Regulatory uncertainty is becoming a defining challenge for business — and supply chain businesses are among the industries being most heavily affected. Labor law, employment standards, and compliance expectations are in transition, with legal challenges to regulatory changes often resulting in uncertainty and delayed implementation. For companies already balancing economic volatility, operational risk and workforce demands, staying current on these changes is no small task.  

Today’s transportation and logistics HR leaders are facing a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape that’s re-tuning employer obligations, employee rights and the boundaries of workplace management. Recent and upcoming changes from the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and state and federal lawmakers and regulators require companies to rethink policies, practices and compliance strategies. And as political tensions rise, so too does the risk around workplace speech and conduct.

Whether overseeing operations or managing people, HR leaders must understand developments in employment law to stay ahead of risk and build a resilient workforce.

What's Going On at the NLRB 

After being at the center of significant legal and political activity in recent months, the NLRB is in a holding pattern for now. For supply chain employers, particularly those managing large, distributed workforces or frontline operations, understanding this shifting landscape is essential to staying compliant, minimizing risk and planning for the future.

Here's the short version: The NLRB is a five-member board, but it currently has only two active members. Lacking a quorum of at least three members as of June, 2025, the Board is temporarily limited in its ability to issue new decisions or reverse existing precedent. The situation stems from vacancies and changes in leadership, including the removal of the prior general counsel and a legal challenge to the removal of former Board member Gwynne Wilcox prior to the completion of her second term. As the courts resolve whether her early removal was legal, and until new members are confirmed for the vacant Board seats, employers can expect a pause in major new NLRB rulings — at least for the time being.

Meanwhile, the NLRB’s acting general counsel William Cowan has been actively revisiting prior guidance. More than 30 internal memoranda have been rescinded, and enforcement direction may continue to shift. This underscores a key dynamic: Even though the Board’s quasi-judicial function is limited right now, the general counsel’s office still plays a powerful role in case selection, the exercise of enforcement discretion, and guidance — all of which affect how the law is applied in practice.

We are in a period of regulatory uncertainty. Some employer obligations remain clear and unchanged, such as workers’ rights to union representation and various protections. But other aspects, such as how quickly union elections can be held (“snap elections”) and Biden-era limits on how employers can respond to union organizing efforts, while likely to change, haven’t yet.

In this environment, it’s critical to stay current on NLRB developments. It’s always important to ensure that managers avoid retaliatory behavior and remain neutral during any organizing activity, and now is a good time to remind them of the employer’s obligations under the National Labor Relations Act. Employers should avoid assumptions about what might soon change, and consult legal counsel before making any policy or disciplinary decisions related to union activity or protected concerted action. Remember, until existing NLRB rulings are formally rescinded, they remain in force. So while the Board may be temporarily constrained as to hearing cases and issuing new decisions, the risk for violations is not on hold. Employers should continue to follow the law as it stands, while staying informed of changes likely to come.

EEOC and the Title VII Reset

Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are facing new scrutiny, particularly for employers who do business with the government. For transportation and logistics companies — many of which are federal contractors or subcontractors — this evolving landscape demands closer attention to how DEI policies align with the plain language of existing anti-discrimination law.

Recent executive and agency actions signal a shift in how DEI efforts may be evaluated. Executive Order 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”), signed earlier this year, revoked previous EOs and directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate and pursue claims against unlawful race- or sex-based preferences in employment. DEI programs previously considered lawful may now be subject to scrutiny by regulators and legal challenges if they are found to involve employment actions based on protected characteristics such as race or sex.

Under this EO, the DOJ has been instructed to actively identify potential enforcement targets, including federal contractors, publicly traded companies, and nonprofit organizations. Of particular concern to employers working under federal contracts: The order introduces the possibility of False Claims Act liability. Contractors may be required to certify that they do not maintain DEI practices that violate anti-discrimination laws, which creates exposure if that certification is inaccurate or challenged.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued guidance reaffirming that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act remains unchanged, but that enforcement priorities are evolving. While the law itself has not changed (employment discrimination on the basis of any legally protected factor is still unlawful), the ways the government may interpret certain DEI activities are changing — particularly as to hiring, promotions, or internal programs that could be perceived as giving either preferential treatment or adverse consequences based on protected categories.

A critical distinction that is emerging in enforcement guidance is the difference between opportunity-focused, “open-to-all” DEI efforts and outcome-driven programs that benefit some and exclude others to achieve specific demographic targets. The latter are more likely to draw scrutiny if they appear to involve employment decisions motivated by race, gender or other protected traits. For example, setting internal benchmarks for racial representation in leadership or offering programming limited to particular identity groups are likely to be challenged as contrary to EO 14173 and unlawful under Title VII.

For HR professionals, this means it’s more important than ever to know what’s in your company’s government contracts, and if these contracts contain language related to “diversity” or “equity” rather than to legally mandated equal opportunity. Likewise, company websites and public-facing materials should be reviewed and updated if necessary to ensure that they reflect language consistent with the law as administered under federal and state agency standards, rather than aspirational DEI messaging that could be misinterpreted under this new lens.

This doesn’t mean companies should abandon inclusive workplaces or stop supporting diverse teams. But it does mean taking a careful and legally informed approach to how DEI programs are designed, communicated and implemented. 

Disparate treatment based on legally protected characteristics is unlawful, even if the intent is to promote diversity. In this environment, good intentions are no substitute for legal compliance. A thoughtful, proactive review of your DEI programs, in close consultation with legal counsel, can help avoid unnecessary risk while preserving your company’s commitment to a fair and respectful workplace.

The Status of Noncompetes

Last year’s high-profile effort by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ban employment noncompete agreements nationwide drew intense attention and legal challenges, resulting in a nationwide injunction vacating the FTC’s final rule. With the change in administration, the new FTC chair chose not to appeal the decision, effectively ending litigation over the rule.

Still, that doesn’t mean employment noncompetes are off the regulatory radar. The FTC has signaled that it will continue to investigate and challenge overly broad or abusive noncompete practices, especially when applied to lower-wage workers. And state laws continue in effect, with many jurisdictions legislating to narrow the permissible use of noncompetes or banning them outright. For supply chain employers, this moment offers an opportunity to reassess. Do your current noncompete agreements serve a legitimate business interest? Are they too broad in scope or applied too widely? Companies should be aware of jurisdictions where employment noncompetes are prohibited or restricted, and consider narrowing noncompetes or eliminating them for lower-paid roles to ensure that any restrictions are tailored to comply with state law.

Political Speech in the Workplace

While political speech has quieted some since the 2024 election, it’s likely to become a hot-button issue again ahead of the midterm elections. In the meantime, employers can and should enforce workplace conduct standards, but with the understanding that disciplining someone solely for off-duty political views can create legal risk. Now is a good time to revisit policies, remind managers to stay neutral, and consult counsel before taking action related to employees’ political expression.

Workplace rules are shifting — even if the changes aren’t always immediate. Staying informed and proactive is key. Reviewing policies now, with legal guidance, can help reduce risk and ensure compliance in an increasingly complex and rapidly changing employment landscape.

Patricia Lantzy is a partner and practice area lead for employment, labor and immigration at Outside General Counsel, LLP.