Daylight Savings starts March 9th: Set your clocks forward one hour Sunday morning, March 10^th. Daylight Saving Time was first proposed by George Vernon Hudson in 1895, and its use in the U.S. was first mandated during World War I. It was subsequently used on and off for years by various countries and U.S. states. Since the 1970s; however, it has mostly remained in effect in the U.S. and Europe. The salaries of exempt employees are not affected by Daylight Savings Time. As for non-exempt employees, employers will have to decide whether to pay those employees who are at work when the clock is set forward for this “lost” hour. They do not have to be paid for it since they did not actually work it. The employer may also have to decide whether the lost hour, if paid, will count toward overtime or not (it does not have to). However, an employer must also determine if the hour counts towards leave accrual. To get a copy of a poster,click here. 

Is succession planning for executives a priority today?  More than half of CxOs – C-suite leaders who report to the CEO, excluding the CHRO – say they are likely or extremely likely to leave their job in the next two years, according to a February 5th report by Gartner, Inc. Of those, 27% expected to leave in the next six months. Generally, leaders reported a greater workload than two years ago, the report found. Two in three of the 200 CxOs surveyed said they’ve been tasked with more responsibilities. That extra work is leading to extra stress, leaders say, with 44% reporting higher levels of stress. However, CHROs themselves may also be considering leaving organizations, according to an August report by Blu Ivy Group. An estimated 57% of CHROs and 75% of people leaders are thinking about leaving their roles in the next 8-12 months, the report found. That comes even as CHROs continue to play an increasingly important role as strategic leaders within organizations, according to a May report from iCIMS, a talent acquisition technology provider. Source: HR Dive 2/10/25

Are employees smuggling in AI tools for use? According to a survey by Software AG, half of all knowledge workers use personal AI tools.  The research defines knowledge workers as "those who primarily work at a desk or computer".  For some it's because their IT team doesn't offer AI tools, while others said they wanted their own choice of tools. The recent release of DeepSeek, a freely available AI model from China, is only likely to expand the AI options. Companies may be concerned about their trade secrets being exposed by the AI tool's answers, but Alastair Paterson, CEO and co-founder of Harmonic Security, thinks that's unlikely. "It's pretty hard to get the data straight out of these [AI tools]," he says.  However, firms will be concerned about their data being stored in AI services they have no control over, no awareness of, and which may be vulnerable to data breaches.  Therefore, HR should likely audit with IT if AI is being used by employees and ensure their AI policy is in place and followed.  Source: BBC 2/3/25

Mobley case against Workday trying to expand to age discrimination case: The Mobley v. Workday case started out as an AI discrimination case as Mobley claimed that every resume was rejected by the Workday system, some at 1 or 2 in the morning, based on artificial intelligence tools embedded in Workday.  Now, according to new filings with Mobley's case, he and four opt-in plaintiffs claimed to have submitted hundreds of applications to various employers that use Workday to screen applicants. Mobley and the others claimed that despite having the required qualifications, each application was denied, sometimes within hours of submission and late at night, demonstrating that no human was reviewing the resumes.  Source: Law360 2/7/25

In Canada, Affirmative Action is not dead: In Horne v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2024 HR 1788, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissed an application alleging that a job posting stating the successful candidate would be a “qualified woman” constituted discrimination in employment contrary to Ontario’s Human Rights Code (HRC). The HRTO agreed with the employer that its Employment Equity Plan (Plan) was a “special program” within the meaning of s. 14 of the HRC, which provides that the implementation of a special program “designed to relieve hardship or economic disadvantage or to assist disadvantaged persons or groups to achieve or attempt to achieve equal opportunity” does not constitute discrimination. The HRTO found the Plan was “designed to alleviate the historic and continuing under-representation of women in the workforce and the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women,” and other specified equity-seeking groups.  Source: Littler 2/7/25

EO 11246 dismantling by GSA with federal contracting:  On February 15, 2025, the director of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), in his capacity as chair of the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC), issued a CAAC Letter authorizing executive agencies to deviate from existing provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and procurement practices in order to implement President Trump’s Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity. This letter further clarifies the extent to which federal contractors are relieved from all obligations that applied under the now-revoked Executive Order 11246, including the maintenance of affirmative action programs for women and minorities and all related requirements established by the rules promulgated pursuant to Executive Order 11246. This includes:

1. FAR 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities;
2. FAR 52.222-22, Previous Contracts and Compliance Reports;
3. FAR 52.222-23, Notice of Requirement for Affirmative Action to Ensure Equal Employment Opportunity for Construction;
4. FAR 52.222-24, Pre-award On-Site Equal Opportunity Compliance Evaluation;
5. FAR 52.222-25, Affirmative Action Compliance;
6. FAR 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity;
7. FAR 52.222-27, Affirmative Action Compliance Requirements for Construction; and
8. FAR 52.222-29, Notification of Visa Denial.

A supplement to the CAAC letter provides that “[a]s of February 15, 2025, FAR clauses and provisions covered under E.O. 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, will no longer be enforced.”

Therefore, contractors and their subcontractors will not be held accountable for applying the FAR clauses or provisions outlined in FAR subpart 22.8 – Equal Employment Opportunity, or the associated provisions and clauses prescribed at FAR 22.810.

Source: Littler 2/20/25