This month’s employment law update highlights key federal and state developments – from new EEOC guidance on H-1B preferences, to litigation shaping PWFA abortion-accommodation obligations, to Pennsylvania’s enactment of the CROWN Act expanding race-based protections for Pennsylvania employees. Read the latest updates here.
EEOC Cautions Employers Against Favoring H-1B Visa Holders
The EEOC recently issued a concise technical assistance document reminding employers that favoring foreign workers – particularly those on H-1B visas – may violate Title VII’s prohibition on national origin discrimination. While many employers focus on avoiding bias against immigrant workers, the agency emphasized that discrimination can also occur when U.S. citizens are disadvantaged in hiring or employment decisions.
The EEOC highlighted several practices that could trigger liability. Job postings that use phrases such as “H-1B preferred” or “H-1B only” may be unlawful because they signal a preference for workers from specific countries or visa categories. Similarly, imposing additional hurdles on U.S. applicants, or treating American employees less favorably when they are between assignments, could constitute discriminatory conduct.
The agency also warned that common employer justifications – such as assumptions that foreign workers are less expensive, that clients prefer them, or that certain groups perform better – do not excuse disparate treatment. These rationales, the EEOC noted, reflect stereotypes that Title VII expressly prohibits.
For employers who routinely engage foreign talent, the guidance underscores the need for neutral, business-based hiring and assignment criteria. Companies should ensure job advertisements, screening processes, and workforce management decisions do not inadvertently disadvantage U.S. workers based on national origin or perceived immigration status.
EEOC Reaches Agreement with Religious Nonprofit on PWFA Abortion-Accommodation Rule
In a recent development affecting employers with religious missions, the EEOC and the Missouri-based Stanley M. Herzog Foundation have resolved litigation challenging the agency’s Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) regulations. The PWFA, effective since June 2023, requires employers to accommodate pregnancy-related conditions. The EEOC’s April 2024 regulations interpreted “pregnancy-related conditions” to include abortion—prompting several lawsuits from religious organizations and conservative states.
The Herzog Foundation argued that being required to accommodate abortion-related needs would violate its First Amendment and Religious Freedom Restoration Act rights. In March, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing the EEOC from enforcing that portion of the rules against the Foundation.
This week, Judge Roseann Ketchmark approved a joint motion making that injunction permanent. Under the agreement, the EEOC will not require the Foundation to provide abortion-related accommodations and will formally recognize it as a religious organization. In turn, the Foundation agreed to dismiss its Title VII claims without prejudice.
The resolution follows broader uncertainty surrounding the PWFA regulation, including a May ruling from a Louisiana federal court that found the EEOC exceeded its statutory authority by requiring abortion accommodations. Employers should continue monitoring litigation and forthcoming regulatory revisions, as the scope of required PWFA accommodations remains in flux.
The matter is case number 4:24-cv-00651 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, The Stanley M. Herzog Foundation v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al.
Pennsylvania Passes the CROWN Act
On November 21, 2025, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted the CROWN Act, an amendment to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act that expands the definition of “race” to include traits historically associated with race – such as natural hair texture and protective hairstyles including braids, locs, twists, and bantu knots.
For employers, the key relevance lies in understanding that decisions involving these traits will now be evaluated under race-discrimination frameworks. Grooming or appearance standards that restrict certain hairstyles may face increased scrutiny if they disproportionately affect Black employees or others who wear protective styles.
The law does not prevent employers from enforcing legitimate health, safety, or hygiene requirements. However, those standards should be clearly tied to the job, applied consistently, and not disproportionately burden a particular racial group.
While many employers may find that their current policies already conform, it is wise to ensure that appearance- or grooming-related rules are drafted and enforced with awareness of this change. Managers and supervisors should understand that hairstyle-related issues can now carry legal implications under race discrimination law.
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.
Leave a Reply