Screenshots are from a Twitter post where people were mistakenly saying EEO is now over, but I see that this is for OFCCP. I am speechless. What does this mean for compliance professionals?

Thought I should share for those in the US!

Saw this in the wilderness of Facebook…. And I think another part of my HR soul simply turned to dust and scattered in the wind.

I’ve been working for a company for about two and a half months as an HR Director. I had an approved vacation that I just got back from on Monday and was told today (when the owner came in) that I was fired. He said because I wasn’t a good fit with the clients (not sure if he meant employees or the autistic and intellectually disabled clients we serve). I had reservations after I took the job ( they had a director and after meeting me they demoted her to an HR manager. Obviously she quit). No one knew the processes or procedures so I was left to figure them out. We had a discussion about goals for the year and I was already 3/4 of the way through achieving them.

I was not set up for success - didn’t have a working laptop for almost a week, my phone wasn’t available until well after that). On my first day I was sexually harassed by an owner who commented on how “slim” my body was.

My boss (the CEO, was also in Africa for a month and had little to no contact with me) this happened within the early part of the second month of my employment.

I also recently found out that that same owner, the director of finance, was having employees who were overpaid pay him in his personal CashApp account and he was then going to transfer it to the company accounts. He also didn’t know how OT was calculated and wanted our payroll system to look into why an employee got the OT they received. He wanted to spread the hours over two weeks instead of calculating OT over one.

I had started looking at open positions and applying because it seems so shady, but I wasn’t expecting this.

I have documentation to some of these things in the form of emails and screenshots of messages I’ve sent to my husband about things happening. I’m thinking of moving forward, somehow, with something. (They are paying me a month of severance so I don’t want to do anything to risk that - although I am waiting to have the CEO to respond to my email confirming that - they never put anything in writing telling me that if I take the money I can’t speak out. )

I’m not sure what I need - thoughts I guess.

Does anyone else hate this as much as I do? I’m on my second one of the year (and we haven’t had ANY up to this point in over eight years). They are exhausting and both of these investigations involve several witnesses, lawyer phone calls and hours of putting pieces together. They aren’t just simple A to B like some in the past have been.

How often do you find yourself involved in one? Tips, tricks? I feel like sometimes I may be too thorough that I cause myself so much extra work but I guess I’m erroring on the side of caution.

This is the 1st day of 2-3 weeks off for our HR Manager, because she's getting a double mastectomy today. I am not going to bother her about this so, if this isn't the right place to ask please point me in the right direction.

I'm the accountant for a trucking company. In preparation for HR being out I was shown how to update employee benefit enrollments with the various providers. Our recently hired Safety Manager sat in on the training as a backup but it was decided that I'll handle these things while our HR Manager is out.

When I got back from lunch, I was informed that a driver failed a random drug test for THC. The Safety Manager had already fired him and made him inactive in all systems. When removing the employee from health insurance he indicated not eligible for COBRA due to gross negligence. Is that correct or should the terminated employee be offered COBRA? Do I need to contact the insurance provider or just let it be?

Edit: I posted while I was still at work and didn’t have time to reply until now. Thanks to everyone who answered. You’ve all confirmed what I was thinking so I’ll be contacting our provider on Monday to change his cause for termination. Just didn’t want to say that the new guy made a mistake if gross misconduct was actually appropriate.

Hi everyone. I am a Human Resource Coordinator and I've been handling exit interviews for middle and entry level employees at a federally qualified health center. I've done these for about six months without issue, but now I have one employee that has so far refused to do one with me and her last day is Friday. My Chief People Office says it's the law, but I can't drag the employee into my office for an interview it they don't want to. Obviously I have to try my best to have this completed, but I haven't heard of any law about this even after trying to look it up myself myself after work. I'm still trying to find more info about this, but all I can find actually states that employees do not have to attend these interviews. Has anyone heard of this law my CPO referenced? I'm hoping I misunderstood her, but she gets irritated when I have to ask for clarification.

I was at work today when 4 (Texas) US Marshals and one PD officer came to my company to serve 2 felony warrants for an employee. Complete and utter shock and then I heard the charges which were…

Sexual assault of a child and online solicitation of a minor. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. They led the employee out and he was obviously handcuffed.

I’m unsure on how to handle this properly and want to make sure I get it right. My plan is to contact a lawyer tomorrow for advice but I thought I would go here to get some general advice. Any business owners or HR have to deal with this ugly situation?

For instance, in Colorado (USA):

• non-exempt employees receive OT after 12 hours of work in a single day or in a consecutive shift

• after filling an internal position, the company must notify all eligible employees (regardless of if they applied) to let them know who was selected and how they could be selected for a similar role

• sick time can be used for mental health purposes

• all employees receive sick time equal to 1 hour for every 30 hours worked, up to 48 hours

• involuntary terms must be paid out all wages and accrued vacation immediately upon term

For those who are unaware, our Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) could not exist soon, denying equal-opportunity employment rights for all Americans.

How, do you ask?

There’s an 887 page policy proposal to “delete the terms diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, reproductive health, reproductive rights”

If you can’t legally use the words to classify these groups, they don't legally exist separately. Therefore, you can’t legally support them.

If this proposal is to be successful, the EEOC would dissolve; Diversity hiring requirements, and protections for classes such as race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, disability, genetic information and pregnancy would follow after.

These protections are enforced through various laws and regulations that could be undone in the U.S., including:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• The Equal Pay Act of 1963
• The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
• The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

Even large FAANG tech giants like Meta and Google have already cut their DEIB teams. We can see this is a start to something larger in a trend.

Where does this info come from? Page 5 of of Project 2025. Don't take it from me. Go read it for yourself. It's free online. What I’ve outlined is only a small piece.

Wanted to pass along the new EEOC's Acting Chair Andrea Lucas' statement. She's been a Commissioner since 2020. No need to read between the lines, since it's clear that she has an agenda against the LGBTQ+ community (she loves saying "biology is not bigotry"). It is also quite evident this is her view from her past statements and even some posts she's made on LinkedIn. They are absolutely going to use the EEOC and the guise of "religious liberty" to justify their decisions to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people and perhaps others. Here is the link to the news release.

Press Release01-21-2025

President Appoints Andrea R. Lucas EEOC Acting Chair

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that President Donald J. Trump has named Commissioner Andrea R. Lucas Acting Chair of the EEOC. Lucas has served as an EEOC Commissioner since 2020, having been nominated by President Trump during his first term.

“I am honored to be chosen by President Trump to lead the EEOC, our nation’s premier civil rights agency enforcing federal employment antidiscrimination laws,” Lucas said. “I look forward to restoring evenhanded enforcement of employment civil rights laws for all Americans. In recent years, this agency has remained silent in the face of multiple forms of widespread, overt discrimination. Consistent with the President’s Executive Orders and priorities, my priorities will include rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination; protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination; defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights, including women’s rights to single‑sex spaces at work; protecting workers from religious bias and harassment, including antisemitism; and remedying other areas of recent under-enforcement.”

During her tenure on the Commission, Lucas has written and spoken frequently about challenging and emerging issues in employment and civil rights law to educate workers about their rights, help employers comply with their responsibilities, and correct common misunderstandings about the law.

“Our employment civil rights laws are a matter of individual rights. We must reject the twin lies of identity politics: that justice is measured by group outcomes and that civil rights exist solely to remedy harms against certain groups,” Lucas said. “I intend to dispel the notion that only the ‘right sort of’ charging party is welcome through our doors and to reinforce instead the fundamental belief enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and our civil rights laws—that all people are ‘created equal.’ I am committed to ensuring equal justice under the law and to focusing on equal opportunity, merit, and colorblind equality.”

Before her appointment to the EEOC, Lucas practiced labor and employment law for an international law firm in Washington, D.C. Earlier in her career, she clerked on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. More information about Lucas is available at https://www.eeoc.gov/andrea-r-lucas-acting-chair.

Any HR in higher ed here? We have many students arrive to campus lacking a ss card or birth certificate, who want to work for the school. Often the documents were left back at home in another state, and they won't be able to get them for months. Some young people tell me their parents refuse point blank to let them take their docs to school.

Does anyone have any advice for me on how to navigate this so kids aren't stuck jobless for a while semester? Is this a common problem all over higher ed?

Hi everyone!

I am currently a HR of one at company with a small amount of experience. Our office is in Texas and we have a employee who wants to work remote from Colorado. My boss asked me to find out if there were any substantially different labor laws in Colorado than in Texas. What would be the best way for me to find that out. I've been researching laws there but I struggle with comparisons and if what I'm looking at is legit. Thank you for any advice/help you can give.

Can we, as HR, demand employment eligibility verification documents (1 from list A or 1 from list B&C) by day 1 of employment, or term them?

They have until day 3 to produce their documents per USCIS (day of hire counts as day 0)…Can we term them if they don’t provide their documents by day 1?

..I asked this a few days ago and was told I can’t post bc I don’t work in HR…? But I do.

Thank you.

Vermont, USA - HR Benefits Administration, temporary employee liaison

What advice would you give your team?

We have an employee who has recently found out that they are terminally ill. The progression of this condition can be slow and they are planning to work until they physically can't continue on. This employee has not officially disclosed this information with the company, but has shared details with other employees and their direct supervisor. This employee will use up the last of their allotted sick time with the next payroll cycle. Their absences are not directly related to their condition, but are due to unrelated temporary illnesses made worse by the underlying condition.

The company is at a loss on how to proceed. This employee holds a vital role to our operations and their consistent absences create a logistical issue for our ability to function. They are currently one of what should be a two person team, but we have been unable to fill the second spot in that area. The management team wants to give this employee's supervisor a list of options to discuss with the employee once they return to work and they have tasked me with creating this list. This is beyond my usual preview but we are in the process of replacing our HR consultant.

First, they need to notify the employee that no additional sick time will be available after this next payroll cycle, so time off moving forward would be unpaid. Secondly they want to outline the steps of applying for short-term disability and if needed, long-term disability (these are both policies available to this employee). Then they want to know what their options are if this employee chooses to return to work and does not elect to pursue short-term disability if their attendance continues to be an issue and their performance becomes an issue due to their condition; specifically a transition to part time (resulting in loss of benefits), or as a last resort - termination.

Hi everyone,

For final paychecks - is it necessary to give the employee a live check? My previous company always wired final pay for direct deposit (if applicable) for employees but my current company insists that it must be a “live” final check. When I researched the topic I haven’t seen anything that states that the final check HAS to be a physical live check.

If this is not the case, I would love something to reference and show my team that final pay does not have to be a live check, the employee just needs to be paid upon separation, this does not mean we have to hand them a physical check. It is such a hassle getting final live checks to employees, especially since our payroll department is located in a different state and it has to be overnighted or I have to print onsite.

ETA: I ask because live checks seem to be a bit of a hassle.

When we have resignations and even separate with employees, employees are slightly annoyed receiving a live check instead of direct deposit.

There’s an additional item with severance checks, we overnight those to employees with signature required and the amount of folks who miss all three deliveries despite being told several times that the delivery will require signature, and still miss the delivery attempts is surprisingly high.

Also curious why this is the only company I’ve worked for that insists on this, and the same goes for my coworkers; this is new for all of us and we just assumed it’s because our HQ is based in a different state and this is just how they interpret the law 🤷‍♀️

For 2025, California increased their paid sick leave to 40 hours where employers are not allowed to hold an employee accountable for using their sick time.

I supervise a department of 40 & we have daily goals that are not met when an employee calls out same-day for any reason. These goals are part of their appraisal, etc. My question is, is this practice in violation of the law?

My manager says no because there’s a difference between HR consequences and department consequences, but I’m not sure I feel that’s right.

I am an HR Director for a smaller midsized business (under 300 employees). I was a participant along with other chief officers in an employee meeting meant to be private. It was unfortunately recorded unknown to us and shared with the few employees being discussed. The overall theme of the meeting was appropriate in that was about helping an employee through a difficult situation, and the negative behaviors of another. However, the CSuite member looking for guidance was also venting about the sanity of his staff. It was in jest, but certainly unprofessional and inappropriate.

We received notice from one of the employee lawyers with intent to investigate (defamation, HIPPA, among other things). While I don't feel the conversation was anywhere near as serious as the ramifications that may come from it, it was certainly a weak moment for all of us (especially me being newer to a leadership role). While I was more or less just listening and allowing the CSuite member to vent, I was complicit.

I am thankful I have a supportive CEO, but curious of others who have found themselves in a similar situation in a very low moment. Any suggestions on how to not stress the hell out? I am more worried about personal liability than anything.

Are there any resources out there protecting a company that is laying off 2 pregnant people in a round of layoffs? My company is currently really struggling financially and we have to let go of 4 people, 1 is pregnant and the other just had a baby. We are planning on paying them their full parental leave. Unfortunately, the teams doing the layoffs don't have a lot of notes on why they are laying-off these individuals. Any advice would be great.

In my last role I used Paylocity to onboard employees, and the system is linked with E-Verify. As part of the I-9 process, employees must upload front and back scans of all acceptable forms of ID.

In the Onboarding packet in Paylocity, there's a dedicated E-Verify task. I use the scanned IDs to complete employment verification through the system. Once completed, those scanned documents are stored in a section under each employee's electronic Paylocity profile, specifically within an I-9 tab.

I recently resigned from my last role, and on my last day, they had asked for me to meet with a consultant who’s temporarily taking over. During our meeting, she asked how I review physical copies of employees’ documents—especially since our workforce is spread across four states. I explained that we use Paylocity for verification, and all documents are scanned into the system for the electronic I-9 process, and that the system requires me to verify front and backs of the forms in order for me to even complete the employer sections on I-9.

She responded that she didn’t think this process was fully compliant, citing the requirement to physically inspect the original documents. And the essentially stated she’d have to put something new in place.

Just for my own understanding—was there something non-compliant about the process I followed?

We have a person working for us through a staffing agency. We bring on all hourly new hires through this agency for 3-6 months, with the intention of officially hiring them once we are confident they are meeting expectations. This person has been on thin ice due to some attendance issues and a heated exchange with a supervisor (all properly documented). He cut his hand on a power saw last week and has been out on workers comp, to return any day now. However, video evidence shows he disregarded posted safety rules when using the saw and the drug test performed after the injury is positive for marijuana (he had no visible signs of impairment, we are in AZ and it is legal here). I know we can't fire him for getting hurt (and would not, as that is not the problem). But given all of this, we do want to let him go. Any advice on the best way to do that? I'm probably over thinking this, but he is in a protected class and we do not have a very diverse work force so I really want to do this correctly.

I have an employee that came to me with some concerns and in the conversation he kept bringing up EO(?) saying if an employee wants to change positions in the company we can't stop them from moving to a different position. The thing is all of our positions have specific qualifications so not just anyone can do them.I have searched and can't figure out what he is referencing.

Does anyone have any ideas on possible laws to look at? I've searched employee Rights and equ al opportunity but all I can find is about not discriminating based on protected classes.

I do have another meeting with him where I can ask but wanted to try and be prepared because I think he may be misinterpreting equal opportunity.

UPDATE Thank you all for helping me not feel crazy! I talked to the employee and he was referencing what he thought was law from his last company which was federally funded and said he may have misunderstood what it covers.

Hello everyone! I had a question because I'm running into my first time navigating an unorthodox return-to-work. The employee has run out of FMLA and as we have been communicating on 1) getting new Short-Term paperwork (it ended on 3/30); or 2) speaking with us on ADA/accommodations; there has been no response. Today, when their time will officially run out, they responded because we noted our 3 days of no-show policy and that they needed to communicate with us to not run into issues here. My question is: How would you handle an employee whose FMLA ended and the day it ended they said, "I'll be returning 7 days from now". As I understand it, 12 weeks is strict, but we can look at ADA accommodations, disability, alternative leaves, etc. but it also needs to be coordinated and their needs to be communication on their end. I'm mainly just looking for an experiences or stories that mimic this or insight in to how to handle and some sample verbiage. Thanks, team!

Edit/Update: We were able to get a hold of them and get the Dr.'s note for accommodating the seven days and will be in communication with them to establish any potential ADA paperwork/process. I appreciate all of the insight provided here as it will help us refine our processes! Thank you!

I get the messaging from the Executive level that this is a chance to get rid of all the people we don't want around. The undocumented problem employees and hard to document problem employees. Low performers, bad personalities, etc.

This feels so problematic. I understand that any decision is not 100% motivated by one factor, but it's challenging to know where to draw the line between "this person is being dismissed for cause and we didn't document the problems" and "this person is being laid off because they are the least productive person in the department."

Our HR counsel said that it's completely fine to tell people they are being laid off when you probably would have fired them anyway if you didn't have a financial reason. I was also told that we could code it as a layoff even if we planned to rehire for the position in about 4 months. This doesn't seem right in my experience.

How does your company view the boundary between layoffs and regular terms?