HR compliance never stands still, and the past few weeks have brought several notable updates. From new federal guidance on DEI programs to clarifications on paid sick leave calculations and evolving standards around religious accommodations, employers have plenty to keep on their radar.

DOJ Offers New Direction on DEI

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently issued a memorandum directed at federal agencies and federal-funding recipients, explaining how DEI programs must align with federal anti-discrimination laws. Although this guidance primarily is aimed at organizations that receive federal dollars, even private-sector employers without federal contracts should pay attention.

Of course, the DOJ’s guidance after heightened federal scrutiny of DEI efforts. President Trump’s early Executive Orders labeled certain DEI programs “unlawful,” and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) attempted to provide clarity earlier this year. Now, the DOJ has reinforced those boundaries, reminding employers that programs cannot discriminate on the basis of protected traits—even when well-intentioned.

The memorandum highlights specific practices that can cross the line, including:

• Giving advantages in hiring, promotions, or program participation based on race, sex, or other protected categories is unlawful, except in limited circumstances
• Relying on factors such as geography, cultural background, or “diversity statements” as indirect ways of targeting certain groups
• Dividing employees or resources based on race, gender, or other protected traits, including restrooms and similar facilities that must remain sex-segregated by biological sex (of course, this directive is in conflict with California’s requirement that employees be permitted to use facilities consistent with their gender identity)
• Mandating that candidate pools include a certain number of individuals from protected groups
• Programs that pigeonhole or exclude participants based on their protected status

To comply with federal law, the DOJ encourages employers to:

• Open all programs and trainings to qualified participants
• Base employment decisions on skills and performance-related criteria
• Avoid quotas and other demographic-driven targets
• Keep records of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for hiring and promotion decisions
• Scrutinize standards that appear neutral on their fact to ensure they aren’t indirect substitutes for protected traits
• Implement anti-retaliation policies and internal complaint systems

The bottom line? Carefully evaluate your DEI programs to ensure compliance, particularly where federal and state laws differ. California employers must pay special attention to restroom and facility-access rules, which are inconsistent with the DOJ’s position.

California Court Clarifies Sick Leave Pay for Exempt Outside Salespersons

Paid sick leave under California’s Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act (HWHF) has been in place since 2015, but questions lingered about how it applies to outside sales employees classified as exempt. The California Court of Appeal recently addressed this issue in Hirdman v. Charter Communications, LLC, and ruled that employers may calculate paid sick leave for outside salespersons at their base hourly rate—excluding commissions—provided they use the same method for other forms of paid leave.

The court’s decision diverges from the 2016 opinion letter of the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement’s (DLSE), which instructed employers to use a non-exempt calculation method that included commissions. The court concluded that the statute’s plain wording was clear: the term “exempt employees” includes outside salespersons, not only administrative, executive, or professional staff.

Religious Accommodation and Transgender Inclusion

Religious-accommodation requests often create tension when they conflict with inclusivity initiatives. A recent Seventh Circuit decision demonstrates the fact-specific nature of these situations.

In this case, a teacher was granted as an accommodation of their religious beliefs an exception to the school’s policy requiring the use of transgender students’ chosen names. Instead, the teacher called everyone by their last names. Some students reported feeling stigmatized, while others did not object. The school ultimately rescinded the accommodation and the teacher sued.

The Seventh Circuit (which does not include California) applied the Supreme Court’s Groff v. DeJoy standard and concluded that a jury—not the judge—must decide whether the teacher’s accommodation created an undue hardship. Under Groff, the hardship must be substantial, objectively reasonable, and directly caused by the accommodation itself. Good faith alone is insufficient. The Court also questioned whether the teacher’s beliefs were sincerely held, because he had previously used chosen names at a school ceremony. A jury will decide that issue as well.

What’s an employer to do?

• Keep thorough records of an accommodation’s actual workplace impact
• Demonstrate a clear causal link between the accommodation and any disruption to the workplace
• Do not rely on hypothetical risks or generalized concerns
• Recognize that good intentions do not substitute for proof of hardship
• Handle disputes in ways that reinforce both legal compliance and organizational values

Religious Accommodations and Flu Shots

Another recent case addressed religious objections to flu-shot mandates. An employee with more than 20 years of service requested a religious exemption to the mandate, which HR denied. She was suspended without pay but reinstated after filing suit. The Fifth Circuit ultimately dismissed the case on procedural grounds, but a strong dissent emphasized that even short-term suspensions can amount to discrimination under Title VII.

            The lessons for employers?

• Protect evolving beliefs without requiring employees to justify or explain changes
• Don’t minimize temporary harm; even short suspensions or delays in granting an accommodation may create liability
• Recognize the low threshold for harm; under Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, being treated worse because of one’s religious beliefs—even briefly—likely is actionable
• Delays matter

* * *

Yes, it’s hard to keep up. But we can do hard things. One step at a time.

About Shaw Law Group 

At Shaw Law Group, we do more than practice employment law—we partner with employers to build compliant, respectful, and productive workplaces. From day-to-day advice and counsel to impartial workplace investigations, proactive HR audits, dynamic training programs, and sensitive pre-litigation matters, our experienced team helps clients stay ahead of the curve—and out of court.