政府关门已至：企业HR如何应对运营与员工双重挑战？刚刚，2025年美国政府正式关门，企业HR该如何应对，你可能还有相关预案
2025年9月30日，美国国会未能在财政年度截止日前通过拨款法案或临时融资措施（Continuing Resolution），导致联邦政府自10月1日起正式进入关门状态。这是自2018–2019年长达35天的停摆以来，美国再一次发生大规模政府关门。
根据《禁止超支法》（Antideficiency Act），在拨款恢复前，除“必要服务”（essential services）外，所有非紧急职能必须暂停。由此，数十万联邦雇员和承包商的工作受到影响，企业和HR部门也被迫面对直接冲击。
对企业HR的主要影响
1. 招聘与合规流程停滞
E-Verify暂停：所有雇主必须暂时依赖I-9表格进行入职核查，待系统恢复后再补录。这给招聘带来延误和合规风险。
审批与执照延迟：涉及联邦许可、签证或合规认证的环节全面放缓。
2. 员工用工与合同不确定性
承包商停工：与联邦政府签订合同的企业面临付款暂停或合同冻结，导致项目延迟甚至停摆。
薪酬与福利不确定：被迫无薪休假的联邦雇员暂时无法获得工资，追溯补发需等待国会立法。部分员工或可申请失业补助，但若事后获追溯工资，需返还补助。
3. 企业运营与财务目标受阻
SHRM研究显示，仅1–3天的关门就会扰乱25%的企业运营；若持续超过一周，64%的企业运作及49%的财务目标将受到冲击。
延误的政府审批、拨款、贷款可能影响企业现金流和投资进度。
4. 员工心理与士气下降
调研显示，80%的员工担心压力上升，76%预计士气下降，75%担忧专注力和生产力降低。
对有家庭照护责任的员工影响更大：59%担心财务、51%担心工作稳定、49%担心食物安全、47%担心心理健康。
5. HR准备不足
47%的HR专业人士表示企业几乎没有应对预案，14%的企业完全无计划。关门已至，HR将被迫在高压环境下应急，风险显著。
HR的应对措施
立即启动危机管理
明确“必要岗位”和“被迫停工岗位”，书面通知员工其状态。
审查并更新内部政策，涵盖无薪休假、福利延续、工时安排等。
加强透明沟通
建立统一的信息渠道，及时更新薪酬、福利和合同状态。
通过FAQ、内部公告或视频说明会减轻员工焦虑。
强化员工支持
启动EAP（员工帮助计划），提供心理咨询与应急援助。
为有家庭照护责任的员工提供灵活安排或支持资源。
审查合同与财务风险
检查与政府相关合同条款，尽快与合作方沟通延期或缓解措施。
重新评估预算与现金流，建立财务缓冲。
持续监控政策进展
HR需密切跟进国会动态，关注追溯工资等立法进程。
与行业协会（如SHRM）保持互动，及时获取应对指南。
美国政府关门的历史回顾
2018–2019年：长达35天的关门，为历史最长。影响多个联邦部门，导致经济损失与信任危机。
2013年：因医保法案分歧，政府关门16天，标准普尔估算使当季GDP年化增长率下降0.6%。
1995–1996年：多次预算争议引发关门，总计21天，影响广泛。
整体情况：自1976年以来，美国已发生20余次关门，平均持续约8天，但近年来关门时间趋长，影响逐渐加剧。
此次关门不仅影响联邦雇员和承包商，更对企业HR提出严峻考验。招聘停滞、合同冻结、员工焦虑与士气下降，都需要HR部门即时响应与长期预案。事实证明，未雨绸缪的HR将更有能力保护企业稳定和员工信任。
? 来源：
SHRM《HR Leaders Brace for Shutdown Impact》
The Guardian 《US Government Shutdown Coverage 2025》
Reuters 《US government shutdowns raise uncertainty but rarely have lasting effect on economy》
U.S. Congressional Budget Office 历史文件
Wikipedia《United States federal government shutdowns》
EEOC
2025年10月01日
EEOC
How California Employees Can Navigate Conflict & Respond to Workplace Aggression在加州职场，冲突虽常见，但若升级为言语、心理或身体上的攻击，员工权益和安全便受到严重威胁。本文由加州资深劳动律师 Andrea Amaya 撰写，结合丰富实务经验，为员工提供一套应对职场侵害的法律行动指南。
首先，员工需识别何为“正常摩擦”与“侵害行为”之间的界限——如果对方的行为使你感到受威胁、被羞辱、被排挤，或影响工作绩效，就不应被视为“职场常态”。其次，律师强调“记录一切”的重要性，即便是微小的不适也应及时整理证据，如保存邮件、截图聊天记录，并建立日志。
面对挑衅时，理性、专业的回应比情绪化反应更具保护力。文章建议使用明确措辞维护自身底线，并在适当时向HR正式提出书面投诉。但员工也需意识到HR并非完全中立，举报时需谨慎、留存所有记录。如担心遭遇打击报复，建议先与律师沟通。
当局势持续恶化、损害身心健康时，员工应评估是否需要寻求法律援助或考虑离职。在加州，基于歧视、骚扰或报复的侵权可向 CRD 或 EEOC 提出申诉。
作者最后提醒，职场毒性文化的存在并非员工本人的失败，勇敢维权、优先保护自己的心理健康，是专业、成熟且有力的选择。
LOS ANGELES, July 15, 2025-Conflict is part of any workplace and often unavoidable. It can look like subtle disrespect in meetings or outright hostility behind closed doors.But when conflict escalates into aggression, whether it be verbal, psychological, or even physical, and it starts threatening your dignity, safety, and career, it stops being a mere HR matter.
As an employment lawyer in California representing employees across industries, I've seen how workplace aggression, left unchecked, can erode mental health, derail careers, and silence otherwise brilliant voices.
But I've also seen how clarity, strategy, and the courage to act can turn conflict into a turning point rather than a breaking point.
Here's how California employees can navigate workplace conflict and respond to aggression in a way that's not only safe and smart, but legally informed.
1. Recognize the Difference Between Discomfort and Abuse
Not every disagreement is "hostile work environment" material. Workplaces are made up of employees with differing opinions, personalities and backgrounds. Disagreements are bound to happen. However, there is a difference between a disagreement or a misunderstanding and a toxic work environment. Many workers, especially in hierarchical or high-pressure fields, normalize toxic dynamics. If you find yourself second-guessing whether your colleague's tone, your supervisor's "jokes," or the constant exclusion from meetings are just part of the job, pause.
Ask yourself: Is this behavior isolating me, threatening me, humiliating me, or interfering with my ability to do my job?
In California, workplace aggression can cross legal lines if it includes harassment (especially if based on protected characteristics like race, gender, age, disability, etc.) or retaliation (for reporting wrongdoing, requesting medical leave, etc.). It doesn't have to be physical. Verbal attacks, threats, and sabotage count.
2. Document Everything, Even the "Small" Stuff
Legal cases aren't built on vibes; they're built on records. If a coworker publicly berates you, if your boss sends passive-aggressive emails, or if you're left out of key communications, write it down. Save the emails. Screenshot the thread. Keep a running log with dates, what happened, and who was present.
Even if you never file a formal complaint, documentation arms you with clarity and credibility. It helps HR understand patterns, not just isolated events. And if things do escalate legally, it could be the difference between "he said, she said" and a compelling, evidence-based claim.
3. Respond Strategically, Not Emotionally
It's human to want to snap back at the colleague who cuts you down in front of others. But emotional reactions can be used against you later, especially if the aggressor is angling to provoke you.
Instead, respond with professionalism. If safe, call out the behavior calmly:
"I'd prefer to be spoken to respectfully. Is there something specific you want to address?"
If you're in a meeting, redirect the conversation or note the inappropriate behavior in writing afterward. Use phrases like:
"To clarify what was said earlier…" "For the record, I'd like to note…"
Standing up for yourself may feel uncomfortable, especially if you're junior or underrepresented, but it is a crucial step to protecting your dignity.
Remember: assertiveness is not aggression. It's boundary-setting.
4. Use Your Company's Processes, But With Eyes Wide Open
HR is supposed to be a neutral party, but in practice, they often serve the company's interests. That doesn't mean you shouldn't report bad behavior. It means you should report with awareness.
When making a complaint:
Be clear, specific, and factual.
Stick to workplace impact (e.g., "This interfered with my ability to do X").
Ask for a written acknowledgment of your complaint.
Save a copy of everything you submit or receive.
In California, retaliation for complaining about unlawful behavior (discrimination, harassment, wage violations, etc.) is itself illegal. Nonetheless, retaliation by an employer is still common. If you're concerned about blowback, consult an employment lawyer before filing the complaint.
5. Know When to Escalate, And When to Exit
There comes a point when the question shifts from "Can I fix this?" to "Is this worth staying in?" That's not quitting. That's choosing yourself.
If conflict or aggression becomes chronic, or harmful to your health, or it remains unresolved, it may be time to seek outside help. In some cases, a legal letter can prompt change. In others, a claim with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may be appropriate.
And sometimes, the bravest and healthiest move is to walk away, with your records intact, your self-respect preserved, and legal options open. This doesn't mean you are giving up. You are simply prioritizing your mental and physical health.
You are not unprofessional for protecting your peace. And you are not alone. Take action.
Final Thoughts
If you're dealing with constant tension or subtle hostility, it's easy to internalize it as a personal failure. But much of what we call "personality conflicts" in the workplace is actually a failure of culture and leadership. Especially for employees from marginalized communities, navigating workplace aggression can feel like an invisible second job.
Recognize when a situation is harmful. Leaving a workplace that no longer suits you is not a sign of weakness. While workplace aggression can make you feel powerless, remember that you have the power to control the outcome.
You don't need to be loud to stand up for yourself. You just need to be strategic, supported, and unshakably clear on your worth. The law, when understood and applied, is a powerful ally.
Contact D.Law by calling (818) 875-2008 or send a message with any questions or concerns you may have regarding your employment rights. Our attorneys are experts in California employment law and worker's rights and can help you with the problems you are faced with.
-By Andrea Amaya, Associate Attorney, D.Law
法官允许针对 Workday 的人工智能偏见诉讼继续进行Workday因其AI筛选软件涉嫌偏见而面临集体诉讼。美国加州北区地方法院法官Rita Lin裁定，Workday可能被视为受联邦反歧视法律保护的雇主，因为它执行的筛选功能是其客户通常自己执行的。这一裁决可能会对使用AI进行招聘的法律责任产生重大影响。该诉讼由Derek Mobley提起，他表示自己因为是黑人、年龄超过40岁且患有焦虑和抑郁症而被Workday的客户公司拒绝了超过100次工作机会。EEOC警告雇主，如果他们未能防止筛选软件产生歧视性影响，他们可能会承担法律责任。
7月15日（路透社）——加利福尼亚的一位联邦法官驳回了Workday公司试图驳回一项拟议中的集体诉讼的请求。该诉讼称，Workday公司用于筛选其他企业求职者的人工智能软件中包含了现有的偏见。
在这一首例裁决中，美国地方法官Rita Lin于周五表示，Workday可以被视为受联邦工作场所歧视法律覆盖的雇主，因为它执行了其客户通常自己进行的筛选功能。
Lin拒绝驳回Derek Mobley在2023年提出的几项诉讼。Mobley声称由于他是黑人、年龄超过40岁并患有焦虑和抑郁症，他在与Workday签约的公司中申请了超过100个职位但都被拒绝。
此案是首个挑战使用AI筛选软件的拟议集体诉讼，可能会在使用AI自动化招聘和其他就业功能的法律影响上树立重要的先例。现在，大多数大型公司都在使用这种技术。
Lin驳回了Workday基于种族和年龄的故意歧视指控。她还裁定该公司不能被视为反偏见法下的“就业机构”，因为与人力资源公司不同，它不为工人提供就业机会。
Workday发言人在一份声明中表示，公司对Lin驳回部分指控感到满意。“我们有信心在进入下一阶段时能轻松驳斥剩余指控，因为我们将有机会直接挑战其准确性，”发言人说。
Mobley的律师没有立即回应置评请求。诉讼称，Workday使用公司现有员工的数据来训练其AI软件，以筛选最佳申请者，但没有考虑到现有歧视可能反映的问题。
Mobley指控Workday违反了1964年《民权法案》第七章（Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964）和其他联邦反歧视法律，进行了种族、年龄和残疾歧视。拟议中的集体诉讼可能包括数十万人。
Workday表示，由于它不是Mobley的潜在雇主，也不是可以因歧视而被追责的就业机构，因为它不为客户做出招聘决定，因此不受工作场所偏见法律的约束。
但Lin在周五表示，反偏见法律旨在广泛保护工人，防止雇主将筛选申请者等任务外包以逃避责任，并且Workday可以作为其客户的代理人承担责任。
“（诉讼）合理地声称Workday的客户将包括拒绝申请者在内的传统招聘功能委托给Workday提供的算法决策工具，”民主党总统Joe Biden任命的Lin写道。
美国平等就业机会委员会（U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission）负责执行联邦禁止工作场所歧视的法律，该机构在4月份的一份简报中曾敦促Lin让案件继续进行。该机构警告雇主，如果他们未能防止筛选软件产生歧视性影响，他们可能会被追究法律责任。
EEOC
2024年07月17日
EEOC
美国公民自由联盟对Aon人工智能招聘工具发起投诉美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）于2024年6月6日向美国联邦贸易委员会提交了针对Aon的投诉，挑战其候选人评估工具的合法性和偏见问题。ACLU指控Aon的评估工具，如Adept-15人格测试和vidAssess-AI视频评估工具，在市场上虚假宣称“无偏见”并能“增进多样性”，实际上这些工具可能基于种族和残疾（如自闭症和心理健康障碍）歧视求职者。此外，ACLU还提到，Aon的gridChallenge认知能力评估也显示出种族表现上的差异。针对这些指控，Aon回应称其评估工具遵循行业最佳实践和EEOC、法律及专业指导原则。ACLU此举揭示了在职场包容性与合规性之间的紧张关系，呼吁更严格审查这些广泛使用的人力资源技术工具。
在人力资源技术迅速发展的世界中，人工智能（AI）扮演着关键角色，承诺将简化流程并增强招聘实践的效率。然而，AI整合到这些实践中经常引发关于公平性和歧视的重大争议。最近的一个例子涉及到全球专业服务公司Aon，该公司的AI驱动的招聘评估工具因美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）的指控而受到审查。ACLU向美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）正式投诉Aon，突显了关于AI在招聘中应用的重要对话。
ACLU投诉的基础
ACLU指控Aon欺骗性地营销其招聘评估工具——特别是Adept-15性格评估、vidAssess-AI视频面试工具和gridChallenge认知能力测试——这些工具被宣称为无偏见并有助于提高工作场所的多样性。根据ACLU的说法，这些声明不仅具有误导性，而且可能违法，因为这些工具可能会基于种族和残疾（如自闭症、抑郁症和焦虑症）歧视求职者。这些工具使用算法和AI进行评估，根据候选人的积极性、情感意识和活力等特征进行评估，这些特征往往与工作表现无直接关联，且可能对某些残疾人群产生不成比例的影响。
Aon的辩护和行业实践
面对ACLU的指控，Aon为其产品辩护，声称这些工具是根据法律和专业指南（包括平等就业机会委员会EEOC设定的指南）设计的。Aon强调他们的工具是雇主用于做出更具包容性招聘决策的更广泛评估工具集的一部分。此外，Aon还指出其工具的效率和成本效益，认为这些工具比传统方法更少歧视性。
法律和道德含义
这场争议引发了关于使用AI进行就业的重要法律和道德问题。美国的法律，包括美国残疾人法案（ADA）和民权法案第七章，要求就业中的非歧视实践，涵盖从招聘到工作场所的所有方面。ACLU向FTC的投诉不仅提示可能违反这些法律，还将问题框定为不仅是就业歧视，还涉及消费者欺诈的问题。
更广泛的行业关注
ACLU对Aon的行动是更广泛运动的一部分，旨在审查用于招聘的AI工具。批评者认为，虽然这些技术提供了无偏见决策的潜力，但它们常常缺乏透明度，并可能无意中编码了其开发者或它们所训练的数据集的偏见。这一问题由于这些工具的专有性质而变得更加复杂，这阻碍了对它们的公平性和效率进行彻底的公众评估。
潜在后果和改革
ACLU对Aon的投诸可能对人力资源技术行业产生深远影响。如果FTC决定调查或制裁Aon，可能会导致对AI在招聘中的使用进行更严格的监管，可能为整个行业中类似工具的市场营销和实施设定先例。对依赖这些工具的公司而言，此案可能是重新评估其算法以确保符合反歧视法律的关键提示。
此外，此案凸显了技术专家、法律专家、政策制定者和民权倡导者之间需要进行持续对话的需求，以确保AI的进步能够增强而非破坏工作场所的平等。随着AI继续渗透到各种人力资源方面，制定维护反歧视和坚持道德原则的标准和最佳实践将至关重要。
结论
ACLU对Aon的投诉提醒我们在AI时代，创新、监管和权利之间的复杂相互作用。虽然AI为HR提供了变革的潜力，但它也需要谨慎处理以防止新形式的歧视。这个案例可能会成为AI在招聘伦理辩论中的一个里程碑，促使所有利益相关者考虑其技术选择的更广泛影响。随着法律程序的展开，人力资源技术行业将密切关注，意识到AI在招聘中的未来现在受到更审慎的公众和法律审视。
Unveiling Bias: The Controversy Over Aon's AI Hiring Tools and the ACLU's Challenge
In the rapidly evolving world of human resources technology, artificial intelligence (AI) plays a pivotal role, promising to streamline processes and enhance the efficiency of hiring practices. However, the integration of AI into these practices often sparks significant debate regarding fairness and discrimination. A recent example of this controversy involves Aon, a global professional services firm, whose AI-driven hiring assessment tools have come under scrutiny by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU's allegations against Aon, leading to a formal complaint to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), underline a critical dialogue about the implications of AI in hiring.
The Basis of the ACLU’s Complaint
The ACLU has accused Aon of deceptively marketing its hiring assessment tools — specifically the Adept-15 personality assessment, the vidAssess-AI video interviewing tool, and the gridChallenge cognitive ability test — as bias-free and conducive to improving diversity in the workplace. According to the ACLU, these claims are not only misleading but also potentially unlawful, as the tools may perpetuate discrimination against job seekers based on race and disabilities such as autism, depression, and anxiety. These tools, which utilize algorithmic processes and AI, are said to evaluate candidates on traits like positivity, emotional awareness, and liveliness, which are often not directly relevant to job performance and may disproportionately affect individuals with certain disabilities.
Aon’s Defense and Industry Practices
In response to the ACLU's claims, Aon has defended its products by asserting that they are designed in compliance with legal and professional guidelines, including those set forth by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Aon emphasizes that their tools are part of a broader array of assessments used by employers to make more inclusive hiring decisions. Moreover, Aon points to the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of their tools, arguing that they are less discriminatory than traditional methods.
Legal and Ethical Implications
The controversy raises significant legal and ethical questions about the use of AI in employment. U.S. laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, mandate non-discriminatory practices in employment, covering all aspects from hiring to workplace accommodation. The ACLU's complaint to the FTC, an agency tasked with protecting America’s consumers and competition, suggests potential violations of these laws, framing the issue not only as one of employment discrimination but also of consumer deception.
Broader Industry Concerns
The ACLU's actions against Aon are part of a larger movement to scrutinize AI tools used for hiring. Critics argue that while these technologies offer the potential for unbiased decision-making, they often lack transparency and can inadvertently encode the biases of their developers or the data sets they are trained on. This issue is compounded by the proprietary nature of these tools, which prevents a thorough public assessment of their fairness and effectiveness.
Potential Repercussions and Reforms
The outcome of the ACLU’s complaint could have far-reaching implications for the HR technology industry. A decision by the FTC to investigate or sanction Aon could lead to more stringent regulations governing the development and use of AI in hiring, potentially setting a precedent for how similar tools are marketed and implemented across the industry. For companies that rely on these tools, the case may serve as a critical prompt to reevaluate their algorithms to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
Moreover, this case highlights the need for ongoing dialogue between technologists, legal experts, policymakers, and civil rights advocates to ensure that advancements in AI serve to enhance, rather than undermine, workplace equality. As AI continues to permeate various aspects of human resources, the development of standards and best practices that safeguard against discrimination and uphold ethical principles will be crucial.
Conclusion
The ACLU's complaint against Aon is a reminder of the complex interplay between innovation, regulation, and rights in the age of AI. While AI offers transformative potentials for HR, it also demands a cautious approach to prevent new forms of discrimination. This case may well become a landmark in the ongoing debate over AI ethics in hiring, urging all stakeholders to consider the broader implications of their technological choices. As the legal proceedings unfold, the HR technology industry will be watching closely, aware that the future of AI in hiring is now under a more discerning public and legal microscope.
EEOC
2024年06月06日
EEOC
EEOC Issues Final Regulation on Pregnant Workers Fairness Act美国平等就业机会委员会（EEOC）发布了《怀孕工作者公平法案》（PWFA）的最终规则，该规则自2023年6月27日生效，要求15名以上员工的雇主为怀孕、分娩或相关医疗条件的员工提供合理的工作调整，除非这种调整给雇主带来过大困难。此规则进一步加强了1964年民权法案和美国残疾人法案下的保护措施，提供了关于合理调整、雇主责任及孕期工作者权利的更清晰指导。
Aids Implementation of Civil Rights Law Expanding Protections and Accommodations for Pregnant Workers
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued a final rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), providing important clarity that will allow pregnant workers the ability to work and maintain a healthy pregnancy and help employers understand their duties under the law. The PWFA requires most employers with 15 or more employees to provide “reasonable accommodations,” or changes at work, for a worker’s known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause the employer an undue hardship.
The PWFA builds upon existing protections against pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC began accepting charges of discrimination on June 27, 2023, the day on which the PWFA became effective.
The final rule will be published in the Federal Register on Apr. 19. The final rule was approved by majority vote of the Commission on Apr. 3, 2024, and becomes effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
The final rule and its accompanying interpretative guidance reflect the EEOC’s deliberation and response to the approximately 100,000 public comments received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It provides clarity to employers and workers about who is covered, the types of limitations and medical conditions covered, how individuals can request reasonable accommodations, and numerous concrete examples.
“The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a win for workers, families, and our economy. It gives pregnant workers clear access to reasonable accommodations that will allow them to keep doing their jobs safely and effectively, free from discrimination and retaliation,” said EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows. “At the EEOC, we have assisted women who have experienced serious health risks and unimaginable loss simply because they could not access a reasonable accommodation on the job. This final rule provides important information and guidance to help employers meet their responsibilities, and to jobseekers and employees about their rights. It encourages employers and employees to communicate early and often, allowing them to identify and resolve issues in a timely manner.”
Highlights from the final regulation include:
· Numerous examples of reasonable accommodations such as additional breaks to drink water, eat, or use the restroom; a stool to sit on while working; time off for health care appointments; temporary reassignment; temporary suspension of certain job duties; telework; or time off to recover from childbirth or a miscarriage, among others.
· Guidance regarding limitations and medical conditions for which employees or applicants may seek reasonable accommodation, including miscarriage or still birth; migraines; lactation; and pregnancy-related conditions that are episodic, such as morning sickness. This guidance is based on Congress’s PWFA statutory language, the EEOC’s longstanding definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions” from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and court decisions interpreting the term “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions from Title VII.
· Guidance encouraging early and frequent communication between employers and workers to raise and resolve requests for reasonable accommodation in a timely manner.
· Clarification that an employer is not required to seek supporting documentation when an employee asks for a reasonable accommodation and should only do so when it is reasonable under the circumstances.
· Explanation of when an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on an employer and its business.
· Information on how employers may assert defenses or exemptions, including those based on religion, as early as possible in charge processing.
More information about the PWFA and the EEOC’s final rule, including resources for employers and workers, is available on the EEOC’s “What You Should Know about the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act” webpage.
For more information on pregnancy discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/pregnancy-discrimination.
The EEOC prevents and remedies unlawful employment discrimination and advances equal opportunity for all. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
EEOC
EEOC
EEOC
EEOC
EEOC
EEOC
EEOC
扫一扫
添加客服
