Compliance Round Up – The EEOC Moves to Revise Its Hiring Guidelines, Washington Bans Employee Microchipping, and the Sixth Circuit Upholds a Pregnancy-Bias Verdict (July 2026)

Headshot of Jennifer Kieswetter
Written By
Jennifer Kiesewetter
Published On: July 13, 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.

—

Federal agencies, state legislatures, and the courts all stayed active this week. A federal agency proposed sweeping regulatory changes, three states enacted new employer obligations, one appeals court upheld a pregnancy-bias verdict, and the EEOC filed a new disability-accommodation lawsuit.

Here are six developments HR should know.

Federal News

Timing: The EEOC’s regulatory agenda was published the week of July 6, 2026. A notice of proposed rulemaking on the UGESP recordkeeping requirements is projected for July 2026; rescission of the guidelines themselves is listed for final action in November 2026, effective January 2027. Agenda dates are projections, not deadlines.

What’s Changing
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) used its newly released entries in the Unified Agenda to announce several employment-related changes. Among them, the agency would eliminate the recordkeeping requirements under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP) and rescind the 1978 guidelines themselves, including the validation framework built around the four-fifths rule used to evaluate adverse impact. The agenda also includes proposals to revise the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) regulations and to rescind the EEO-1 and related reports. The agency has already acted on one item: it rescinded its 1979 affirmative-action guidelines through a final rule published July 6, 2026.

The changes would not touch Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or eliminate disparate-impact claims. They could, however, change how employers document hiring decisions and analyze selection procedures.

What This Means for HR:

  • Keep validating tests, screens, and AI hiring tools against job-relatedness and business necessity.
  • Preserve adverse-impact analyses and four-fifths documentation while the rules stand.
  • Watch for the PWFA proposal in November before changing accommodation practices.

Trending State News

Effective Date: Signed March 11, 2026; effective June 11, 2026.

What’s Changing
Washington enacted Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2303 to prohibit employers from requiring, requesting, or coercing workers to have a microchip implanted. The law defines a microchip as a subdermal device that carries a unique identification number and personal information readable by an external scanner. Employees may still choose to receive one voluntarily, and the law does not cover devices used solely to diagnose, monitor, treat, or prevent a health condition. The law covers applicants as well as employees, so implantation cannot be a condition of hire. Workers may sue for actual damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief, and may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

What This Means for HR:

  • Audit access, timekeeping, and wearable programs to confirm none require a subdermal implant.
  • Treat voluntary participation as the only lawful path, never a condition of employment.
  • Document that access and identification technology relies on external devices.

Effective Date: Signed April 13, 2026; effective July 1, 2026.

What’s Changing
Virginia enacted Senate Bill 637 to bring employers with as few as five employees under the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA), down from fifteen. The law also gives employees two years to file an administrative complaint with the Virginia Office of Civil Rights, up from 300 days. It also repeals the old limits on age-discrimination claims, which previously applied only to employers with between five and 20 employees. Small Virginia employers that were previously outside the VHRA now need to comply with it.

What This Means for HR:

  • Confirm whether your Virginia headcount now crosses the five-employee coverage line.
  • Extend record-retention practices to cover the new two-year filing window.
  • Train managers at small Virginia sites on discrimination standards.

Effective Date: Signed May 22, 2026; effective July 1, 2026, for lawsuits filed on or after that date.

What’s Changing
Florida enacted House Bill 1407 to establish new deadlines for filing discrimination lawsuits under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA). A claimant must file suit within one year after the Florida Commission on Human Relations issues a reasonable-cause determination or the EEOC issues a right-to-sue notice, whichever occurs first. If neither agency acts within 180 days after the complaint is filed, the claimant has 18 months from the filing date to sue. The law resolves conflicting court decisions over when the limitations period begins.

What This Means for HR:

  • Recalculate how long Florida discrimination exposure stays open.
  • Track the reasonable-cause or right-to-sue date on every Florida charge.
  • Coordinate litigation holds with the new filing deadlines.

Around the Courts

Decided: June 23, 2026 (Peng Guo v. Michigan Technological University, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 25-1077).

What’s Changing
In Peng Guo v. Michigan Technological University, the Sixth Circuit let stand a $205,000 jury verdict for a former accounting professor who said she got a smaller raise because she took maternity leave. The court concluded that the record permitted a reasonable jury to find pregnancy played an improper role in the raise decision, enough to support the verdict. A pay decision alone can support a discrimination claim, and the Sixth Circuit covers employers in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

What This Means for HR:

  • Treat raise and bonus decisions for employees returning from leave as exposure.
  • Document performance-based reasons for compensation decisions before leave enters the picture.

Filed: June 30, 2026 (EEOC v. Federal Express Corporation, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, No. 1:26-cv-00608).

What’s Changing
The EEOC sued Federal Express Corporation, formerly known as FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., alleging it failed to accommodate blind package handlers at its Kernersville, North Carolina facility. Per the Commission’s announcement, the suit covers four named employees and a class of blind handlers denied accommodations, plus a recordkeeping violation. The agency brought the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after conciliation failed. The lawsuit shows the EEOC continues to focus on accommodation obligations for current employees.

What This Means for HR:

  • Review accommodation procedures for current employees with disabilities, not just applicants.
  • Document the interactive process and any undue-hardship analysis for each request.
  • Confirm ADA-related recordkeeping is complete and current.

—

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