April 2025 brought fundamental shifts in employment law brought about by the new presidential administration, and a notable Pennsylvania federal court decision in the area of disability protections relating to medical marijuana. See the latest developments below.
Trump Executive Order to End Use of Disparate Impact in Federal Discrimination Cases
President Donald Trump signed an executive order dismantling the use of “disparate impact” as a basis for federal anti-discrimination enforcement. Disparate impact — a long-standing legal theory under civil rights laws like the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act — allows discrimination claims without proof of intent if a policy disproportionately harms protected groups. Trump’s order rejects this approach, calling it “inconsistent with the Constitution” and harmful to merit-based governance.
The order revokes prior federal policies endorsing disparate impact liability and directs agencies to deprioritize enforcement actions based on it. It also tasks the attorney general with repealing or amending Title VI regulations referencing the theory and instructs agencies like the DOJ, EEOC, HUD, and CFPB to review and potentially roll back existing cases relying on it. Critics warn the order marks a significant rollback of civil rights enforcement, while supporters say it restores focus on individual equality and merit.
Trump DOL Signals Intent to Rescind Biden-Era Independent Contractor Rule
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has indicated in recent court filings that it intends to reconsider and potentially rescind the 2024 independent contractor rule issued during the Biden administration. This move reflects a broader shift in policy following the 2024 election of President Donald Trump, whose administration appears poised to revive the more business-friendly 2021 rule implemented during his first term.
The 2024 rule, which took effect in March, reinstated a six-factor “economic realities” test to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The rule replaced the Trump-era version, which had streamlined classification criteria. Biden’s rule has faced five legal challenges, and while courts have so far upheld it or dismissed suits on procedural grounds, the DOL has begun asking courts to pause ongoing litigation, signaling a regulatory reversal.
In court statements, the DOL emphasized that the rule is not binding law but rather interpretive guidance for enforcement. It also cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision, which limits judicial deference to agency rules, further weakening the 2024 rule’s authority. However, for now, the 2024 rule remains in effect, creating legal uncertainty for workers and employers alike looking ahead.
Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana User Can pursue Disability Accommodation claim Under State Discrimination law
A federal judge in Pennsylvania has revived a disability bias claim brought by medical marijuana user and job applicant against a Cleveland-based construction firm. U.S. District Judge Robert J. Colville had previously dismissed the claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), ruling that employers are not required to accommodate marijuana use. However, upon reconsideration, the judge found that the applicant’s allegation—that the company failed to explore alternative accommodations unrelated to cannabis use—warranted further examination.
The applicant had been offered a project engineer role in 2023, but the offer was rescinded after he tested positive for THC and disclosed his certified medical marijuana use for anxiety, depression, and ADHD. While his claim under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act was allowed to proceed, his PHRA claim was initially dismissed. The applicant filed a motion seeking an appeal, which the judge denied, but used the opportunity to reverse his prior ruling.
Judge Colville emphasized that employers must still engage in an interactive process to explore reasonable accommodations, even if medical marijuana use is not protected under PHRA. The case will now proceed on these grounds.
The case is Davis v. The Albert M. Higley Co. LLC, case number 2:23-cv-01975, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels businesses on commercial contract matters.
