As of the date of this publication, the 2025 EEO-1 Component 1 Report data collection dates have not yet been announced, however if the reporting period aligns with last year’s reporting timeframe, employers can expect a May opening date with a June 2026 deadline.

Although the EEOC’s official website has not yet been updated, employers that had at least 100 or more employees and federal contractors with at least 50 employees employed from October through December 2025 are encouraged to prepare now to meet the reporting requirements.  Employers are reminded that if the minimum employee threshold count is met at any time during the October through December timeframe, an EEO-1 report is required to reflect the “workforce snapshot period,” for reporting purposes.  Employers are encouraged to ensure HR systems are ready to provide the required data regarding workforce demographics, including race/ethnicity, gender, and job category for each employee. Employers should ensure that demographic information is accurate and reflects voluntary self-identification when available. Reporting will also include both onsite and remote employees.

PrestigePEO helps to support this process by working with clients to ensure the demographic information is complete and updated for reporting purposes.  PrestigePEO will generate and upload the final report to the EEO-1 reporting portal for client review, approval, and to ultimately certify.  Importantly, PrestigePEO is not able to certify a client’s final EEO-1 report. This is a client specific responsibility.

When the portal opens, clients who have yet to report with Prestige’s assistance or possibly never filed an EEO-1 report in the past must register with the EEOC and list PrestigePEO as a contact/third party by using the following email address: [email protected].

While the May 2026 timeframe is tentative, clients are encouraged to review their EEO-1 reporting obligations and address any outstanding registration requirements soon.

We will continue to monitor updates and provide further guidance once the EEOC formally posts the deadline and filing instructions on its site.

PrestigePEO is here to help. If you have any questions regarding EEO-1 reporting requirements or would like to ensure your employee data is updated for reporting purposes, please contact your HRBP for assistance.

As a reminder, California employers are entering the fourth year of the California Pay Data Reporting cycle, with three new required data points added to the existing criteria.  The annual Pay Data Report is due by May 13, 2026.  Employers are encouraged to start planning now for this May deadline, to ensure compliance with the increasingly complex requirements.

This reporting requirement applies to all private employers of who “regularly employ” 100 or more employees and at least one (1) employee in California and/or employers who hired 100 or more workers through labor contractors with at least one (1) in California.  For the past three years, the required reporting has been specific to the pay data information regarding race, ethnicity, and gender with respect to the following job categories: executive, first or mid-level officials and managers, professionals, technicians, sales workers, administrative support workers, craft workers, operatives, laborers and helpers, and service workers.  New for this year’s 2025 reporting process, employers must include three additional data points to the above criteria. These three new data points include: FLSA exemption status, employment type (full-time/part-time), and total annual weeks worked.

Employers will be required to submit Employers Reports and Labor Contractor Reports if they fall under both criteria and for employers with multiple legal entities and multiple establishments, the report must be submitted by legal entity for each establishment.  In addition to the new reporting criteria, mandatory civil penalties will be assessed and will now be imposed against employers who fail to file pay data reports when requested to do so by the state.

The California Pay Data reporting requirements are fact specific.  Employers are encouraged to work with their various stakeholders to ensure timely compliance with the May 13, 2026 deadline.

As a PrestigePEO client, if we have previously supported your company with California Pay Data Reporting requirements, and your company remains obligated to report, we have reached out to help coordinate the necessary next steps.  If you are new to PrestigePEO and have not worked with us but think the reporting requirements apply to your company, please reach out to your HRBP for assistance.

PrestigePEO is here to help.  For questions regarding the California Pay Data Reporting requirements, please contact your HRBP.

Colorado passed the nation’s first comprehensive AI antidiscrimination law in 2024, originally set to take effect February 1, 2026. Subsequently, lawmakers pushed the effective date to June 30, 2026. On March 17, 2026, Colorado policymakers proposed a sweeping rewrite that would also delay the law’s effective date to January 1, 2027, providing employers additional preparation time.

The proposed bill, officially titled the “Automated Decision Making Technology in Consequential Decisions” framework, would replace the original law’s audit-heavy approach with a transparency-and-notice model.

The proposal focuses on automated decision-making technology that “materially influences” a consequential decision. Employers using covered AI tools in hiring or employment decisions must provide clear, conspicuous notice to job applicants and employees that AI is being used.

The requirements:

• Notice to applicants and employees that AI tools are being used in employment decisions.
• Post-adverse action disclosures.
• The right to human review upon request.
• Shared liability between developers and users of these tools.

Because the proposal has not yet been enacted and may change during the legislative process, employers should monitor developments closely; we will continue to track the bill and provide updates as the compliance landscape evolves.

The Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), enacted in Illinois in 2008, remains one of the most influential laws governing the collection, use, and storage of biometric data in the United States, including biometric data collected by some employers. BIPA regulates how private entities handle data such as fingerprints, facial recognition, and iris scans, requiring informed consent, robust data protection measures, and strict guidelines for disclosure and retention. Over the years, the law has become a focal point for privacy advocates and legal professionals, shaping the way biometric technologies are adopted in workplaces and leading to a flood of litigation targeting employers that utilize fingerprint scans for timekeeping purposes.

A February 2023 Illinois Supreme Court ruling facilitated the opening of the floodgates when it ruled that a separate BIPA violation occurred every time an employee scanned their biometric data. In other words, a violation of this statute with potential financial penalties occurred every single time a fingerprint was scanned or the employee clocked in for their shift, resulting in the accrual of numerous potential damage awards by a single employee.  Experts agree that litigation could have resulted in millions, if not billions of dollars in damages.  The Illinois Supreme Court also recognized the potential devastation this ruling could have on businesses and others that utilize this technology and requested the legislature to weigh-in on the debate.

By August 2024, the legislature passed SB 2979 which was signed into law by the governor and became effective immediately.  This bill amended BIPA legislation to limit the potential exposure, ensuring that companies that collect the same biometric information from the same individual using the same method has committed only a single BIPA violation, allowing that person “at most, one recovery.”

While this was considered a win for businesses across Illinois, the question remained as to the status of pending cases pursuing damage awards that had been filed prior to the August 2024 amendment. In April 2026, a federal appeals court ruled that the amendment limiting recovery to “at most, one recovery” per person would apply retroactively to all pending litigation, including cases filed before enactment of the amendment.  This significant ruling will impact businesses across Illinois.

Illinois employers with existing BIPA cases are encouraged to consult counsel to re-evaluate exposure risks, existing liabilities, and newly created settlement options.  All employers that utilize biometric data in the workplace are encouraged to continue to be vigilant as to the fast pace of technology use in the workplace and ensure that employee consent processes and policies, data retention policies, and vendor agreements align with the extensive BIPA regulations.

PrestigePEO is here to help. For questions, please contact your HRBP.

Maine has joined the growing number of states that have enacted mandatory obligations on employers that electronically monitor employees.  Maine’s new legislation, entitled “An Act to Regulate Employer Surveillance to Protect Workers” is set to go into effect 90 days after the close of the legislative session, or approximately July 14, 2026. The new regulation defines employee monitoring as any act of monitoring through the use of computers, telephone, radio, or other electronic systems.  The restrictions extend to engaging in monitoring of or in employees’ homes and on employees’ personal property, including in vehicles, unless such monitoring is required or necessary for job purposes.  Employers are also restricted from requiring the installation of any such data collecting software on employees’ personal devices.

Maine’s new regulation includes notice requirements that obligate employers to disclose any use of electronic monitoring to all employees on an annual basis, to all job applicants, and before implementation of any electronic surveillance or new surveillance efforts.  However, the law does not require any workplace posting nor does it require employers to obtain acknowledgement from employees of the employers’ notice.

Exceptions to the workplace monitoring restrictions do exist that include any surveillance utilized for safety or security purposes and the use of vehicle or other GPS monitoring devices installed on employer-owned vehicles that are operated by company employees. The legislation also carves out “personal care services” settings, where monitoring of such daily living activities, household tasks, medication reminders and similar tasks related to personal care recipients and the environment are permitted.

PrestigePEO is here to help.  For questions regarding this new legislation, please contact your HRBP.

As we have been reporting, Maine lawmakers passed the PFML program in 2024, which included phased-in implementation requirements.  Effective March 30, 2026, employees may begin submitting PFML applications in preparation for the benefit eligibility opening date of May 1, 2026.

Maine’s PFML program offers partial wage replacement up to a state-set maximum, currently $1,198 per week, through June 30, 2026.  The maximum weekly benefit will be reevaluated annually by the state with a July 1 effective date.  Employers may permit PTO, salary continuation, or short-term disability to supplement PFML, provided the employee’s total benefit does not exceed 100% of regular wages. Compliance and prevention of overpayments are the employer’s responsibility. Employers should review how paid leave and other benefits interact with PFML rules, as coordinating these programs can be complex due to differing eligibility and administration.

Most Maine employees will be eligible for PFML, provided they have met the state’s current earning threshold, or $7,188 during the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters immediately preceding the first day of that employee’s benefit year. PFML provides employees up to 12 weeks of leave in a 12-month period, and similar to other protected leaves, can be taken on a continuous or intermittent basis. It is also designed to run concurrently with federal FMLA and Maine’s FMLA.

Maine’s Paid Family Medical Leave can be taken for the following reasons:

• bonding with a new child.
• caring for a family member with a serious health condition.
• managing the employee’s own serious health condition.
• addressing certain military‑related family needs.
• or seeking safety related to abuse or violence.

Important to note is Maine’s unique requirement for employees to continue to be treated as though they are actively employed for benefits accrual, eligibility, and participation purposes for the duration of the leave. Employers are restricted from suspending or reducing benefit accruals or eligibility during the leave period; therefore, all employees must continue to accrue PTO, sick leave, and other leave benefits, continue to earn bonuses, advancement opportunities, seniority, and service credit, and maintain an active status in all employer sponsored benefit plans and programs.

Maine employers are encouraged to familiarize themselves with these new requirements, train human resources and managers accordingly, and work to updated policies to ensure compliance with Maine’s PFML Act.

PrestigePEO is here to help.  Please reach to your HRBP with questions.

New York City lawmakers have introduced a proposal that could substantially raise the minimum wage, reaching $30 per hour by 2030. Although not yet enacted, employers operating in New York City should start preparing for possible changes.

The plan would affect private employers with workers in the city, excluding government entities. Different compliance timelines may apply based on business size, with larger employers expected to meet higher wage targets sooner. The phased approach aims to incrementally increase wages by the end of the decade, allowing employers time to adjust compensation and budgets.

It also proposes reforms to the existing “tip credit” system, potentially requiring food service employers to pay higher direct wages to tipped workers instead of relying on tips.

If adopted, the law would impose stricter administrative duties, such as providing wage notices at hire and regularly, posting updated wage info at the workplace, and maintaining payroll records for years. Strong anti-retaliation protections are included, with employers potentially facing increased scrutiny for retaliating against employees who raise pay concerns or file complaints.

Enforcement would be handled by the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, and employees might also pursue private lawsuits. Penalties for violations could include back pay, damages, and legal costs.

This proposal hints at a significant shift in NYC wage policy. Since the proposal is still under review, employers should evaluate how wage increases might affect payroll, staffing, and compliance. Reviewing current pay practices and ensuring accurate recordkeeping can mitigate risks if the law passes. Staying informed and planning ahead will help employers stay compliant and avoid surprises as the legislation progresses.

PrestigePEO will continue to monitor developments that impact your workplace. If you have any questions, please contact your HR Business Partner.

On March 6, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a significant decision in Massey v. Borough of Bergenfield, eliminating New Jersey’s longstanding heightened evidentiary standard for “majority‑group” employees, such as White, male, or heterosexual workers, bringing discrimination claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”). The ruling follows a similar approach adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court last year in the context of federal Title VII claims.

What Changed?

Historically, New Jersey courts required majority‑group plaintiffs asserting workplace discrimination claims under the NJLAD to meet an additional evidentiary hurdle at the outset of a case. These employees were required to demonstrate “background circumstances,” suggesting that the employer was inclined to discriminate against majority‑group workers.

In Massey, the Third Circuit held that this heightened requirement should no longer apply. As a result, all NJLAD discrimination claims, regardless of the employee’s membership in a majority or minority group, will be evaluated using the same, established burden‑shifting framework.

Importantly, this decision does not expand what types of conduct are considered unlawful discrimination under the NJLAD. Rather, it changes how courts analyze discrimination claims.

What This Means for Employers

New Jersey employers may see an uptick in discrimination claims brought by majority‑group employees and may face increased difficulty in obtaining early dismissal of such claims. From a day‑to‑day management standpoint, the ruling underscores the need for employers to apply employment policies and practices consistently across the workforce. Decisions involving hiring, promotions, discipline, pay, performance management, and separation from employment should be supported by clear, objective business justifications and well‑maintained documentation. The decision also highlights the ongoing importance of manager training and careful oversight of workplace communications and decision‑making processes.

Although Massey directly impacts New Jersey employers, it reflects a broader national trend toward applying anti‑discrimination laws uniformly across all protected classes.

PrestigePEO is here to assist. Please reach out to your HRBP if you would like guidance on policies, training, or risk mitigation strategies in light of this development.