EEOC Shortens Employer Response Deadline, Limits Extension Requests

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has adopted a new policy that significantly shortens employers’ deadlines for responding to discrimination charges and makes extensions more difficult to obtain.

Until recently, employers generally had 30 days to submit a position statement and other requested information in response to an EEOC charge of discrimination. Employers could request additional time by demonstrating good cause, and the EEOC routinely granted extensions beyond the original 30-day deadline.

Although the EEOC did not formally announce the policy change, the agency has confirmed the new approach. Beginning in September 2026, notices of discrimination charges began giving employers just 15 days to respond. The EEOC has also directed investigators to limit extensions to a single extension of 7 to 10 days, making it more difficult for employers to obtain additional time.

Employers should be prepared to act quickly when an EEOC charge arrives. Carefully review the response deadline specified in the agency’s notice, promptly involve appropriate HR personnel and legal counsel, and begin gathering relevant documents and information without delay. Employers should not assume that an extension will be available.

USCIS Proposal Could Make Work Visa Extensions More Difficult for Employers

Employers sponsoring temporary foreign workers may soon face a tougher path to extending their employees’ work authorization, as USCIS proposes to reconsider visa eligibility even when the worker’s job, qualifications, and circumstances remain unchanged.

On October 14th, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a proposed rule to eliminate deference to prior approval of immigration filings for form I-129 extension petitions.

Beginning in 2004, USCIS has generally deferred to previous approvals involving the same worker, employer, and material facts when deciding a request to extend a petition for a guest worker’s employment or stay.  

In 2024, the Biden administration codified this policy to provide employers with greater predictability when sponsoring foreign workers, which USCIS now proposes reversing. According to USCIS estimates, approximately 208,000 extension applications would be affected, with about 75% of those being H-1B extensions. The rule would also affect H-2A agricultural workers and H-2B seasonal workers.

If finalized, employers relying on guest workers should expect more evidence requests, additional preparation costs, and less predictable staffing. Public comment on the proposed rule is open until November 13, 2026.

OSHA Hazardous Chemical Communication Standard Compliance Deadline Approaching

Employers that use hazardous chemicals have until November 20, 2026 to meet OSHA’s updated Hazard Communication Standard.

OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard, commonly called HazCom or the “Right to Know” rule, is a workplace safety regulation designed to ensure that employees know what hazardous chemicals they work with, what those chemicals can do to them, and how to protect themselves.

In May 2024, OSHA updated its Hazard Communication Standard to improve the accuracy and completeness of information about hazardous chemicals in the workplace. The changes took effect July 19, 2024, but OSHA gave employers and chemical manufacturers additional time to comply.

Importantly, OSHA did not create an entirely new chemical safety program. Employers were already required to maintain written HazCom programs, provide Safety Data Sheets (SDSs), label hazardous chemicals, and train employees. Those basic requirements remain in place. What changed was primarily the way chemical hazards must be identified, classified, and communicated.

Organizations that have not yet begun preparing should do so immediately. 

What Changed, Why It Matters Now 

The rule updated classification criteria for skin and eye hazards, added desensitized explosives as a new hazard class, revised criteria for flammable gases and aerosols and introduced small-container labeling provisions.

Hazard classifications must now account for reasonably anticipated downstream uses of a chemical, not just intended uses.

The rule also revised trade secret provisions, permitting certain concentration data to be withheld as confidential business information where specified regulatory conditions are met.  

The upstream obligation already took effect: chemical manufacturers, importers and distributors were required to complete their substance evaluations by May 19, 2026 (in contrast, mixture evaluations are due in Nov. 2027).

Attention now turns to the obligations that fall on all employers: 

·     Nov. 20, 2026: Employers must update alternative workplace labels, written HazCom programs and employee training for substances reflecting newly identified hazards.   

·     May 19, 2028: Employers must complete the corresponding labeling, program and training updates for mixtures.   

Employers must be in compliance before these deadlines or risk violations and penalties.   

Enforcement Risk Is Elevated 

OSHA’s preliminary 2025 Top 10 Most Cited Standards list placed HazCom at number two, behind only fall protection, with over 2,500 total violations recorded.

Serious violations carry penalties of up to $16,550 each; willful or repeated violations can reach $165,514 per citation.

For employers managing large chemical inventories, a single inspection can produce multiple citations, compounding both the financial exposure and the reputational risk. 

What Employers Should Do Now 

• Confirm receipt of updated SDSs. Manufacturers and importers were required to revise substance SDSs by May 19, 2026. Verify that your suppliers have delivered them and flag any newly classified hazards. Otherwise, request up-to-date SDSs.    

  
  

• Revise workplace labels. Update any alternative workplace labeling to reflect current hazard classifications, signal words, pictograms and precautionary statements.   

  
  

• Refresh your written HazCom program. Incorporate changes in hazard classifications and labeling protocols so the program accurately describes your current practices.  

  
  

• Complete employee training. Workers must be trained on newly identified hazards, updated label elements and revised SDS formats before Nov. 20, 2026.   

  
  

• Look ahead to mixtures. Maintain a separate compliance timeline for mixtures, with deadlines in November 2027 and May 2028. Beginning that review now will ease the transition. 

Second Circuit Pushes Back on NLRB’s Broad Protection for Union Insignia: Employers Get More Leeway to Enforce Dress Codes

Employers just received an important new decision concerning workplace dress codes and employees’ right to display union insignia. In Siren Retail Corp. v. National Labor Relations, the Second Circuit rejected the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) expansive approach to union-related clothing and held that employers are not automatically required to accommodate union insignia when doing so conflicts with a facially neutral workplace dress code.

The case involved an employer that required employees wearing shirts bearing union logos to change into shirts that complied with the company’s dress code. The NLRB found that the policy violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), relying on its decision in Tesla, Inc. Tesla established a rebuttable presumption that employer-mandated uniform and dress-code policies unlawfully interfere with employees’ Section 7 rights to display union insignia.



The Second Circuit was not persuaded.

The court vacated the NLRB’s decision, concluding that the Board’s Tesla standard improperly tilted the balance in favor of employees’ Section 7 rights without adequately considering legitimate employer interests.

Instead, the Second Circuit directed the NLRB to apply a “more evenly measured balancing test” that considers:

• The extent of the intrusion on Section 7 rights — including whether the employer has imposed a complete or partial ban on union insignia during working time;

• The nature of the employer’s policy — including whether the dress code is facially neutral, nondiscriminatory, and consistently enforced; and

• The context and circumstances surrounding the restriction.

What This Means for Employers

The decision is significant because it gives employers a stronger argument that neutral, consistently enforced dress codes do not automatically have to give way to employees’ desire to display union insignia. The NLRB cannot simply presume that a restriction is unlawful and then place the burden on the employer to satisfy a heightened justification.

That does not mean employers have free rein to prohibit union insignia. Section 7 rights remain protected, and employers should continue to carefully evaluate restrictions on union-related clothing, buttons, pins, and other insignia. But Siren Retail makes clear that the analysis must account for both sides of the equation—the employee’s Section 7 rights and the employer’s legitimate business and workplace interests.

For employers in the Second Circuit, which includes Connecticut, the decision provides a potentially significant new tool for defending neutral dress and appearance policies, particularly where those policies are applied consistently and are not targeted at union activity.

Holiday Survey

With the Christmas and New Year holidays falling on Thursdays and Fridays this year, scheduling will be a little more complicated. Which days will your company close for the holidays? Are you giving employees extra time off or planning a holiday office party? Find out how your plans stack up against other employers.

Take our Annual Company Holiday Closing and Office Party Survey and help us capture the latest workplace holiday trends.

Complete the survey here and receive the results on November 2nd!