Subscribe!
Women, Your Workplace Rights are Changing and Not for the Better – Mary T. O’Sullivan
by Mary T. O’Sullivan, MSOL, contributing writer on business and leadership
“[Recent Executive Orders] seek to roll back civil rights protections for historically marginalized groups in direct contravention of Congress’s intent. The New York City Bar Association stands against the reversal of these critical rights and calls on Congress and state and local governments to do the same.” – The New York Bar Association
In the wake of recent sweeping federal rollbacks of workplace protections, particularly those that impact women, states and courts have nobly begun pushing back on these dystopian measures. The new federal changes include withdrawing pay-data collecting rules, limiting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training and policies, narrowing pregnancy and accommodation protections, and loosening agency enforcement at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other agencies.
These are not only abstract regulatory adjustments; they remove tools women and their advocates have used to expose pay gaps, prevent harassment, obtain reasonable accommodations, and gain opportunities in male-dominated fields. The immediate effect is less job and pay transparency, weaker discrimination enforcement, and fewer supports from their places of work. These results, researchers and equal rights advocates agree, will make the traditional workplace disadvantages even worse for women.
Previous to January 20, 2025, the EEOC “pay-data” rule (EEO-1) required large employers to report detailed compensation data broken down by demographics: gender, race, and job category. The pause and eventual rescission (the revocation, cancellation, or repeal of a law, order, or agreement) of this rule removed an essential tool for exposing systemic pay disparities. Without employer data, systemic evidence becomes harder to gather in pay-discrimination lawsuits, making it more difficult for women, particularly women of color, to challenge years-long pay inequities.
Moreover, recent executive orders targeting DEI programs and weakening workplace responsibilities under Executive Order 11246 (enacted in 1965) have threatened to cut funding, penalize organizations maintaining “equity” initiatives, and rescind contractor affirmative-action requirements. However, many courts have criticized these actions. On Feb. 21, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Adam Abelson of the District Court of Maryland, issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the newest executive orders (EOs) that target diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. Judge Abelson held: “Vague laws invite arbitrary power.” His ruling is significant for women because many harassment-prevention, training, monitoring, and recruitment programs are written as organizational DEI initiatives. Reducing or eliminating these programs weakens protections against gender bias and harassment established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Also, new federal proposals and litigation have challenged expanded accommodations under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) for fertility, menstruation, menopause, or abortion-related conditions. In a Louisiana ruling, Judge David Joseph stated: “The PWFA does not expressly include abortion as a condition requiring accommodation.” This narrowing of accommodations threatens protections for pregnant workers and those undergoing fertility or menstruation or menopause related treatments, disproportionately affecting women’s health, job security, and workforce retention.
In addition, the firing of several critical EEOC commissioners, along with publicly unpopular changes to how certain EEOC claims are processed, and a decrease in the agency’s inclination engaging in investigations only weaken enforcement of the law. Since the 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted, these tools have existed for addressing classwide bias in hiring, pay, and promotion for women. Reducing or curtailing these enforcement mechanisms diminishes the once airtight federal safety net for women who are living with systemic institutional discrimination every day.
Because federal protections have been challenged or eliminated, many states have enacted or are proposing pay-transparency laws to protect against gender pay discrimination.
- New York: Employers with at least four employees must include salary ranges in external job postings and internal promotions/transfers.
- Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland: In 2025, these states are requiring salary ranges in job ads or annual reporting of wage data, covering most large employers.
- Hawaii, Vermont, Rhode Island: Wage disclosure laws are being phased in mid-2025 to increase pay transparency.
These state-level laws restore a portion of the intentions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that are now undermined by federal rollbacks. State laws will now provide women with useful data to uncover and report pay inequities. With federal abandonment, the states have become essential in preserving pay transparency and reinforcing legal recourse, demonstrating the critical role states play in protecting women in the workplace.
While we once considered the federal government’s job as protecting its citizens including women, these new federal rollbacks on pay transparency, DEI programs, and workplace accommodations obviously weaken women’s protections. State-level legislation, along with judicial pushback, are critical in maintaining the progress women have worked over many decades. Especially with Gen Z openly sharing what their paychecks and benefits look like, there is no point in hiding pay rates, despite federal attempts to halt reporting and curtail enforcement.
Federal and state Courts, advocacy groups, and many alert state legislators demonstrate that while federal rollbacks pose considerable threats to women’s equality, protections at multiple levels of government can preserve and protect workplace equity for women, as enshrined in the Constitution of the United States. Make sure you know your state legislator’s name, and let them know if systemic discrimination exists in your workplace.
[These rollbacks] “undermine obligations dating back to the Johnson administration” and “abandon a measure that has helped dismantle entrenched race and sex segregation in high-paying industries historically closed to women and Black and Brown workers”. – The ACLU
___
Connect with Mary:
Read all Mary’s columns here: https://rinewstoday.com/mary-t-osullivan-msol-pcc-shrm-scp/
Mary T. O’Sullivan, Master of Science, Organizational Leadership, International Coaching Federation Professional Certified Coach, Society of Human Resource Management, “Senior Certified Professional. Graduate Certificate in Executive and Professional Career Coaching, University of Texas at Dallas.
Member, Beta Gamma Sigma, the International Honor Society.
Advanced Studies in Education from Montclair University, SUNY Oswego and Syracuse University.
Mary is also a certified Six Sigma Specialist, Contract Specialist, IPT Leader and holds a Certificate in Essentials of Human Resource Management from SHRM.