January Government Affairs Newsletter
EEOC Rescinds Harassment Guidance – On January 22, 2026, the EEOC voted to rescind its 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace, withdrawing a sweeping document that had expanded and modernized the agency’s discussion of harassment theories, contemporary examples, and enforcement approaches. While the Commission did not cite a single cause for the rescission in its short press release, the decision occurred against the backdrop of Executive Order 14168 (called “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”) which stated that the term “sex” does not include the concept of “gender identity” and went on to direct federal agencies to rescind all guidance inconsistent with that Executive Order. While EEOC harassment guidance was not mentioned expressly, that guidance had incorporated gender identity examples (among other examples) within its discussion of unlawful harassment. Therefore, the EEOC action should not come across as a surprise. The rescission does not automatically invalidate pending EEOC charges or halt ongoing investigations. The legal standards governing hostile work environment claims, employer liability, and retaliation remain intact. However, the recission likely will narrow how those legal standards are applied in the future particularly where the rescinded guidance had gone further than older EEOC materials in describing emerging or contested issues. It is also important to note that EEOC’s action does not have a bearing on state law per se nor of the regulations and guidance that state agencies have promulgated (as many northeastern states including the New England states and NY have more expansive anti-discrimination provisions beyond Title VII to prohibit the likes of gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination). Therefore, employers in these states should not roll back policies or training in response to the rescission; if anything, the development underscores the importance of grounding workplace programs in state statutes, agency regulations, and court decisions rather than relying on any single federal guidance document. Executive Order 14168 may have influenced the EEOC’s decision to narrow its interpretive posture, but it does not reduce employers’ real-world exposure or expectations when it comes to maintaining a harassment-free workplace in the future. Source: The Beacon, 1/30/2026, EANE, by Mark Adams
Massachusetts Delays PFML Tax Withholding and Reporting Changes Following New IRS Guidance - On December 19, 2025, the IRS issued IRS Notice 2026-6, extending the federal transition period for state PFML programs by an additional year. As a result of this new guidance, MA will delay the implementation of certain portions of the tax withholding and reporting requirements previously outlined in IRS Revenue Ruling 2025-4. What This Means for MA Employers in 2026, according to the DFML website: For calendar year 2026, employers can expect continuity in how PFML benefits are handled for tax purposes: The DFML will not treat medical leave benefit payments as 3rd party sick pay. There will be no new employer withholding or reporting requirements related to PFML benefits. Employer FICA and FUTA tax responsibilities for PFML benefits will remain unchanged. Employees may continue to elect federal and state income tax withholding on taxable PFML benefits. The tax treatment of PFML benefits in 2026 continues to depend on both employer size and the type of leave. For employers with 25 or more employees, 60% of medical leave benefits are taxable for federal and state income tax purposes, based on employer contribution amounts. DFML will report on the taxable portion on Form 1099-G, issued directly to employees. Medical leave benefits paid to employees of employers with fewer than 25 employees are not taxable. 100% of family leave benefits are taxable for federal and state income tax purposes. DFML will issue Form 1099-G directly to employees reporting the taxable amount. While the extension provides additional time before new requirements take effect, HR professionals should continue to: Educate employees on the taxability of PFML benefits. Monitor IRS and DFML guidance. Prepare for future changes once the federal transition period ends. Source: AIM HR Edge, 1/6/2026
Federal Labor Law May Be Headed for Change – Federal labor law shapes how employees choose union representation and how employers and union negotiate collective bargaining agreements. Over the years, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decisions have altered many of those rules, often reversing course. Each incoming administration brings new interpretations, leaving HR leaders and employees wondering what the current standard is. That environment helps explain why Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., recently introduced broad labor reform bills. Observers describe the proposals as an effort to make the organizing and bargaining processes more predictable and transparent for employees. The proposed labor law reforms are a collection of separate bills, sponsored by several individuals, that each address a different aspect of the labor relations system. Several of them address the mechanics of union elections. Others concern how unions use dues and what information union members receive about their rights. Raising the Standard for Union Certification Elections: Today, the NLRB can certify a union as the representative of a group of employees if it wins a secret ballot election by a simple majority of votes cast. Critics of the current system argue that low-turnout elections can allow a union to be certified even when only a small portion of employees participate. One of the central bills, the Worker RESULTS Act, proposes to update that threshold. Under the proposal, unions would need higher levels of participation before they could be certified. The bill would require at least two-thirds of employees in the bargaining unit to participate in the election, and a majority of that group would need to vote in favor of representation. Supporters say this approach ensures that certification reflects a true, broad-based employee choice. Opponents argue that it would make it harder for employees to organize because many workplaces struggle to reach those turnout levels. The bill would also expand the window for employees to file decertification petitions and would limit the use of blocking charges that can delay elections. Transparency and Control Over Union Dues: Another major element of the proposals focuses on how unions collect and spend dues. Under current law, most unionized employees pay dues as a condition of employment unless they work in a right-to-work state. Those dues fund the union’s representational activities, including negotiating contracts and handling grievances. Unions can also use them for other purposes, including political or ideological spending, subject to certain limits. The proposed Union Members’ Right to Know Act would require unions to give members clearer information about their financial rights. It would also require employees to opt in before unions can use their dues for nonrepresentational purposes. Business-oriented proponents characterize this as an effort to give individual union members greater choice over how unions use their money. Employee-focused critics view the same provisions as unnecessary limits on union operations. The Economic Policy Institute argues that these bills shift leverage toward employers and do not meaningfully expand employee rights.
Making the NLRB More Consistent - Beyond elections and dues, there are proposals aimed at the NLRB. The NLRB Stability Act would require the agency to follow binding federal court precedent rather than reversing its standards whenever the board’s political makeup changes. For HR professionals, that could mean fewer abrupt changes to rules governing workplace policies, communications, and bargaining obligations. Other bills, with various sponsors, include: The Fairness in Filing Act would require more support for unfair labor practice charges at the time of filing, aiming to reduce meritless claims that slow NLRB case processing and delay resolution of legitimate workplace issues. The Put American Workers First Act would make it an unfair labor practice to organize or employ individuals who are not legally authorized to work in the United States. The Protection on the Picket Line Act would provide protections against harassment and abuse at work during workplace conflicts by clarifying that the National Labor Relations Act does not nullify federal antidiscrimination law. The Worker Privacy Act would limit how unions may collect and use personal information for workers during union organizing, restricting its use to organizing-related purposes. Why Are These Changes Being Discussed Now? Union activity has increased across several industries in recent years, and employers and unions continue to operate under rules that many say were designed for a different economy. At the same time, the NLRB has issued several high-profile positions on joint-employer status, remedies, and employee communications. Policy oscillation on these topics creates significant uncertainty for workers and businesses.
Source: SHRM HR Daily, 1/15/2026, by Michael VanDervort
