OSHA Heat Rule Picks Up Steam

Despite predictions that the Biden-era proposed Heat Rule would be scrapped, it appears to be moving forward, with OSHA announcing a public hearing on the rule on June 16, 2025. The proposed rule establishes the first national standard for protecting employees from heat related illnesses and injuries.

Under the rule, employers must create a plan to evaluate and control heat hazards in their workplace. Employers must also monitor workplace temperatures and humidity using the heat index or Wet Bulb Globe Thermometer (WBGT) and implement protective measures when the heat index reaches 80°F, with heightened precautions at 90°F. At these levels, employers must implement a Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (HIIPP), which includes providing cool water, rest breaks, shade or cool areas, and training for workers and managers. The proposed standard would apply to all employers conducting outdoor and indoor work in all general industry, construction, maritime, and agriculture sectors where OSHA has jurisdiction.

It remains to be seen whether OSHA ultimately moves forward with a final rule and what shape it will take. It is conceivable that the OSHA will ultimately issue a watered down version of the Biden-era rule. Once the public hearing concludes, OSHA will review the record of public comments and other information the agency has collected to develop the final rule.

SCOTUS Lowers Bar for Employees Claiming Reverse Discrimination

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision potentially opens the door to a flood of “reverse discrimination” claims. “Reverse discrimination” refers to discrimination against a dominant or majority group in favor of members of minority or disadvantaged group.

In the case before the Supreme Court, the plaintiff, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who was employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services, alleged she was discriminated against based on her sexual orientation after being denied a promotion in favor of a gay woman and then being demoted and replaced by a gay man.

Lower courts have been split on the standard of proof required to make out an initial case of reverse discrimination, with about half requiring the plaintiff to meet a heightened standard of proof. Specifically, these courts required plaintiffs to show the existence of “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” A plaintiff can clear that bar if they put forward evidence that a member of the relevant minority group made the employment decision at issue, or by presenting statistical evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of a majority group. In Ames’ case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed her claim, ruling that she failed to provide such “background circumstances” proving her employer discriminated against her.

In its June 5th decision, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected this higher evidentiary standard for members of a majority group. “As a textual matter, Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,” the court said. Instead, the court clarified, the disparate-treatment provision makes it unlawful to unlawfully discriminate against any individual in employment.

The decision’s impact will be muted in jurisdictions that had not required the heightened standard of pleading, like the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in which Connecticut sits. Nonetheless, it may be prudent for employers to assess their policies to confirm they do not exhibit favoritism toward minority groups or exclude majority groups. This includes reviewing management training programs on discrimination and harassment to ensure they clearly state it is equally unlawful to discriminate against men or women, etc.

White House’s Termination of CHNV Parole Upheld by Supreme Court

On May 30th, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to terminate the humanitarian parole program for immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (“CHNV Parole”).

The CHNV Parole program, instituted under the Biden Administration, gave beneficiaries the right to temporarily stay and work in the U.S. for up to two years. On April 25th, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the termination of the program, with an effective date of April 24th. CHNV parolees then began receiving notices from DHS directing parolees to leave the US before their parole termination date or face enforcement actions. However, on April 14th, a Massachusetts federal judge blocked the termination of CHNV parole, ruling that DHS cannot terminate the program en masse without individualized review of each parolee. The White House appealed the ruling to the Unites States Supreme court.

On May 30th, a majority of SCOTUS Justices overturned the lower court’s order, allowing DHS to proceed with terminating the CHNV Parole Program and the work authorizations of the 532,000 impacted individuals while the litigation over the program plays out.

This means the administration can now begin removing CHNV parolees effective immediately. Unless and until the government announces a new enforcement date, officials can revoke employees’ EADs at any time. Note that those under the CHNV parole had to register with the Department of Homeland Security by providing their names, addresses, photographs and fingerprints.

What this Means for Employers

While it’s possible DHS may announce another grace period to extend the time by which these work authorizations will expire, it is equally possible that immediate enforcement activity will resume while litigation over the legal status of the program plays out.

For employers with employees working under the CHNV program, now would be a good time to ensure you have updated the relevant I-9 documentation. Identify employees under the terminated parole programs who presented Employment Authorization cards in the C(11) category as List A documents during the Form I-9 process. To the extent you identify any workers falling under the CHNV program, make sure to document their parole expiration and work authorization end dates.

Note that not all workers you employ who happen to be from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, even some of those who have parole, are affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling. It is specifically and only the CHNV program that is impacted, and it is only CHNV employees whose EADs can be revoked based on the Supreme Court’s ruling that fall under this development.

Unemployment for Striking Workers Heads to Governor’s Desk; Veto Expected

A bill that would allow striking workers to collect unemployment benefits after 14 consecutive days on strike is headed to the Governor’s desk after passing the General Assembly. Governor Lamont indicated he intends to veto the bill.

Current law generally disqualifies claimants for benefits during any week in which their unemployment is due to a labor dispute. SB8 would lift this disqualification once the labor dispute has been continuous for 14 days.