel for assistance with ensuring compliance with these wage and hour and other important employment law issues. 

I recently had the opportunity to speak with Susan Poeton, Editor of Industry Today, one of the leading U.S. manufacturing industry trade publications, for its “Industry Insights” podcast. During the episode, Susan and I focused on three primary issues impacting manufacturing now and likely into 2026:

  1. Implications of tariffs,
  2. Supply chains under stress, and
  3. How technology is transforming how manufacturing companies operate

Drawn from my experience with clients around the globe, I share insights on how manufacturers can adapt to shifts in workforce, embrace innovation and stay competitive in a changing landscape.

Listen here:

This post was co-authored by Labor + Employment Group lawyer Christopher Costain.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) continues to quickly spread across the manufacturing industry, and employers are tasked with understanding and managing the impact and capabilities of this burgeoning technology. While manufacturers are using AI tools to streamline manufacturing processes, enhance productivity, improve health and safety, and create a more engaged and thriving workforce focused on high-value tasks, ChatGPT and other AI large language models (LLMs) are beginning to infiltrate other departments in the workplace, including employee communications with Human Resources, creating new challenges. Similar to how “WebMD” is often used to address and self-diagnose health issues, employees may now be turning to ChatGPT and other LLMs as advocates to advance their workplace issues.

Human Resources professionals tasked with resolving critical workforce management issues, such as administering employee leaves of absence, collecting and maintaining employee personnel information, and ensuring compliance with wage and hour laws, should be aware and remain vigilant that employees may be utilizing ChatGPT or other LLMs to communicate with Human Resources on their behalf. Human Resources professionals should carefully consider how to engage with those employees who may be using AI tools to communicate with them about legal issues with which they are unfamiliar, or even to assert legal claims.

Manufacturers should be mindful that, as with any AI tool, the ability of ChatGPT or other LLMs to produce accurate, unbiased responses is limited based on the amount of data on which it has been trained. Therefore, while an employee may be relying on ChatGPT to craft an email to send to Human Resources about leave entitlement, the information provided by the AI tool might not be accurate. Human Resources professionals should ensure that they carefully review such communications and prepare to engage the employee in a constructive dialogue regarding legal requirements and the employer’s relevant policies. A response may also require educating the employee, where the employee may be relying on inaccurate information.

In such cases, depending on the specific circumstances, employers should consider reminding employees of the employer’s policies governing the permitted use of AI tools in the workplace and the risks of using such technology. 

As the use of ChatGPT and other LLMs continues to expand together with AI tools throughout the manufacturing industry, employers are encouraged to consider ways to monitor and address employees’ use of such technologies to ensure compliance with applicable law and the employer’s policies while also strengthening employee relations.

This post was co-authored by Labor + Employment Group lawyer Christopher Costain.

As tariff talks continue to heat up and fuel heightened economic uncertainty, manufacturers are left to determine how to best manage their workforces while continuing to meet customer demands. Manufacturers seeking to weather the economic pressure may consider exploring ways to reduce labor costs whether by reorganizing, layoffs, restructuring, or other mechanisms. However, manufacturers that are considering actions to reduce their workforce should engage in careful planning and diligence to ensure that they comply with all applicable federal and state laws to minimize the legal and employee relations risks associated with such actions. Below, we will address several key legal considerations related to layoffs.

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) is a federal statute that guides employers through the process of eliminating existing jobs while also providing workers with sufficient time to prepare for the transition period and to seek new employment or training opportunities. The WARN Act requires covered employers (generally those with 100 or more full-time employees) to provide employees  60 days advance notice before “closing a plant” or conducting a “mass layoff.” A “plant closing” is a permanent or temporary shutdown resulting in the loss of employment for at least 50 employees during a 30-day period at either a single employment site or multiple facilities operating within a single employment site. A “mass layoff” is a reduction in force that is not the result of a plant closing, and results in an employment loss at a single employment site during a 30-day period for either 50 employees who comprise 33% of the manufacturer’s active employees, or at least 500 employees. Covered employers that do not comply with the WARN Act or qualify for an exception can be liable to affected employees for lost wages and benefits.

The WARN Act also includes a 90-day aggregation rule where employers must look ahead and back 90 days to determine whether there were any other employment losses. If there are two group employment losses at a single site of employment in that 90-day period, the groups will be aggregated together and the WARN Act will be triggered, even if neither group alone is large enough to trigger the act’s requirements. This is particularly important when companies are considering layoffs on a rolling or gradual basis.

To successfully comply with the WARN Act’s requirements, and minimize legal risk, manufacturers should carefully determine which workers may be impacted; evaluate whether the selection may cause a disparate impact or other risk of discrimination claims; document the decisions made once they are final; and carefully review whether the layoff may implicate WARN or an equivalent state law. If WARN is implicated, then several steps should be taken to ensure compliance with WARN’s notice and other provisions.

Even if WARN is not implicated, manufacturers engaging in layoffs should ensure that they have thoroughly analyzed their decisions in relation to disparate impact and that the decisions regarding the employees selected and not selected are based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons and supported by objective data. It is crucial to understand why each employee was selected and, if there was a choice between multiple employees working in the same role, exactly why the employees were selected.

In addition to the requirements of the federal WARN Act, manufacturers should be mindful that certain states have their own WARN Acts, known as “Mini-WARN Acts,” which often impose additional, more stringent obligations on employers than their federal counterpart. 

The Older Workers’ Benefit Protection Act

Another important federal law manufacturers should be mindful of when preparing for layoffs is the Older Workers’ Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA), which was passed in 1990 and amends the familiar Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). Under the OWBPA, manufacturers offering a severance package to two or more employees in exchange for a release of claims, including those arising under the ADEA, must provide employees, ages 40 and older, at least 45 days to consider whether to sign the agreement (although they can sign at any time within that 45-day period) and seven days after the date they sign to revoke their acceptance.   

The severance agreement must also include a disclosure of the “decisional unit” of workers who were considered for the exit incentive or termination program, including their job titles and ages, and whether they were selected or not selected for layoff. The OWBPA disclosure ensures that workers aged 40 and older are provided with sufficient information to make a knowing and voluntary waiver of their claims under the ADEA.

Manufacturers considering layoffs should carefully analyze which workers are eligible for the severance package, identify those who are selected and those who are not, and document the decision-making process so that the decision-making unit is clearly defined and can withstand scrutiny in the future. 

Manufacturers should consult competent employment counsel for assistance with preparing separation agreements that comply with the ADEA and the OWBPA, as well as identifying the appropriate decision-making unit, under attorney-client privilege. 

On June 6, 2025, President Donald Trump signed two executive orders aimed at significantly reshaping the future of drone policy in the United States. One focuses on protecting national airspace from malicious drone threats, while the other seeks to supercharge the U.S. drone industry at home and abroad.

Together, these orders paint a clear picture of a dual strategy: tighten security while boosting innovation. Here’s a breakdown, without the legal jargon, of what these two executive orders mean and why they matter.

Restoring American Airspace Sovereignty: Cracking Down on Dangerous Drone Use

This executive order is all about defending U.S. airspace from threats posed by drones—especially when used by hostile actors.

The order warns that while drones can offer many benefits, bad actors have increasingly weaponized them, raising serious national security and public safety concerns. From hovering over stadiums and critical infrastructure to spying on sensitive government sites, drones have become a tool for potential harm.

The key actions in the executive order:

  • New Task Force: A special interagency task force will review the United States’ current drone policies and tech capabilities and propose solutions to improve drone defense.
  • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Rulemaking: The FAA will write new rules to restrict drone flights over “fixed site facilities”— think power plants, military bases, or large venues.
  • Better Geofencing Tools: FAA notices and airspace restrictions will be made available in a more open, digital-friendly format so drone systems can automatically avoid no-fly zones.
  • Law Enforcement Mandate: The Attorney General must step up enforcement of laws against reckless or criminal drone use.
  • Expanded Detection Powers: Agencies are directed to use all tools available to detect, track, and identify drones and their signals.
  • Counter-Drone Coordination: The Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary will explore embedding drone defense into Joint Terrorism Task Forces, especially around mass gathering events like sports games, concerts, or political rallies.

This is a crackdown on dangerous or unlawful drone activity. It could lead to more enforcement, stricter no-fly zones, and tighter coordination across federal and local agencies to stop drone threats before they escalate.

Unleashing Drone Dominance: Promoting U.S. Drone Innovation and Exports

The second order flips the script. While the first one cracks down, this one opens up new doors for U.S.-made drone technology to thrive.

President Trump argues that drones are not just flying gadgets, they’re a key part of the future economy. They can improve productivity, create high-skilled jobs, and modernize transportation and logistics. To stay competitive globally, the United States must scale production, expand exports, and support homegrown innovation.

The key actions in the executive order:

  • Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) Rules: The FAA will issue new regulations to allow drones to fly beyond the pilot’s line of sight, critical for delivery services, search and rescue, and more.
  • AI-Powered Waiver Reviews: The government will start using artificial intelligence tools to speed up the approval of drone waiver applications, cutting red tape.
  • Easing International Flight Restrictions: U.S.-based drone flights that begin and end domestically (or from U.S.-owned platforms) will no longer face manned aircraft-style rules under international law.
  • National Integration Roadmap: A new plan will guide how drones are fully integrated into U.S. airspace—from small consumer drones to delivery fleets.
  • Test Range Expansion: FAA test sites will be used more aggressively to develop and scale up next-gen drone tech.
  • Electric Vertical Take-Off and Landing (eVTOL) Pilot Program: The government will launch a program to accelerate the rollout of eVTOL aircraft (think flying taxis).
  • Supply Chain Protections: A “Covered Foreign Entity List” will identify risky suppliers, and new measures will be taken to protect the U.S. drone supply chain from foreign control or espionage.
  • Export Boost: Export control rules will be revised to make it easier to sell U.S.-made drones abroad, as long as they’re not going to adversaries.
  • Military Access to Drones: The Department of Defense will take steps to improve service members’ access to drones, possibly for training or battlefield use.

This order lays the groundwork for a full-scale push to grow the domestic drone economy, loosening rules, accelerating innovation, and taking aim at global drone markets.

Taken together, these two executive orders represent a new drone doctrine: protect U.S. skies and dominate the drone market.

  • For drone operators and manufacturers, the message is mixed but clear: follow the rules, especially around security, and the government will support your growth.
  • For regulators and law enforcement, the orders add urgency to modernizing systems, cracking down on threats, and speeding up approvals.
  • For the drone industry, it could mean faster innovation, broader markets, and a bigger push to bring manufacturing back home.

Whether you’re flying drones, building them, regulating them, or just watching from the ground, 2025 may be a defining year for how the United States handles the skies.

This post was co-authored by Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Team partner Kathryn M. Rattigan and Government Enforcement + White-Collar Defense partner David E. Carney. The post is also being shared on our Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Insider blog. If you’re interested in getting updates on developments affecting data privacy and security, we invite you to subscribe to the blog.

This post was co-authored by Labor + Employment Group lawyer Jessica C. Pinto.

Manufacturers that are covered federal contractors may be wondering when they are required to certify compliance with the affirmative action plan regulations. At this point, the answer is not clear and recent proposals from the Trump administration may explain why.

The Department of Labor’s (DOL) recently proposed budget for the fiscal year 2026 proposes to eliminate the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), the agency tasked with enforcing affirmative action plans and proposes to transfer the OFCCP’s statutory program areas to other agencies. While the Trump administration rolled back many diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, including revoking Executive Order 11246, which mandated affirmative action plans covering women and minorities, the statutory affirmative action requirements under the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 remain in effect. Under VEVRAA and Section 503, federal contractors are obligated to engage in affirmative action and maintain affirmative action plans for protected individuals with disabilities and protected veterans.

The DOL’s proposal includes having the Veterans’ Employment and Training Services enforce VEVRAA, and the EEOC enforce Section 503, rather than the OFCCP enforcing these regulations. The justification is that “the realignment of responsibilities will ensure consistent oversight while shrinking the Federal bureaucracy” and that Executive Order 14173: “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” “permanently remov[es] the primary basis for the OFCCP’s enforcement authority and program work.” If approved, the OFCCP would be eliminated next fiscal year, beginning October 1, 2025.

At this juncture, Congress must still approve the proposed budget, and there is a question as to whether the OFCCP can even be required to transfer its authority to other agencies.

What does this mean for federal contractors who must comply with VEVRAA and Section 503 affirmative action requirements? Employers are still statutorily required to engage in affirmative action efforts and maintain affirmative action plans regarding protected veterans and individuals with disabilities. While the future is unclear for the OFCCP, the statutory requirements still remain in effect and remain a legal obligation.