In June 2025, the Pittsburgh City Council approved an ordinance that amends the Pittsburgh Paid Sick Days Act (“PSDA”) to significantly increase the number of hours of paid sick leave employers must provide to eligible employees annually and increase the rate at which paid sick leave is accrued.  The PSDA applies to most employers who employ at least one individual within Pittsburgh’s city limits and covers any employee who works within the City of Pittsburgh (“City”) or who performs at least 35 hours of work in the City annually.  These changes to the PSDA will take effect on January 1, 2026.

What’s Changing on January 1, 2026?

Under the current version of the PSDA, covered employers with 15+ employees must give employees at least 40 hours of paid sick leave per year, and employers with fewer than 15 employees must provide 24 hours of paid sick leave per year.  Currently, employees earn one hour of paid sick leave for every 35 hours worked in the City.

The amendments to the PSDA increase the number of paid sick leave hours employers must provide to eligible employees.  Effective January 1, 2026, employers with 15+ employees will be required to provide 72 hours of paid sick leave per year, and employers with fewer than 15 employees will have to provide 48 hours of paid sick leave per year.

Additionally, the amendments will allow employees to accrue paid sick leave at a faster rate. Starting January 1, 2026, employees will accrue a minimum of one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked.

What Does this Mean for Employers?
While the amendments provide for significant increases in the amount of paid sick leave a covered employer must provide to employees, employers have 6 months to prepare for these changes.  Additionally, under the PSDA, existing paid time off policies may comply if they allow employees to accrue and use leave on terms that are at least equivalent to what is provided in the ordinance.  Employers should review their existing policies and make any necessary changes to ensure compliance with these amendments.

If you have any questions about the recent amendments to the PSDA or need assistance reviewing or updating your existing policies, please contact an attorney in our Labor & Employment Group.

The City of Philadelphia recently enacted the Protect Our Workers, Enforce Rights Act (“POWER Act”), which imposes a variety of new requirements for most employers operating within the City limits. The POWER Act extends additional protections for workers in several areas, including paid sick leave, wage theft protections for misclassified independent contractors and immigrant workers, stronger anti-retaliation provisions, and more.

Expansion of Sick Leave: The POWER Act requires sick leave to be provided to probationary employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement, who were previously excluded from the City’s sick leave requirements. The Act also implements a new formula for calculating the hourly rate for paid sick leave for tipped workers based on the average wage for Bartenders, Waiters & Waitresses, and Dining Room & Cafeteria Attendants & Bartender Helpers, as determined for Philadelphia County by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor. The threshold of who is considered a “tipped” employee was also raised from $30 to $50 per month in tips.

Wage Theft Protections: The POWER Act empowers immigrant workers—regardless of immigration status—and independent contractors who believe they have been misclassified to file wage theft complaints.

Other Immigrant Worker Protections: Additionally, the Philadelphia Department of Labor’s Office of Worker Protections (“OWP”) is authorized to certify and submit statements of interest on behalf of immigrant workers who may be eligible for certain Visas under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act or for the Deferred Action Program.

Increased Anti-Retaliation and Damages: The Act contains strong anti-retaliation provisions, including a rebuttable presumption of unlawful retaliation if an adverse employment action occurs within 90 days of the employee engaging in activity protected by the Act. Employers must provide clear and convincing evidence that they would have taken the adverse action regardless of the protected activity. The OWP has an increased ability to conduct investigations into potential violations of the POWER Act. Finally, the Act requires employers to provide notice to employees of their rights under the Act.

Employees with a cause of action under the POWER Act may pursue damages in court without first exhausting administrative remedies. Other penalties include fines of up to $2,000 per violation, plus suspension of business licenses and procurement contracts for repeated violations. Employers can also appear in a “Bad Actors Database” if they incur three or more infractions.

Takeaways: Employers operating in Philadelphia should take the time to become familiar with these new requirements, consider any necessary changes to policies or practices, notify employees of their rights under the Act, mitigate potential instances of retaliation, and stay tuned for additional guidance from the City.

Employers with questions about the POWER Act should contact the McNees Labor and Employment Group.

On May 19, 2025, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum launching the “Civil Rights Fraud Initiative” (the “CRFI”).  The CRFI outlines how individuals can pursue claims against federally funded organizations that knowingly violate federal civil rights laws through the use of the False Claims Act (“FCA”).

I. Overview of the False Claims Act (FCA)

The FCA allows the government – and private individuals acting on its behalf – to bring civil lawsuits against those who defraud the federal government.  These lawsuits are called “Qui Tam” claims and allow private individuals (acting as whistleblowers) to file lawsuits on behalf of the government.  Successful individuals can potentially collect up to 30% of the recovered damages.  Damages under these types of claims can be costly – as those found liable may be subject to civil penalties, including treble (triple) damages.

The FCA may be implicated when an organization (1) accepts federal funds; (2) falsely certifies compliance with federal civil rights laws; and (3) knowingly engages in conduct that violates such laws.

II. Trump’s Executive Orders and the FCA Overlap

Federal contractors and federal grant recipients are required to (1) agree that they comply with applicable federal anti-discrimination laws and (2) certify that they do not operate any programs promoting DEI.  That certification could serve as the basis for an FCA claim.

III. Civil Rights Fraud Initiative (CRFI)

The CRFI team will be co-led by the Civil Division’s Fraud Section and the Civil Rights Division, as well as other federal entities. Private individuals, such as employees, are encouraged to aggressively pursue FCA “qui tam” claims through whistleblowing. This means that employees could begin pursuing FCA claims against employers who are not in compliance with all applicable federal anti-discrimination laws.

IV. Employer Guidance

Employers receiving federal funds should act promptly and conduct due diligence into their policies, programs, training, etc., to ensure they are fully aligned with federal anti-discrimination laws and provide equal access to all employees.  Employers need to carefully consider their policies and practices to ensure they do not discriminate against employees of any protected class.  Employers should also review current and prospective government contracts with counsel to assess any potential liability.

If you have any questions about the CRFI or want to ensure that your organization is in compliance with the developing federal guidance, contact any member of the McNees Labor and Employment Group.

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services in which the Plaintiff alleged reverse discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Marlean Ames was hired in 2004 as an employee at the youth services agency, where she was promoted to an administrator position in 2014. Ames applied for a promotion to become a Bureau Chief in 2019. She did not receive that job and was instead demoted. Her employer promoted a gay man to fill her former administrator position, and later selected a gay woman for the Bureau Chief job.  Ames sued her employer alleging that it discriminated against her on the basis of her sexual orientation as a heterosexual female in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.  The district court ruled for the Defendant on summary judgment, determining that Ames had not met her burden to show a discriminatory motive on the part of the employer under the McDonnel Douglas burden shifting test because she failed to show the additional element of “background circumstances” to indicate that the employer had a bias against heterosexuals.  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

 

The well-established McDonnel Douglas test is a three-step inquiry. The plaintiff bears the “initial burden” of “establishing a prima facie case” by producing enough evidence to support an inference of discriminatory motive.  If the plaintiff clears that hurdle, the burden then “shifts to the employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.” Finally, if the employer articulates such a justification, the plaintiff must then have a “fair opportunity” to show that the stated justification “was in fact pretext” for discrimination.  In ruling for the Defendant, the district court and the Sixth Circuit created an additional hurdle for Plaintiffs who are members of majority groups. As the Sixth Circuit put it, Ames, as a straight woman, was required to make this showing “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima-facie case.”

 

The Supreme Court reviewed this case and in a 9 to 0 opinion ruled in favor of Ames, invalidating the additional element for majority plaintiffs and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

This case stands as one of the most stunning misuses of judicial resources we have seen in employment law cases for some time.  The very idea that Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination based on protected class implies that members of a majority group must meet a higher standard to avail themselves of Title VII’s protections, is itself discriminatory.  The Supreme Court had previously addressed the idea of different standards for majority and minority plaintiffs in 1976.  In McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., the employer argued that certain forms of discrimination against white employees fell outside the reach of Title VII.  The Court rejected that argument, holding that “Title VII prohibited racial discrimination against the white petitioners in that case upon the same standards as would be applicable were they Negroes.”

 

So, what is the takeaway for employers after the Ames decision?  In the current political climate of anti-DEI efforts, and in light of both this case and the $25 million dollar award to a white manager claiming reverse discrimination in Phillips v. Starbucks, the Plaintiff’s bar may well see an opportunity here.  Gone are the days when an HR professional could rest easy in the face of a discrimination complaint by a white male.  All complaints of discrimination must be investigated with vigor, regardless of the demographics of the complainant.  The term reverse discrimination is a misnomer. Discrimination is discrimination regardless of who the alleged victim is.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently held that employees on strike were entitled to unemployment compensation (“UC”) benefits for the duration of their work stoppage because their employer had taken steps not expressly authorized by the applicable (though expired) collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) and plan documents. ATI Flat Rolled Prods. LLC v. UCBR, 332 A.3d 901 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2025).

 

Under Section 402(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Act, eligibility for UC benefits depends on whether a work stoppage resulted from an employer-forced lockout or from a different type of labor dispute, such as a strike. In determining whether a work stoppage results from a lockout, Pennsylvania courts consider whether the employees have offered to continue working for a reasonable time under pre-existing terms and conditions, and whether the employer agreed to permit work to continue under pre-existing terms and conditions. If the employer does not offer to permit work to continue under pre-existing terms and conditions, the employer has failed to maintain the status quo, and the result is a conversion of a voluntary strike to a lockout whereby the employees may be eligible for UC benefits. In determining the status quo, Pennsylvania courts look only to the pre-existing terms and conditions of employment embodied in the expired agreement and do not consider the previous conduct of the parties.

 

In ATI Flat Rolled Prods. LLC, the employer refused to allow striking employees to take loans against their 401(k) retirement accounts, arguing that the company had a consistent past practice of denying plan loans to employees in an unpaid status. Therefore, the employer contended, its refusal of plan loans to striking employees did not constitute a change in the status quo giving rise to a lockout.

 

However, the Court noted that the relevant plan document and CBA stated only that employees who had retired or were terminated were ineligible for plan loans. The Court found no memorialized agreement between the employer and union to permit the denial of plan loans to all employees in an unpaid status. Because the Court determined the employer had changed the status quo by denying plan loans to the striking employees, the Court held the employees were eligible for UC benefits under Section 402(d) of the UC Law.

 

This case serves as a reminder that an employer’s misstep during a labor dispute can result in striking employees becoming eligible for UC benefits, which can impact the parties’ relative bargaining positions.

On March 19, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued a technical assistance document titled, “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work.”  The document is comprised of a series of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) that provide guidance on what workplace diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”) policies and programs may be considered “illegal” by the EEOC.

The guidance document makes clear that, while DEI is not specifically defined in Title VII, DEI policies and programs may be unlawful if they involve “an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic.”  A summary of the key takeaways from this FAQ-based guidance is provided below.

  • FAQ numbers 1 and 2 provide clear instructions on what an employee can do if they believe they have experienced unlawful DEI-related discrimination in the workplace, including how to file a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC.

 

  • FAQ number 4 states that the protections afforded by Title VII apply to all workers equally and that the concept of “reverse” discrimination does not exist. In short, any policy or practice that treats employees differently “based on race, sex, or another protected characteristic can be unlawful discrimination, no matter which employees or applicants are harmed.”

 

  • FAQ number 7 expands upon what may be considered “illegal” DEI-related discrimination in the workplace. It provides that, employers are prohibited from engaging in disparate treatment with respect to any term, condition or privilege of employment.  The phrase “term, condition or privilege of employment” is defined broadly to include, not just hiring/firing, promotion/demotion, job duties, compensation and fringe benefits, but also the following:
      • access to or exclusion from training and leadership development programs;
      • access to mentoring, sponsorship, or workplace networking groups;
      • internships, fellowships and summer associate programs; and
      • selection for interviews, including placement or exclusion from a candidate pool.

FAQ number 7 further explains that DEI programs that limit membership based on a protected characteristic, such as an employee resource group or other employee affinity group (e.g., a Women’s Leadership/Networking Group) can be unlawful segregation.  Instead, employers should focus on ensuring that employees of all backgrounds have equal access to workplace training, mentorship and networking programs and groups.

 

  • Finally, FAQ numbers 10 and 11 warn employers that, in certain situations, DEI training can create a hostile work environment and that opposition to DEI training and other programs can be considered protected activity if an employee believes the program violates Title VII.

What Does this Mean for Employers?

Based on this new guidance, employers must evaluate any existing DEI-related policies and programs to ensure they do not create any preferential treatment or limitations based on race, sex or any other protected characteristic.  Additionally, given the specific focus on what to do in the event an employee believes they have experienced DEI-related discrimination, employers should be aware of the potential for increased complaint activity relating to workplace DEI policies or programs.  As discussed in previous posts, it is strongly recommended that audits or assessments of DEI-related programs are conducted with the assistance of counsel to ensure that the work product is protected by the attorney-client privilege.

If you have any questions on the EEOC’s recent guidance or need assistance in reviewing any DEI-related policies or programs, please contact an attorney in our Labor & Employment Group.

On March 25, the Department of Homeland Security announced its intent to terminate the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela parole program in 30 days (April 24).  The Biden-era CHNV program granted certain individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela lawful, non-citizen status allowing them to be present in the US for designated terms.  Many were also given authorization to work in the US under this program.  The March 25 notice indicates that individuals who are present in the US as CHNV parolees will lose lawful status on April 24, 2025.  The notice encourages parolees to self-deport as soon as possible.

The notice contains important information for employers who employ CHNV parolees.  Specifically, the notice states:

“Parole-based employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11) automatically terminates upon (1) the expiration date specified on the employment authorization document, (2) DHS’s institution of removal proceedings against the alien, or (3) a grant of voluntary departure. See 8 CFR 274a.14(a). Such employment authorization may also be revoked on notice consistent with the procedures in 8 CFR 274a.14(b). DHS has determined that, after termination of the parole, the condition upon which the employment authorization was granted no longer exists and thus DHS intends to revoke parole-based employment authorization consistent with those revocation on notice procedures. 8 CFR 274a.14(b).”

….

“Third parties, including employers, landlords, and others, may also have indirect reliance interests in the availability of individual CHNV parolees, but even if DHS had allowed the grants of parole to expire at the end of their designated terms, such third parties would have experienced the effects of such expiration. By providing 30 days’ notice, DHS balances the benefits of a wind-down period for aliens and third parties with the exigency of promptly enforcing the law against those aliens lacking a lawful basis to remain in the United States. For the same reasons set forth above, DHS finds the U.S. government’s interest in terminating these grants of parole outweigh any reliance interest of third parties.”

 

If the DHS’s CHNV parole program termination initiative is not enjoined prior to April 24, those present and working in the US under the program will lose authorization to be present and to work in the US (hence the 30 day “wind-down period” for parolees and third parties – i.e., their employers – to prepare for compliance).

DHS’s announcement that it will pursue “revocation on notice procedures” is also noteworthy.  Under 8 CFR 274a. 14(b), DHS district directors are authorized to serve written notice on parolees of DHS’s intent to revoke their work authorization.  Parolees have 15 days to submit countervailing evidence contesting the revocation of their work authorization. Afterwards, the DHS district directors have authority to make a final, binding decision on work authorization revocation.

Now is the time to prepare for compliance if you employ individuals who are present and working in the United States under the CHNV parole program.  Many Executive Branch actions have been challenged in court and enjoined during the first two months of the Trump Administration.  Employers who employ parolees under the CHNV parole program should carefully monitor any legal updates following today’s DHS notice.  Absent an injunction, we expect the DHS to follow through on the initiatives outlined in it.  If you have any questions about compliance with the DHS’s notice, please contact an attorney in our Labor & Employment Group.

As winter turns to spring, the NCAA men’s and women’s college basketball tournaments are in full swing. March Madness is often viewed as an excellent way to build team spirit in the workplace — a little friendly competition never hurts anyone … right?  

Impact on Workplace Productivity 

There is a stigma that March Madness detrimentally impacts productivity in the workplace. Because games are played during the workday, employees attempt to “multitask” by balancing their screen time for both basketball and work. This behavior is obviously not encouraged but may pose difficulty for employers to track or manage during this season, especially because most employees are within arm’s length of a personal cell phone during the workday. Employees may also be more likely to request time off. Employers should continue to enforce their workplace policies regarding electronics and time off during this time.  

Embracing March Madness for Team Building 

There is no simple solution to avoid taking a hit to productivity. Instead, many employers lean into March Madness in the workplace to at least create camaraderie and boost morale amongst employees during this time. Employers may consider having designated approved zones and times for watching the games during normal work hours so long as employees are able to still get their work completed. Examples of this would be workplace lunches or “happy hours.” 

While employers may not be able to control productivity challenges completely, they can control their own legal risks that may occur due to “office pools” in the workplace.  

Sports Betting Laws and Office Pools 

Sports betting is a highly regulated activity — The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, the Interstate Wire Act of 1961, and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 outlaw betting on professional or amateur sports. However, most states allow sports betting in some form. For example, in Pennsylvania, sports betting is permitted through authorized sports wagering outlets for individuals aged 21 or older. In fact, Pennsylvania law permits volunteer organizations and clubs with small games of chance licenses to offer sports betting pools; if the entry fee is $20 or less, there are no more than 100 participants, and all proceeds are awarded to the contestants.  

Most employers are not authorized to conduct gambling under these laws. In fact, it is a first-degree misdemeanor to engage in unauthorized sports wagering, and the second offense is a second-degree felony, each carrying hefty fines. However, law enforcement has not historically enforced anti-gambling laws for office pools.  

State Laws and Anti-Gambling Policies 

Employers should pay attention to their state law regarding sports gambling as the implications may largely differ from state to state. If a workplace has an anti-gambling policy, employers should enforce it like any other policy.  

Non-Monetary Alternatives for Office Pools 

Ultimately, the decision to permit office pools in the workplace is one based on risk tolerance. While increased camaraderie and morale are not guaranteed, if an employer feels strongly about permitting these office pools for that reason, employers may also want to consider alternatives to traditional sports gambling. Instead of money, office pools could incorporate a non-monetary prize – a donation to the charity of the employee’s choice, lunch with the CEO, or a chance to choose the next company outing. 

Preventing Discrimination and Ensuring Respect 

To the extent an employer permits March Madness viewing or office pools, employers should ensure employees behave civilly and prevent potential alienation or harassment of employees with gambling addictions or who may oppose gambling for religious reasons. Reminding employees of sexual harassment and discrimination policies is always a good practice. 

Employers with questions about legal issues related to March Madness in the workplace can contact the McNees Labor and Employment Group. 

Did you know that you do not need to mail Form 1095-Cs if a notice is posted by March 3, 2025?

At the end of last year, a new law was enacted that would allow employers to provide Form 1095-C only if requested, so long as the employer complied with the IRS guidance.  The IRS has issued guidance which requires that the employer provide a clear and conspicuous notice, in a location on its website that is reasonably accessible to all participants, stating that they may receive a copy of their statement upon request. The notice must include an email address, a physical address to which a request for a statement may be sent, and a telephone number that the participant may use to contact with any questions.

The notice must be posted by March 3rd this year and must remain up until October 15th. The form must be provided to the participant within 30 days of their request.

For more information regarding compliance for your benefit plans, contact any member of the McNees Labor and Employment Group.

With the election of President Trump, we have begun to see the removal of undocumented aliens from the country. Many of our clients are seeing removal operations occurring in major cities being reported daily in the news. We have received numerous calls from clients who are concerned about the possibility of enforcement actions by ICE agents at their facilities. The idea of ICE enforcement actions in workplaces is not new. These actions took place during the Obama administration as well. Here are some tips that may be helpful to concerned employers and their employees.

  • If ICE shows up at your workplace, employees should contact management at their earliest opportunity so that management is aware of what is occurring at the facility.
  • If ICE comes to your facility asking for access to non-public areas of your workplace without a warrant, you can deny access to those private areas. Agents may enter public areas of the workplace without a warrant. Employees should not interfere with agents in public spaces, as interference will an ICE enforcement action is a crime and could subject your employees to prosecution.
  • If ICE has gone so far as to come to your facility to conduct an enforcement action, they likely already have a warrant. If an ICE agent presents a warrant to search the facility you should not make any effort to resist the search. It is sensible to ask the agents who they are looking for and offer to bring that person to the office to avoid workplace disruption. It is certainly of no value to your organization to have ICE agents randomly roaming through your workspace.
  • Keep good attendance records and be sure that you know who is at work. Managers should pay attention to attendance daily. If a raid occurs, agents may or may not inform you of who they have detained. Take attendance again after enforcement action is completed to be sure you know who was taken into custody.
  • Prepare now by making sure your emergency contacts are up to date for all employees. If employees are taken from your facility, contact their next of kin to ensure arrangements are made for picking up their kids from school, etc. This also gives the next of kin the chance to contact counsel to assist the detainee if they choose to do so.
  • Be sure you have I-9s for all employees and that they are properly prepared. Once employees have been detained, ICE will likely ask for the employees’ I-9s and other employment records. Be sure you are in compliance. Go back and examine supporting documents (if you keep them) to be sure they appear valid on their face.
  • Employees who may be detained need to know they can invoke their right to remain silent. They may refuse to sign any documents presented to them by ICE.
  • If ICE begins asking authorized workers if they know the whereabouts of any undocumented persons, they should invoke the right to remain silent. Mistakenly identifying someone as illegally working in the United States could result in action being taken against the employee by the person mistakenly identified.

There is very little you can do to assist individuals who are in the country illegally. The steps we are recommending are designed to protect your business and your employees. Please contact us with any further questions.