Federal Agency Roundup: What's Changed at the EEOC, NLRB, and DOL and What Employers Should Watch Next

By R. Jason Patterson, Alyssa K. Dorman, Zoë Green Appler and Michael A. Warner, Jr. - Franczek P.C.

September 9, 2026

Summer may be winding down, but changes at the EEOC, NLRB, and DOL are not. As employers settle into the fall, all three agencies continue to reshape enforcement priorities, rulemaking agendas, and compliance expectations. Understanding where each agency has been makes it easier to predict where it is headed and, more importantly, what developments warrant immediate attention versus continued monitoring. Below, we trace each agency’s recent developments and explain why they matter for employers.

EEOC: A New Enforcement Agenda Takes Shape

A Shift in Priorities

Under the prior administration, the EEOC’s 2024-2028 Strategic Enforcement Plan emphasized systemic enforcement, including pattern-or-practice investigations and challenges to employment practices that produced disparate impacts on protected groups, even absent evidence of intentional discrimination. Employers were encouraged, and often expected, to monitor and address demographic disparities in hiring, pay, and promotion, including through DEI-labeled initiatives.

That approach has changed. On June 4, 2026, the EEOC adopted its National Enforcement Plan (NEP) for fiscal years 2025-2029 that shifts the agency’s focus toward intentional discrimination (disparate treatment) and directs the EEOC to limit the use of disparate-impact theories to the maximum extent possible.

The shift quickly gained support from the Department of Justice. On June 9, 2026, the DOJ issued an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) Opinion concluding that the EEOC’s disparate-impact guidance is unconstitutional to the extent it imposes liability based solely on statistical disparities. The opinion does not bind courts or alter Title VII, and disparate-impact claims, which challenge neutral policies that disproportionately affect protected groups, remain viable under existing law unless and until courts adopt the OLC’s reasoning.

The NEP and OLC opinion also suggest increased scrutiny of certain DEI initiatives, national-origin discrimination, religious accommodation, and workplace policies involving sex-based distinctions.

Potential Elimination of EEO-1 Reporting

On July 21, 2026, the EEOC issued a Proposed Rule rescinding the EEO-1 (and EEO-2 through EEO-6) annual demographic reporting requirement. If finalized, the proposal would eliminate a tool long used to collect workforce demographic data and identify potential systemic discrimination issues, although current reporting requirements remain in effect.

Why Employers Should Care

These developments are best understood as a shift in federal enforcement priorities, not a wholesale change in employment discrimination law. Employers should expect the EEOC to pursue different types of cases and to focus greater attention on the issues identified in the NEP. At the same time, disparate-impact claims remain viable under current law, and state and local enforcement agencies, including those in Illinois, are not bound by the EEOC’s current approach. As a result, employers should be cautious about overreacting to federal developments until courts and other enforcement bodies signal a broader change.

NLRB: A New Majority, New Priorities and Ongoing Structural Uncertainty

The Board Now Has the Votes to Revisit Precedent

As we discussed in January on the NLRB’s return to a quorum, the Board spent much of 2025 without a quorum after former Board Member Wilcox’s removal. The December 2025 Board appointments restored the Board’s ability to act but left it without the three-member majority typically needed to reconsider precedent.

That changed on August 7, 2026, when the Senate confirmed James Macy, giving Republicans a 3-1 majority. As a result, the Board is now positioned to revisit several significant Biden-era decisions involving union recognition, workplace rules, severance agreements, captive-audience meetings, available remedies, and the scope of protected concerted activity.

The General Counsel’s Priorities Are Coming Into Focus

When General Counsel  (GC) Crystal Carey took office, many expected her to immediately publish a list of decisions she wanted overturned. Instead, as we discussed in our February, GC 26-02 focused primarily on agency operations. The memo emphasized reducing the NLRB’s case backlog, prioritizing settlement over litigation, discouraging certain enhanced remedies, and giving greater weight to legitimate business justifications when evaluating workplace rules.

More recently, in GC 26-04, GC Carey reported that the agency has reduced the regional offices’ inventory of cases awaiting determination by more than 50 percent and outlined additional efforts to improve case processing and efficiency. The memo also identifies several precedents she has already asked the Board to revisit in pending litigation, as well as others she intends to challenge when an appropriate case arises. In some instances, she seeks to overturn those decisions outright; in others, she seeks to narrow or modify their reach.

Cases Where the GC Has Already Taken a Position:

> McLaren Macomb (severance agreement confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions): restricts employers’ use of broad confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements. GC Carey seeks a return to a more permissive approach toward routine severance terms.
> Stericycle (work-rule standards): subjects facially neutral workplace rules to challenge if employees could reasonably view them as restricting protected activity. GC Carey favors a balancing test that gives greater weight to legitimate business interests.
> Amazon (captive-audience meetings): significantly restricts employers’ ability to require attendance at meetings concerning unionization. GC Carey seeks restoration of the prior standard permitting such meetings if they are non-coercive.
> Tesla (dress code restrictions): requires employers to show special circumstances before enforcing dress-code restrictions that limit union insignia. GC Carey seeks a return to the prior Wal-Mart balancing test, and the Second Circuit recently rejected Tesla’s presumption that such restrictions are unlawful, favoring a more employer-friendly balancing of Section 7 rights and legitimate business interests.
> Siren Retail/Starbucks (employer predictions regarding unionization): expanded scrutiny of employer communications about the effects of unionization. GC Carey supports a return to precedent affording employers greater latitude to express non-coercive views.
> Metro Health (limits on consent orders): addresses the Board’s approach to consent orders and settlements and is among the decisions GC Carey has identified for reconsideration.
> Endurance Environmental Solutions (bargaining obligations): makes it more difficult for employers to rely on broad management-rights clauses when acting without bargaining. GC Carey seeks a return to the more employer-friendly contract-coverage standard.

Cases the GC Has Identified for Future Challenges:

> Cemex (union recognition and bargaining orders): requires employers either to recognize a union claiming majority support or promptly seek an election, while expanding the availability of bargaining orders when unfair labor practices occur.
> Wendt and Tecnocap (pre-change bargaining obligations): limits employers’ ability to continue established past practices and implement certain changes without bargaining, particularly after contract expiration.
> Miller Plastic and Lion Elastomers (protected concerted activity): provides greater protection for employees whose otherwise offensive, profane, or insubordinate conduct occurs in connection with protected activity.
> Valley Hospital (dues-checkoff obligations): requires employers to continue deducting and remitting union dues after a collective bargaining agreement expires.
> Thryv (expanded monetary remedies): expanded Board remedies to include direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms beyond traditional back pay and reinstatement and has already faced resistance in several federal courts.

The significance is not that these decisions have changed. They have not. Rather, employers now have a clearer roadmap of the precedent GC Carey believes the Board should reconsider.

The NLRB’s Structure Remains Under Challenge

Separate from questions of labor policy, the NLRB continues to face constitutional challenges to its structure. Courts have increasingly concluded that the removal protections for Board members and administrative law judges violate Article II, a trend the Supreme Court reinforced in Trump v. Slaughter (June 29, 2026) when it overruled Humphrey’s Executor. For employers, the key point is that these challenges are no longer theoretical. Employers have already invoked them to challenge ongoing unfair labor practice proceedings, and further litigation is likely as appellate courts continue to address the issue. Companies involved in Board litigation should monitor developments closely, particularly in the Fifth Circuit.

Congress Is Considering Changes to First-Contract Bargaining

As discussed in our June 2026 alert, the House passed the bipartisan Faster Labor Contracts Act, which would impose strict deadlines on first-contract negotiations. If bargaining and federal mediation do not produce an agreement, a three-member arbitration panel could establish binding contract terms for two years.

The legislation remains pending in the Senate, where a companion bill has been referred to committee. Its prospects remain uncertain, but if enacted, it would fundamentally change first-contract bargaining by allowing arbitrators to determine wages, benefits, and other terms the parties could not agree upon.

Why Employers Should Care

These developments are best understood as a change in direction rather than a change in law. Existing Board precedent remains in effect unless and until the Board formally revisits it, and the Faster Labor Contracts Act remains pending in the Senate. Nevertheless, a new Board majority, the General Counsel’s stated priorities, and proposed legislation affecting first-contract bargaining provide valuable insight into where federal labor policy may be headed.

Employers should also remember that enforcement priorities can shift before precedent does, and ongoing litigation over the NLRB’s structure adds further uncertainty to the agency’s future direction.

DOL: Rulemaking, Enforcement and Compliance Assistance

Rulemaking Remains Active

The Department of Labor continues to revisit several major Biden-era wage-and-hour regulations. On February 26, 2026, DOL proposed rescinding the 2024 independent-contractor rule and returning to a framework that places greater emphasis on worker control and opportunity for profit or loss. A final rule has not yet been issued.

On April 22, 2026, the DOL also proposed a new joint-employer rule, the first comprehensive federal standard on the issue since the 2020 rule was rescinded. The proposal would apply a four-factor control test in staffing and subcontracting relationships while using a separate standard for related-entity arrangements.

Neither proposal is final, and both are likely to face legal challenges once finalized. Employers should also remember that state-law standards for contractor classification and joint employment remain unchanged.

Compliance Obligations Have Changed for Federal Contractors

One of the most significant recent developments affects federal contractors. From August 20-21, 2026, the DOL finalized three rules eliminating many affirmative-action obligations.

Beginning October 26, 2026, covered contractors will no longer be required to maintain race- or sex-based affirmative action plans. Separately, as of September 21, 2026, contractors are also no longer required to solicit disability self-identification from applicants, and the longstanding 7% utilization goal for individuals with disabilities has been eliminated. Veteran-related obligations under VEVRAA remain largely unchanged.

Importantly, these changes do not affect employers’ obligations under Title VII, the ADA, or applicable state and local discrimination laws.

Reminder: Covered federal contractors must still submit their annual VETS-4212 report by September 30, 2026.

Emphasis on Voluntary Compliance

Changes are not limited to rulemaking. The Department has also shifted several enforcement policies in ways intended to encourage voluntary compliance.

Since June 2025, DOL has generally stopped seeking liquidated damages when resolving wage-and-hour matters before litigation. The agency has also revived the Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program, allowing employers to self-report and resolve certain wage-and-hour violations. The program has been expanded to include certain FMLA-related issues, and similar self-correction initiatives are being promoted across other DOL agencies.

These developments suggest a greater emphasis on voluntary compliance and early resolution than employers saw during the prior administration.

The Return of Compliance Assistance

The Wage and Hour Division has also increased its use of opinion letters, issuing several during 2026 addressing issues such as exemption classifications, overtime requirements, compensable time, and remote-work travel questions.

While opinion letters remain highly fact specific, they can provide valuable compliance guidance and may support a good-faith defense in wage-and-hour disputes. Their renewed use signals a broader DOL effort to provide employers with practical compliance tools alongside rulemaking and enforcement initiatives.

Why Employers Should Care

These developments collectively signal a more employer-friendly approach from the Department of Labor, but many of the most significant proposals remain unfinished.

Federal contractors face immediate compliance changes and reporting obligations. Employers that rely heavily on independent contractors, staffing agencies, franchise arrangements, or subcontracting relationships should closely monitor the pending contractor and joint-employer rules, as those decisions can significantly affect wage-and-hour, leave, and employment-law obligations.

Employers should also avoid focusing exclusively on federal developments. State-law standards for worker classification, wage-and-hour compliance, and discrimination claims often remain more restrictive than federal law and generally are unaffected by DOL rulemaking.

www.franczek.com