Compliance Round Up – EEOC Sues the Times, Tennessee Tightens Noncompetes, and Colorado Revises Its AI Law

Headshot of Jennifer Kieswetter
Written By
Jennifer Kiesewetter
Published On: May 19, 2026

Jenny Kiesewetter is a practicing ERISA and employee benefits attorney who partners with HR teams on a wide range of workplace compliance matters — from benefit-plan obligations to day-to-day HR policies and regulatory requirements. Her guidance helps employers spot risks early, navigate regulatory change, and make informed decisions that support both employees and the organization.

—

May brought several employment law developments for HR teams to track.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued The New York Times under Title VII, Tennessee enacted its first broad noncompete statute, California added mandatory penalties for missed pay data filings, and Colorado scaled back its artificial intelligence law before the original compliance deadline arrived.

Federal agencies also changed rules affecting certain employment authorization documents tied to asylum applicants, while courts issued important rulings on arbitration jurisdiction and multistate Fair Labor Standards Act collective actions.

Here’s what HR teams should know.

Federal News

Effective Date: Complaint filed May 5, 2026 (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The New York Times Company, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York)

What’s Changing:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a Title VII lawsuit alleging that The New York Times discriminated against a white male editor when it passed him over for a deputy real estate editor position. The EEOC claims the selected candidate did not meet the experience criteria in the job posting and that the company relied on race and sex in making the decision. The agency seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas framed the case as part of the Commission’s evenhanded enforcement of Title VII. The filing comes after months of EEOC statements warning that certain diversity initiatives may create Title VII risk. The Times said it categorically rejects the allegations and will defend the case.

What This Means for HR:

  • Review promotion and hiring requirements to make sure they match the actual experience and qualifications needed for the role.
  • Remind managers and recruiting teams to document hiring and promotion decisions carefully and consistently.
  • Take another look at diversity, equity, and inclusion programs to confirm they focus on expanding opportunity and outreach in a legally compliant way.

Effective Date:  Interim final rule effective May 29, 2026; public comments accepted through June 29, 2026.

What’s Changing?

The Department of Homeland Security issued an interim final rule implementing asylum-related provisions of H.R. 1. The rule establishes a new annual fee for certain Form I-589 (Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal) cases that remain pending beyond a specified period, generally one year.

Failure to comply with the fee requirement may affect an applicant’s eligibility for related benefits, including work authorization under category (c)(8). In practice, employment authorization may lapse or become invalid even if the card reflects a later expiration date.

The interim final rule also requires updated filing fees for certain forms, including Form I-102, Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure Document, for filings submitted on or after May 29, 2026.

Employers should not expect advance notice if an employee’s work authorization becomes invalid due to fee noncompliance or related issues.

What This Means for HR:

  • Review reverification procedures for employees working under category (c)(8) Employment Authorization Documents.
  • Communicate with affected employees well before their document expiration dates to avoid unexpected gaps in work authorization.
  • Remind human resources teams that an Employment Authorization Document may become invalid before its expiration date.

Trending State News

Effective Date: Senate Bill 464; first filing deadline under the new regime: May 13, 2026.

What’s Changing?

California’s pay data reports were due May 13, 2026, marking the first filing cycle operating under Senate Bill 464’s revised enforcement framework. The law strengthens penalty provisions, with civil penalties of $100 per employee for an initial failure to file and $200 per employee for subsequent violations. The statute limits prior discretion, making penalties more likely when employers fail to comply.

SB 464 also expands the scope of data employers must track and report. Some requirements phase in over time, with additional data elements becoming mandatory beginning with the 2027 reporting cycle, including Fair Labor Standards Act exemption status, employment type, and total weeks worked. The law also transitions job categories to the Standard Occupational Classification framework starting in 2027.

What This Means for HR:

  • Confirm payroll, human resources, and reporting teams understand the expanded California pay data requirements before the 2027 filing cycle.
  • Review systems that track exemption status, employment type, and weeks worked to confirm that the data is complete and reliable.
  • Separate pay reporting records from personnel files and establish retention practices that support future reporting obligations.

Effective Date: Governor Jared Polis signed SB 26-189 on May 14, 2026; the amended law takes effect January 1, 2027.

What’s Changing?

Colorado reworked its AI law before the original version took effect, shifting the focus from a broad risk management regime to a more targeted transparency framework. The amended statute still regulates automated decision-making technology used in consequential employment decisions, but it now centers on three core requirements: pre-use notice, an adverse action process that allows individuals to correct inputs and request meaningful human review where feasible, and record retention for at least three years.

The amendment also strips out several of the more burdensome obligations employers had been preparing for, including mandatory risk management programs, impact assessments, and annual reviews of AI tools.

The law applies to automated decision-making technology that materially influences employment or other consequential decisions affecting Colorado residents. Enforcement remains with the Colorado Attorney General, and the statute does not create a private right of action.

What This Means for HR:

  • Identify which hiring, promotion, or performance management tools use automated decision-making technology.
  • Develop a process for notifying applicants and employees before using covered tools in consequential employment decisions.
  • Create procedures for human review, correction requests, and record retention before the January 1, 2027, effective date.

Effective Date: Governor Bill Lee signed House Bill 1034 on May 7, 2026; the law takes effect July 1, 2026

What’s Changing: 

Tennessee enacted a new statutory framework governing noncompete agreements through Tennessee Senate Bill 2576 / Tennessee House Bill 2684. The law takes effect July 1, 2026, and applies only to agreements entered into, renewed, or amended on or after that date.

The statute limits the use of noncompetes for lower-paid workers. Employers generally cannot require noncompete agreements for employees earning less than $70,000 annually, subject to how compensation is defined under the law.

For employees above that threshold, the law creates a rebuttable presumption that noncompetes lasting two years or less are reasonable in typical employment relationships. Courts may still evaluate scope, geography, and business justification.

Noncompetes tied to the sale of a business follow a different standard and may permit longer restrictions.

What This Means for HR:

  • Review employee compensation levels before using noncompete agreements.
  • Update noncompete templates and onboarding documents before the law takes effect.
  • Make sure each noncompete protects a real business interest, such as confidential information or customer relationships.

Around the Courts

Effective Date: Decided May 4, 2026 (Provencher v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)

What’s Changing:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs may not join a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action unless the court has personal jurisdiction over the employer with respect to each plaintiff’s claim. The court applied Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court principles and rejected a lower court ruling that had allowed out-of-state drivers to join a Vermont-based collective action against a national distributor.

The decision reinforces limits on multistate FLSA collectives by requiring a connection between each opt-in plaintiff’s claim and the forum, narrowing one path for forum shopping in wage-and-hour litigation.

What This Means for HR:

  • Review multistate wage-and-hour practices for consistency across locations and employee groups.
  • Coordinate with employment counsel when collective actions involve employees working outside the forum state.
  • Preserve payroll, scheduling, and timekeeping records that support jurisdictional and class certification defenses.

Effective Date: Decided May 14, 2026 (Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, U.S. Supreme Court)

What’s Changing:

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that when a federal court properly exercises jurisdiction over a case and stays the action for arbitration under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, the court retains jurisdiction to later resolve motions to confirm or vacate the arbitration award.

The case arose from a former Chateau Marmont employee who filed suit in federal court. The district court stayed the case pending arbitration rather than dismissing it. The Supreme Court held that, in that posture, the same court may hear post-arbitration motions without requiring a new basis for jurisdiction.

What This Means for HR:

  • Review arbitration agreements to make sure they match current litigation and dispute resolution practices.
  • Work with employment counsel when lawsuits move between the federal court and arbitration.
  • Keep arbitration records organized in case a dispute returns to federal court after arbitration ends.

—

The information contained in this site is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter.