Between the proposed rescission of EEO-1 reporting requirements and ongoing leadership shifts across federal contractor oversight agencies, it would be easy to assume the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is in a period of quiet. However, the agency’s June 4 release of a new National Enforcement Plan (NEP) puts that notion to rest.

The NEP is the agency’s foundational roadmap for how it deploys its enforcement and litigation resources. It reaches into every corner of EEOC operations—outreach and education, mediation and conciliation, investigation, and federal court litigation. When the EEOC publishes a new plan, it is telling employers, advocates, and legal practitioners alike what it will be looking for—and where it is willing to go to court.

For federal contractors, that signal is worth reading carefully.

What the NEP Is & What Changed

The EEOC’s new National Enforcement Plan replaces the FY 2024–2028 Strategic Enforcement Plan. The name change is not merely cosmetic. It reflects a deliberate repositioning of the document as an operational enforcement guide rather than a broader strategic framework.

In announcing the plan, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas described the document as sharpening the agency’s focus on protecting equal opportunity for all Americans by prioritizing intentional discrimination and ensuring every worker is treated as an individual under the law. The NEP reaffirms the agency’s three-pronged approach:

• prevention through education and outreach;
• voluntary resolution of disputes through Alternative Dispute Resolution, pre-determination settlements, and conciliation agreements;
• and strong, evenhanded enforcement and litigation.

The plan remains in effect until superseded, modified, or withdrawn by a majority vote of the Commission—so absent a change in agency composition or priorities, the priorities outlined here will guide EEOC activity through at least FY 2029.

The Enforcement Priorities Federal Contractors Should Note

The NEP identifies several categories of substantive enforcement priorities. Taken together, they paint a clear picture of where the EEOC intends to concentrate investigative and litigation resources:

• Cases with broader impact: The EEOC will prioritize matters that extend beyond the individual parties, including repeated, overt, or facially discriminatory policies and broad-based employment programs or practices that result in intentional discrimination. For contractors with enterprise-wide hiring systems, performance management frameworks, or AI-assisted screening tools, this is a meaningful signal.
• Supreme Court precedent and unresolved legal questions: The plan explicitly calls out cases involving recent Supreme Court decisions and unresolved issues of statutory interpretation, including conflicts among federal circuits. Given the significant employment discrimination rulings of recent years, contractors should expect the EEOC to actively test the boundaries of those decisions in litigation.
• Protecting vulnerable workers: Cases involving workers who may face heightened barriers to asserting their rights remain a stated priority. For contractors operating in industries with diverse, distributed, or contingent workforces, this warrants attention.
• Religious organizations and employers: The NEP’s appellate program will focus on cases that clarify constitutional and statutory limitations on liability for religious organizations and religious employers—a notable inclusion that aligns with broader themes of this administration’s approach to workplace religious protections, as we also saw in the appointment of OFCCP Director Kenneth J. Wolfe, who is serving in dual roles as both the Director of the Center for Faith and the Director of the OFCCP.
• Enforcement process integrity: The plan also prioritizes cases involving the effectiveness of the Commission’s own investigative and conciliation processes. Contractors should understand that delays, incomplete document production, or failure to engage meaningfully in conciliation can itself become a focus of agency attention.

What This Means for Federal Contractors

Federal contractors are subject to the EEOC’s authority just like any other private employer—and in many cases, their employment practices operate at a scale that makes them more likely to surface the kind of broad-based, systemic discrimination patterns the NEP explicitly targets.

Several practical considerations follow from this plan:

• Audit hiring and promotion policies for facially neutral practices with disparate impact. The NEP’s emphasis on broad-based policies affecting large groups of workers is a direct cue to review enterprise-wide employment practices—from job qualifications and screening criteria to compensation structures—for unintentional discrimination exposure.
• Document your conciliation engagement. The NEP’s emphasis on enforcement process integrity signals that the EEOC will be paying close attention to how employers respond during the charge investigation and conciliation phase. Contractors should ensure their HR and legal teams are responding thoroughly and in good faith to agency inquiries.
• Keep pace with Supreme Court developments. With the NEP explicitly directing resources toward cases shaped by recent high court precedent, contractors should work with counsel to understand how those rulings affect their current employment policies—particularly in the areas of disparate treatment and religious accommodations.

The EEOC’s National Enforcement Plan is a document worth bookmarking. It is not a new law, and it does not alter existing compliance obligations—but it tells federal contractors precisely where the agency intends to look, litigate, and set legal precedent for the next several years.

In a regulatory environment that has been anything but static, the NEP is a rare piece of clarity. HR compliance professionals should use it as a planning tool: map your highest-exposure employment practices against these stated priorities and address any gaps proactively, in consultation with in-house or external counsel.

DirectEmployers will continue monitoring EEOC developments and issuing updates as the agency’s enforcement activity evolves under this new plan. Members with questions are encouraged to connect with their Membership Team, engage with peers in the DE Connect discussion forum, or attend upcoming Member Office Hours for real-time HR compliance insights and support.

THIS COLUMN IS MEANT TO ASSIST IN A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CURRENT LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO OFCCP. IT IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS LEGAL ADVICE. COMPANIES OR INDIVIDUALS WITH PARTICULAR QUESTIONS SHOULD SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

The FY2027 Appropriations Bill shows a reduction of 27% of the Department of Labor (DOL) funding, with $0 allotted toward the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

On June 4, 2026, The House Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee markup of the FY2027 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (LHHS) Appropriations Bill represents the next significant legislative development in what has been an evolving federal contractor compliance landscape since early 2025. For HR compliance and talent acquisition professionals who have been navigating Affirmative Action Program (AAP) obligations, OFCCP audits, and the broader restructuring of the Department of Labor, this bill is worth monitoring closely—even as existing obligations remain unchanged today.

Here is a breakdown of the bill’s key provisions, what they mean for federal contractors, and the action steps your organization should take now.

Key Provisions at a Glance

• Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP): Elimination; The bill zeroes out all funding for the OFCCP, codifying President Trump’s Executive Order 14173 into appropriations law. This is consistent with actions already underway administratively, but congressional elimination would make reinstatement significantly more difficult for future administrations.
• Wage and Hour Division (WHD): ~$25M reduction; The bill matches the Administration’s budget request with a $25 million decrease to the WHD, which is responsible for enforcing FLSA, the Davis-Bacon Act, and other federal wage laws applicable to contractors.
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): ~$52M reduction; Occupational safety enforcement funding is reduced, though core inspection and enforcement functions are expected to continue at a reduced capacity.
• Total Department of Labor (DOL): Reduction of ~$3.7 billion (27%); The DOL’s overall discretionary funding drops from the FY2026 enacted level, reflecting a broad restructuring of the agency’s footprint.

Office of Federal Contractor Compliance Programs (OFCCP): Funding Eliminated

The bill’s most significant provision for federal contractors is the complete zeroing out of OFCCP’s budget, a step beyond the administrative and executive actions that have already substantially curtailed the agency’s operations over the past year.

Since January 2025, the OFCCP has undergone significant operational changes, including staff reductions and a series of leadership transitions, most recently the appointment of Kenneth J. Wolfe as OFCCP Director. Those changes have been administrative in nature. Congressional elimination via the appropriations process is a qualitatively different action: it would codify into law the removal of the agency that Congress itself created, making reinstatement by a future administration significantly more difficult.

Federal Contractor Takeaway: Do not interpret this proposal as a reason to wind down your Affirmative Action Programs. OFCCP’s audit authority under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) remains in place under current law, and your active contracts contain compliance obligations that are independent of OFCCP’s operational status. The appropriate posture is to continue maintaining your AAPs for veterans and individuals with disabilities, recordkeeping, and self-identification processes as required.

Wage and Hour Division (WHD): A $25M Reduction

The bill matches the Administration’s previously announced budget request with a $25 million reduction to the WHD. The WHD is the agency responsible for enforcing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Davis-Bacon Act, the Service Contract Act, and related federal wage requirements—all of which apply directly to federal contractors and their subcontractors.

While the reduction is notable, WHD enforcement activity has continued at a substantial pace in 2025 and 2026. The agency recently released a new series of FLSA Opinion Letters (FLSA2026-5 through FLSA2026-8) covering dual-role employee classification, overtime bonus calculations, meal break compensability, and timekeeping rounding practices—a clear signal that compliance assistance and enforcement remain active agency priorities regardless of budget pressure.

Federal Contractor Takeaway: A reduced WHD budget does not equate to reduced enforcement risk. Federal contractors with Davis-Bacon or Service Contract Act obligations on active projects should continue auditing their wage determinations, certified payroll submissions, and fringe benefit calculations as normal.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): Reduced Capacity, Continued Obligations

The bill proposes a $52 million reduction to OSHA’s enforcement budget. The subcommittee summary indicates that core inspection and enforcement functions are expected to continue, albeit at a reduced capacity. Federal contractors in industries with significant workplace safety obligations—construction, manufacturing, healthcare, and logistics, among others—should not interpret a funding reduction as a meaningful reduction in compliance exposure.

Federal Contractor Takeaway: Maintain your existing OSHA compliance programs, incident reporting procedures, and training schedules. State-plan OSHA programs, which govern a significant share of the workforce in many states, are separately funded and largely unaffected by this federal proposal.

What this Means for Federal Contractors Now

Continue maintaining your AAPs focused on veterans and individuals with disabilities, VEVRAA and Section 503 obligations, and recordkeeping as required under current law and any active contracts. Do not wind down compliance programs based on proposed—but not enacted—legislation.

In addition, the EEOC presents a parallel dynamic worth noting. The EEOC has requested increased funding for FY2027, yet its resources remain subject to the same congressional appropriations process described above. Employers should not interpret budget uncertainty—at the EEOC or anywhere across the DOL—as reduced enforcement risk. The EEOC remains an active enforcement agency with continued focus on systemic discrimination, workplace harassment, pay equity, and the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions. The underlying obligations under federal equal employment opportunity laws are unchanged regardless of how the appropriations process resolves. Now is an opportune time for organizations to assess their hiring, promotion, and pay practices, review AI-assisted employment tools for disparate impact exposure, and ensure governance frameworks are positioned to withstand scrutiny, whether or not agency budgets contract in FY2027.

For Members who have been navigating the EEO landscape, this bill represents the next step in what has been an evolving regulatory environment since January 2025. DirectEmployers has been tracking these developments closely and will provide updated guidance as the legislative process advances. As always, Members with questions are encouraged to reach out to their DirectEmployers Membership Team, utilize the peer discussion forum in in the DE Connect discussion forum, or attend upcoming Member Office Hours for real-time HR compliance insights and support.

THIS COLUMN IS MEANT TO ASSIST IN A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CURRENT LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO OFCCP. IT IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS LEGAL ADVICE. COMPANIES OR INDIVIDUALS WITH PARTICULAR QUESTIONS SHOULD SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

Reflecting on his career path, Administrator Rogers emphasized that while the agency will aggressively pursue willful violators who “cheat the system,” the vast majority of employers are doing their level best to get it right. He noted that the regulations enforce statutes written decades ago using language we don’t naturally use today.

The Department of Labor’s latest FLSA opinion letters provide guidance on dual-role employees, bonus calculations, meal-break considerations, and timekeeping practices.

“To bring those laws to people who need to actually apply them and abide by them, that’s the responsibility of the agency,” Rogers stated. “A fact sheet will give you a shortcut… but to answer a particular question, that’s the advantage of what the opinion letters provide.”

True to that vision, the WHD has released four major opinion letters (FLSA2026-5 through FLSA2026-8). These letters move past generalities to deliver binding, actionable guidance on complex everyday scenarios. Here is what HR compliance professionals need to know about the new perspectives.

Dual-Role Scheduling: Hourly Shifts for Salaried Exempt Workers

FLSA2026-5

The Issue: Can a bona fide white-collar exempt employee (under FLSA §13(a)(1)) pick up additional shifts in a secondary, non-exempt role paid at an hourly rate without losing their exempt status? If so, does the hourly work trigger overtime obligations on their primary salary?

The WHD Conclusion: Yes, this arrangement is entirely permissible, and it does not intrinsically trigger overtime requirements for the primary salary. The WHD clarified that an employer may pay a salaried exempt employee extra compensation on any basis—including hourly—without destroying the exemption, provided two ironclad conditions are met:

1. The employee’s primary duty over the course of the workweek remains the performance of exempt work (the WHD notes that spending more than 50% of their time on exempt tasks is a strong baseline indicator)./li>
2. The employee continues to receive their full, guaranteed base salary (minimum $684/week) regardless of the quantity or quality of the secondary work performed.

Employer Takeaway: Dual-role scheduling is a great way to solve staffing shortages (e.g., an exempt clinical specialist picking up extra weekend shifts as an hourly staff nurse). However, tracking is vital. You must maintain separate, meticulous time records for both roles to prove that the employee’s core “primary duty” didn’t quietly shift to non-exempt work over time.

Simplifying Bonus Calculations and Overtime Compliance

FLSA2026-6

The Issue: Does a quarterly bonus structure calculated by comparing an individual employee’s total earnings (both straight-time and overtime) against the aggregate total earnings of all bonus-eligible employees qualify as a “percentage of total earnings” bonus under 29 C.F.R. §778.210? Does it satisfy the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements simultaneously?

The WHD Conclusion: Yes. Under standard FLSA rules, when an employer pays a nondiscretionary bonus, they normally have to retroactively recalculate the employee’s “regular rate” for every single workweek in that quarter and pay a trailing overtime premium on the bonus. However, 29 C.F.R. §778.210 provides a mathematical shortcut: if a bonus is paid as a predetermined percentage of an employee’s total earnings (including both straight-time and overtime), the bonus automatically pays the overtime due on itself simultaneously. The WHD confirmed that using a ratio of individual-to-group total earnings meets this standard.

Employer Takeaway: This ruling validates a highly efficient math mechanism. By building both straight-time and overtime earnings directly into the baseline calculation of the bonus, you eliminate the administrative nightmare of retroactively recomputing the regular rate across historical weeks.

Unpaid Meal Breaks and the Logistics of Leaving the Premises

FLSA2026-7

The Issue: If an employer provides a standard 30-minute unpaid meal break, is the time an employee spends traversing a massive facility or passing through controlled security access gates to leave the property considered compensable work time?

The WHD Conclusion: No. The WHD re-anchored its guidance to the “predominant benefit” test. For a meal period to be non-compensable, the employee must simply be completely relieved from job duties for the purpose of eating. The WHD explicitly noted that regulations do not require employers to let employees leave the premises during a break, provided they are free from work tasks. Therefore, if an employee voluntarily chooses to go off-site, the transit time through secure gates and parking lots is for the employee’s benefit—not the employer’s—and does not convert a bona fide meal break into paid time.

Employer Takeaway: You are not penalized for having thorough physical security frameworks or expansive worksites. As long as your workers are genuinely off the clock and relieved of duties during their 30 minutes, you do not owe them compensation for the minutes it takes them to walk to their cars or travel offsite. Note: State laws can be more restrictive regarding meal break control; always verify local statutes.

Pre-Shift Activities, Rounding Policies, and the Flaw of “De Minimis”

FLSA2026-8

The Issue: Are mandatory or routine pre-shift activities (like hospital respiratory therapists logging in early to receive patient handoff reports and assignments) compensable? Can an employer use a “7-minute rounding rule” to automatically shift an early clock-in forward to the official shift start time?

The WHD Conclusion: The WHD drew a sharp line here, warning that this specific public hospital practice raised substantial non-compliance red flags.

1. Integral and Indispensable: Activities that are essential to safely executing core job duties—such as receiving critical patient handoffs—constitute compensable work the moment they occur. Waiting in line at a time clock is not compensable, but performing job-related prep is.
2. The Rounding Trap: Clock-rounding practices (e.g., rounding a 6:53 a.m. punch to 7:00 a.m.) are only lawful if they are facially neutral and average out over time. Because this hospital rounded early punches up to the start time while employees simultaneously performed actual work, the policy exclusively benefited the employer and resulted in underpayment.
3. No De Minimis Defense: The “de minimis” doctrine (ignoring negligible fractions of minutes) does not apply when the pre-shift work is regular, predictable, and easily capturable by modern electronic timekeeping systems.

Employer Takeaway: If your timekeeping system rounds time punches in a way that consistently shaves off minutes while employees are performing necessary prep work, your policy is structurally broken. Audit your operational floors: are employees performing “integral” tasks before their scheduled shift officially begins? If they are, they must be paid for every minute of it.

Following the June 2025 announcement of the return of Opinion Letters across five agencies, six additional Opinion Letters released in January 2026, focused on addressing and/or clarifying the following:

• FLSA2026-1: Whether an employee’s role meets the criteria for the learned professional exemption under section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA, and, if so, whether an employer is nevertheless permitted to reclassify the employee as non-exempt.
• FLSA2026-2: Whether section 7(e) of the FLSA permits an employer to exclude certain bonus payments from an employee’s regular rate of pay. The letter also addresses how to include these payments in the calculation of employee overtime premiums if the payments must be included in an employee’s regular rate of pay.
• FLSA2026-3: Whether a union and employer can enter into a collective bargaining agreement that mandates a 15-minute “roll call” prior to each scheduled shift but excludes that time when calculating overtime premiums under the FLSA.
• FLSA2026-4: Whether, for purposes of the overtime exemption for certain commissioned employees in section 7(i) of the FLSA, an employer in a jurisdiction in which the state minimum wage exceeds the federal minimum wage must use the federal minimum wage, or alternatively, the higher state minimum wage, to determine whether it has satisfied the minimum pay standard in section 7(i)(1), and whether tips are deemed compensation for purposes of section 7(i)(2)’s requirement that more than half the employee’s compensation consist of commissions.
• FMLA2026-1: How a school closure of less than a full week impacts the amount of leave a school employee uses under the FMLA.
• FMLA2026-2: Whether FMLA leave may be used for time spent traveling to or from medical appointments, including where an employee provided the employer with medical certification from a health care provider that confirms the employee’s need for the appointment, but the certification does not address travel to or from the appointment.

Next Steps for Employers

As Administrator Rogers highlighted at DEAMcon26, clear regulatory guidance gives businesses the predictability they need to plan their workforces with confidence. It also signals what the agency is looking at closely during audits.

In light of these four new opinion letters, HR professionals should proactively take the following actions:

• Review dual-role staff allocations to ensure exempt employees picking up hourly side shifts maintain their primary exempt duties.
• Audit automated rounding configurations in your timekeeping software to verify that they are operating neutrally and not stripping compensable pre-shift work.
• Confirm that nondiscretionary bonus plans are properly accounting for overtime calculations, or utilizing the validated total-earnings percentage shortcut.

With compliance assistance being the crux of support and guidance, Opinion Letters provide a powerful safe-harbor defense for employers who align their practices with the DOL’s documented interpretations in good faith. Take this opportunity to review your current payroll and break policies with your in-house or external legal counsel to ensure your organization is completely aligned with these updated federal standards.

Do you have questions? Employers are encouraged to request an Opinion Letter, first selecting the topic ranging from Wage and Hour, Workplace Safety and Health, Workplace Retirement and Health Benefits, Mine Safety and Health, and veteran and service member employment.

THIS COLUMN IS MEANT TO ASSIST IN A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CURRENT LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO OFCCP. IT IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS LEGAL ADVICE. COMPANIES OR INDIVIDUALS WITH PARTICULAR QUESTIONS SHOULD SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

Overview of Section 503 & Its Relationship to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

I view Section 503 compliance as an enhanced extension of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). While Section 503 is specifically geared toward organizations with government contracts of $20,000 or more, its provisions offer significant guidance that is applicable to employers seeking greater inclusion of individuals with disabilities.

Audit & Review Process

Section 503 regulations require certain activities, which have historically been audited by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). Although Section 503 Focused Reviews previously occurred, a limited number of federal contractors experienced these specific audits. However, for those who had OFCCP compliance evaluations, a portion of the audit was focused on Section 503 compliance as part of an affirmative action review. Fast-forward to 2025/2026, while no compliance evaluations have been issued, the obligations of Section 503 still remain firmly in place.

Disability Inclusion & Benchmarking

Beyond government audits, many organizations have participated in benchmarking efforts. These include completing the Disability Inclusion Blueprint managed by the National Organization on Disability (NOD) and the Disability Index managed by Disability:IN, formerly known as the United States Business Leadership Network (USBLN). Additionally, Fair360, formerly known as Diversity Inc, places emphasis on disability inclusion benchmarking as a portion of their top employer listings for many years. These benchmarks allow organizations to monitor their disability inclusion efforts and improve employment outcomes by comparing data from 150+ others across various industries.

Changes in Practice & the Importance of Review

Over the past year, many disability benchmarking practices have been discontinued or paused for the time being. Several of these initiatives were valuable, offering benchmarking data and recommended best practices for federal contractors subject to Section 503 requirements. To be clear, the revocation of Executive Order 11246, directly affecting affirmative action for women and minorities, did not remove the affirmative action requirements for Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act or the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) as amended. Those efforts should still be ongoing without a lapse in efforts.

Recommendations for Employers

Amidst the changing landscape, employers should pause to review their past compliance efforts in the disability compliance space, and consider how to maintain and/or strengthen their commitment to disability inclusion moving forward, prior to OFCCP establishing revised compliance review protocols. Consider an internal review of your Section 503 compliance.

Experience Managing Diversity Disability Inclusion & Section 503 Compliance

Key areas employers should evaluate as part of an ongoing Section 503 compliance and disability inclusion strategy.

Over the years, I have managed diversity and disability inclusion programs and overseen Section 503 compliance efforts, while also participating in more than 100 audits throughout the process. This experience provided valuable insights and practical tips that proved effective in not only achieving Section 503 compliance but also assisting with integrating disability inclusion as a key component of the organization’s broader inclusion strategies. The following actionable efforts and recommendations I found to be particularly useful throughout my career, and I encourage you to consider adapting or adopting them to strengthen your own organization’s approach to disability inclusion.

Maintain Confidential Handling of Disability Self-ID (Form CC-305) Data

Use Self-ID information for government reporting purposes only. Limit access to individuals supporting Section 503 compliance and those with a strict need-to-know basis, and clearly communicate that Self-ID is not the same as disability disclosure. Where appropriate, analyze progress toward the 7% utilization goal company-wide and ensure the required re-survey/invitation cadence is maintained. If you still maintain job groups, you may continue to monitor and review the percentage in that manner. The requirement is to conduct a re-survey every five years. Organizations that are disability friendly over the years have conducted large corporate campaigns to encourage self-ID. I’m a believer and many have confirmed that it’s best not to conduct a disability self-ID campaign aligned with open enrollment, which may discourage self-ID with the assumption the data may be used to increase benefit costs in the future. Consider combining your campaign with the collection of other data you may need, like veteran status. Based on the revocation of Executive Order 11246 I would suggest not including race and gender surveys. Although the current CC305 used to collect self identification information for individuals with disabilities is expired, in the past the OFCCP allowed federal contractors to utilize it until renewed. It’s anticipated that the form will be renewed by OMB once again so watch closely to ensure once approved you are using the updated form.

Establish End-to-End Accommodation Support Across the Employee Lifecycle

Take effort to ensure the accommodation process is communicated throughout the organization to include the applicant phase, onboarding, and ongoing employment. Conduct periodic reviews of accommodations requested, granted, and denied; ensure managers understand when the interactive process is triggered; and provide annual training. Make sure your HR team and managers are familiar with the process and know who to contact when they have questions.

A successful accommodation strategy extends beyond hiring to include workplace adjustments, ongoing support, and opportunities for professional growth.

Engage with Disability-Focused Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) with Appropriate Governance

If your organization has a disability-focused employee resource group (ERG) or business resource group (BRG), try to engage with them and join as a member. When a discussion among the group has compliance implications, and it will, you can address them along the way and assist early to ensure items requiring further discussion or review are mapped to an appropriate HR member or legal, as needed. These groups should be cautioned not to use their forum to bypass established HR policies or practices, and should make it clear that they are open to all employees, regardless of disability status.

Provide Disability Etiquette Training

Offer training that builds practical understanding of disabilities for employees and co-workers, leveraging credible resources and emphasizing that disabilities vary; reinforce respectful practices to reduce risk of complaints. Use learning in the disability space to increase inclusion!

Build Partnerships with National & Local Disability Organizations

Attend disability-focused conferences and webinars and subscribe to receive the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) alerts. ODEP is an agency within the Department of Labor, however they are not an enforcement agency. They are an agency that provides a plethora of information focused on individuals with disabilities, as well as disability policies, and practices. Combined with ODEP, you may also leverage another disability-focused partner resource, the Job Accommodation Network (JAN). Both will assist you in understanding multiple types of disabilities and stay current on effective practices and policies. Confirm digital accessibility across systems and vendors. Ensure the organization’s website, applicant tracking system, products/services, and key vendor platforms meet the ADA and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) accessibility requirements. In addition, verify that your stakeholders, subsequent subcontractors, and vendors understand both Section 503 and Section 508 obligations.

Review Job Requirements on a Defined Cadence

Periodically evaluate job descriptions and qualification standards to confirm that all your job descriptions and postings include occupational requirements which are current, relevant to the position, and non-exclusionary without reason. Revise outdated language which could create unnecessary barriers for individuals with disabilities. For example, “Must be able to lift 50 pounds.” Unless the core responsibilities of the job require the candidate to lift 50 pounds or more, consider changing the job description requirement to a range much like the following, “Minimally must lift 25 pounds without assistance; may lift over 25 pounds with or without assistance.”

If you have any questions regarding the information provided above or wish to learn more about my experience managing over 100 audits, which included Section 503 compliance requirements, I am available to discuss these topics in greater detail, and provide insights as to your specific instance. I welcome you to use the insights shared here to develop a program tailored to your needs.

For further details on Section 503, DirectEmployers offers several resources available in DE Connect, as well as past blog posts to provide guidance:

• What is Section 503? How Do I Comply as a Contractor?
• An interactive Section 503 checklist of best practices (downloadable PDF available)>
• Jurisdictional Threshold Update for Section 503, as of 2026

In addition to being the “gold standard in VEVRAA compliance” DirectEmployers also offers a suite of solutions for Section 503 outreach and support—all as part of its Membership. From job delivery to vocational rehabilitation counselors around the country to an in-house certified ADA coordinator, Michelle Krefft, who can provide guidance program reviews, assistance and insights to help you further develop your disability inclusion programs.

National Disability Employment Awareness Month (NDEAM)

Finally, make sure to mark your calendars for this year’s National Disability Employment Awareness Month (NDEAM)! During the month of October, the Office of Disability Policy (ODEP) will once again be “Celebrating Value and Talent,” carrying the spirit of last year’s celebration forward through 2026 in honor of America’s 250th birthday. Stay tuned for more from DirectEmployers on how you can celebrate alongside us!

The answer is more valuable than many employers realize. Community-based organizations are not just compliance resources. They are active bridges between employers and talent—talent that is skilled, motivated, and often overlooked by traditional recruiting channels. For federal contractors in particular, building authentic partnerships with CBOs can transform the way you source candidates, strengthen your employer brand in local communities, and fulfill your legal obligations in a way that actually moves the needle forward, without adding extra work to your plate. Sounds like a win–win, right?

Let’s dive into what CBOs are, how federal contractors can engage with them meaningfully, and why nationwide outreach through tools like DirectEmployers’ Local Job Distribution offer a strategic advantage in talent acquisition and compliance.

What Is a Community-Based Organization (CBO)?

A community-based organization (CBO) is a nonprofit or non-governmental organization that provides educational, employment, or related services and support within a specific community or geographic area. These organizations are built around a singular purpose: helping individuals who face barriers to employment gain the skills, resources, and connections they need to secure sustainable work.

Community-based organizations help connect employers with local talent through workforce support, training, outreach, and employment readiness programs.

What makes CBOs especially relevant to federal contractors is their role in workforce development. CBOs don’t just counsel job seekers. They partner with employers to align training programs with real labor market needs, facilitate job placements, organize hiring events, and advocate for broader hiring practices. They bring labor market insight from the community side of the equation, which is something no job board or staffing agency can fully replicate.

CBOs commonly serve populations that overlap with federal contractors’ outreach and hiring priorities, including:

• Protected veterans, including disabled veterans and recently separated service members
• Individuals with disabilities, as covered under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act

Or other organizations supporting:

• Women, particularly in industries and roles where they are historically underrepresented
• Minorities, again particularly in industries and roles where they are historically underrepresented
• Individuals reentering the workforce, including those transitioning from incarceration or long-term unemployment

When you engage with a CBO, you’re not just accessing a referral network. You’re connecting with an organization that has spent years building trust within a community, and that trust extends to the candidates they connect you with, helping build your recruitment brand presence further in local communities.

How Federal Contractors Can Engage with CBOs

Understanding what CBOs are is one thing. Knowing how to work with them effectively is where the real value lies. There are several practical pathways federal contractors can use to build meaningful CBO partnerships.

1. Start with a Relationship, Not a Transaction

The most common mistake employers make when approaching CBOs is treating the relationship as purely transactional. Sending a job listing and expecting referrals in return is a common misstep for example. CBOs are community organizations first. They need to know that your company is a trustworthy employer who will treat their clients with respect and provide genuine opportunities.

This is where relationship building comes into play. Start by introducing yourself. Reach out to the CBO’s workforce development staff or employment program coordinator to understand who they serve, what their placement goals look like, and what they need from employer partners. Ask how you can be a resource to them, not just the other way around.

2. Share Job Opportunities Consistently & Accessibly

One of the most direct ways to work with a CBO is to ensure they receive your job openings in a timely, accessible format. This means more than forwarding a careers page URL. It means distributing job information in a way that CBO staff can quickly share with clients—clear job titles, inclusive descriptions, accessible application instructions, and a point of contact when questions arise.

Local Job Distribution helps employers extend opportunities across local workforce networks and community organizations nationwide.

This is where technology can make a meaningful difference. DirectEmployers’ Local Job Distribution tool enables Member employers to distribute job opportunities directly to a growing directory of local CBOs across the country. Rather than manually identifying and contacting individual CBOs, DirectEmployers Partnership team has already done the heavy lifting to find CBOs and provide accurate, up-to-date contact information. The tool does the heavy lifting,  distributing your open jobs to vetted local organizations that serve veterans, individuals with disabilities, and other underrepresented job seekers, leaving you to add the human-factor and relationship building efforts into the mix. It’s a scalable way to get your opportunities into the hands of the CBO staff and counselors who can connect you with qualified candidates.

3. Establish Linkage Agreements

Once you’ve identified a CBO partner and begun building a relationship, the next step is formalizing it. That’s where linkage agreements come in, and they’re simpler than the name might suggest.

Linkage agreements are documented recruiting partnerships between federal contractors and the CBO that support outreach to protected groups. These partnerships help contractors further demonstrate commitment to and proactive outreach efforts under Section 503 and VEVRAA requirements. In practice, linkage agreements support candidate referrals, recruiting events, workforce partnerships, and broader outreach efforts beyond standard job postings and conversations.

A linkage agreement does not require a complicated legal contract, but rather in practice, it is often:

• A memorandum of understanding (MOU)
• An email exchange confirming partnership and continued connection
• A documented recruiting relationship or commitment
• Participation in coordinated referral programs

Evidence is a key element of an ongoing relationship intended to increase outreach to protected groups, and a linkage agreement can serve as a solid foundation to illustrate the contractor’s efforts to connect with CBOs and varying communities

While the linkage agreement can serve as proof of relationship and outreach efforts, federal contractors should also continue evaluating whether these relationships are effective and are continuing to produce meaningful engagement or recruiting results.

4. Participate in CBO-Led Events

Job fairs, hiring events, career readiness workshops, and community resource days are a staple of CBO programming. These events give employers a face-to-face opportunity to engage with job seekers in a setting where candidates already feel supported and prepared. Showing up consistently, not just once, signals to both the CBO and the community that your commitment is genuine.

Many CBOs also host employer panels, where HR professionals and hiring managers share insight on how to navigate the application process, what skills are in demand, and what workplace culture looks like at your organization. These engagements build your employer brand within communities that may not have previously considered your company as a place to work.

5. Collaborate on Workforce Development and Training

Some of the most impactful CBO partnerships go beyond recruiting. Federal contractors with recurring talent needs in specific roles, like skilled trades, technology, healthcare support, and logistics, for example, can work directly with CBOs to co-develop or sponsor training programs that prepare candidates for those exact positions. This kind of sector-based partnership creates a genuine talent pipeline, not just a one-time referral relationship.

When you invest in training and workforce readiness, you also invest in retention. Candidates who enter your workforce through CBO-supported pathways often arrive with stronger soft skills, clearer expectations, and deeper community ties—all factors that contribute to longer tenure and greater workplace integration.

6. Document Your Outreach Efforts

For federal contractors, documentation of outreach is not optional, it’s a regulatory requirement. Under the Vietnam Era Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, contractors must conduct outreach to organizations serving veterans and individuals with disabilities, and they must be able to demonstrate those efforts if audited by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

Platforms like DirectEmployers’ Partner Relationship Manager (PRM) allow you to centralize, track, and document all of your outreach activities in one place—logging interactions, communications, and job distributions in a format that supports compliance reporting and demonstrates activity and outreach actions taken by your team. When outreach is well-documented, it not only satisfies regulatory requirements; it also helps you evaluate which partnerships are generating the most value over time.

Why Nationwide CBO Outreach Matters: More Than Compliance, It’s a Competitive Advantage

It’s easy to frame CBO outreach as a compliance obligation and stop there. But federal contractors who take that narrow view are leaving significant business value on the table.

Access to Talent You Won’t Find Anywhere Else

The candidates who come through CBO networks are often invisible to traditional recruiting channels. They may not be actively searching job boards, attending industry networking events, or following your company on LinkedIn. But they are skilled, motivated, and ready to work—they simply need a connection point, and CBOs provide exactly that.

When you distribute your jobs through CBO networks, you reach talent pools that your competitors likely aren’t accessing. That’s a real edge in tight labor markets.

Expanding Your Employer Brand Beyond Traditional Channels

Employer branding is often thought of in terms of digital presence, think careers sites, LinkedIn profiles, Glassdoor reviews, recruitment marketing efforts, and more. But brand visibility in local communities is equally powerful, especially for positions that draw from regional talent. When a CBO casually mentions your company as a good employer to work for, that word-of-mouth carries enormous weight with the people they serve.

DirectEmployers’ Local Job Distribution tool helps you extend your brand reach into community networks that digital advertising simply doesn’t penetrate. As your jobs circulate through local organizations, your company name becomes familiar territory in communities where you may be actively hiring, but previously unknown as an employer.

Equitable Hiring Is Good Business

There is a growing body of evidence that teams composed of people from different backgrounds and environments outperform homogenous ones on key performance indicators, such as innovation, problem-solving, customer satisfaction, and employee retention among them. Hiring through CBO networks isn’t a charitable act; it’s a talent strategy rooted in sound business logic, helping you create a team that is reflective of the community where you are located.

Federal contractors are in a unique position to model these hiring practices at scale. The obligations established by VEVRAA and Section 503 exist precisely because Congress and federal regulators recognized that without proactive effort, systemic barriers prevent qualified candidates from accessing opportunities. Meaningful CBO engagement is how you turn policy intent into hiring reality, using tools like the Partner Relationship Manager (PRM) to help you track and measure your successes.

National Reach with Local Relevance

One of the real challenges for large federal contractors hiring across multiple states and regions is maintaining consistent, locally relevant outreach. What works in one city may not translate to another. CBOs are inherently local. They know their communities, their candidates, and their regional labor markets in ways that a centralized HR team cannot replicate.

What Happened

On May 14, 2026, the EEOC formally submitted a proposed rule to OIRA—titled Rescission of EEO-1, EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5, and Reporting Requirements Under Title VII, the ADA, GINA, and the PWFA—signaling the administration’s intent to end annual employer demographic data reporting requirements that have been in place since 1966.

The proposal covers not just the EEO-1 (private employers and federal contractors) but also reports filed by labor unions, state and local governments, and public school systems. The submission follows reported pressure from White House Budget Director Russell Vought, who raised concerns that EEOC’s reporting practices conflicted with executive orders directing federal agencies to end DEI programs and to recognize only biological sex in federal data collection.

Where the Process Stands

OIRA now has up to 90 days to review the proposal for consistency with presidential priorities and legal requirements. If approved, the EEOC would then need to publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register and open a 60-day public comment period before any final rule could take effect.

This procedural timeline is important to note. Current federal regulation (29 C.F.R. Part 1602) requires employers to file EEO-1 reports by September 30 each year. For the rescission to relieve employers of this year’s obligation, the entire rulemaking process—from the OIRA review and  Federal Register publication to the comment period and final rule—would need to be completed well ahead of that deadline.

Note: In 2019, when the first Trump administration attempted to discontinue the Component 2 pay data collection, a federal court compelled the EEOC to proceed. A similar legal challenge to any attempt to bypass full rulemaking procedures this cycle is a real possibility.

Implications for Federal Contractors

Federal contractors should be aware of several contractor-specific dimensions of this development:

1. The EO 11246 Connection: The rescission of Executive Order 11246 in early 2025 eliminated the lower 50-employee EEO-1 filing threshold that applied exclusively to federal contractors. Federal contractors are now subject to the same 100-employee threshold as all other private employers. Contractors with 50–99 employees who previously filed are no longer required to do so under this regulatory framework.
2. OFCCP Oversight Continues: The EEOC’s proposal does not affect OFCCP’s audit authority under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act or VEVRAA. OFCCP recently named Kenneth J. Wolfe as its third director in just over a year, and pending regulatory actions, including proposed changes to Section 503 and VEVRAA self-identification forms, remain active. Contractors should not interpret reduced EEO-1 reporting obligations, if they materialize, as a broader reduction in federal contractor compliance exposure.
3. EEOC Enforcement Posture Remains Active: As we reported in March 2026, the EEOC has demonstrated a willingness to use employer workforce composition data— including EEO-1 data already on file—in investigating alleged discriminatory employment practices, including unlawful DEI programs. The existence of historical EEO-1 records does not disappear with rescission of the future reporting requirement.
4. Recordkeeping Obligations Remain: Even if EEO-1 reporting is ultimately eliminated, Title VII’s recordkeeping requirements remain in force. The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP) require employers to maintain demographic data sufficient to assess disparate impact. Discontinuing demographic data collection at hire would create significant legal exposure.

Actionable Next Steps

Continue EEO-1 data preparation. Employers should proceed as if the 2026 filing will go forward. This means ensuring you have clean employee-level data—EEO-1 job category, race/ethnicity, sex, and establishment information—drawn from a pay period in October, November, or December 2025.

Do not stop collecting workforce demographic data. Regardless of how EEO-1 reporting ultimately resolves, UGESP recordkeeping obligations and potential state law requirements mean demographic data collection should continue uninterrupted.

Audit state-level obligations. States including California, Illinois, and Massachusetts have independent reporting requirements tied to employee demographic data. Massachusetts law currently requires employers to submit their most recent EEO-1 report; if federal reporting is eliminated, that statute may be modified—but until it is, state obligations stand. Other states may move to fill any federal reporting gap.

Monitor the OIRA review docket. The proposal is publicly visible at reginfo.gov (OIRA Action ID 1382263).

What to Watch For

• OIRA Approval & Timing: The 90-day review clock runs through approximately mid-August. Any decision to expedite the review, or to pursue alternative procedural pathways, could accelerate or complicate the timeline.
• A Potential 2026 Filing Announcement: If EEOC intends to proceed with the 2025 data collection cycle, it would need to publish a proposed instruction booklet and open the filing portal. As of today, neither has occurred; by this date last year, both were already in process.
• Litigation: Any attempt to cancel the 2026 filing without completing formal rulemaking would likely face legal challenge, as it did in 2019.
• Congressional Review Act: Should a final rule rescinding EEO-1 be published, Congress could act under the CRA to overturn it, though a presidential veto and the high threshold to override it make that outcome unlikely under current conditions.

With this new alert on the horizon, DirectEmployers continue to monitor the regulatory landscape and issue updates as developments arise. Members with questions about EEO-1 compliance or related federal contractor obligations are encouraged to reach out to their Directemployers Membership Team for support and compliance resources, utilize the discussion forum to connect with HR compliance peers, or RSVP to attend the upcoming Member Office Hours located in DE Connect.

THIS COLUMN IS MEANT TO ASSIST IN A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CURRENT LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO OFCCP. IT IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS LEGAL ADVICE. COMPANIES OR INDIVIDUALS WITH PARTICULAR QUESTIONS SHOULD SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

The Home Stretch Delivered–Winding Down a Whirlwind Conference

April 17th marked the close of the conference, but this year’s sessions had a specific gravitational pull. The coffee hits differently, the room is a little smaller, and the people still in their seats by Friday morning are the ones who showed up for the work, not the schedule. At DEAMcon26, that gravitational pull held. Four sessions—spanning talent sourcing, pay equity compliance, the future of job search, and a forward-looking legal synthesis that sent attendees home with more on their to-do lists than they’d arrived with—made the final morning in Indianapolis as dense and actionable as anything that had come before it.

Is Search Relevant? Brian Fink Says Yes—and It’s Still Free

Brian Fink, Managing Partner at The ReWork Group and powerhouse former recruiter at X, McAfee and others, opened day three with a session that was equal parts classroom, stand-up comedy, and live demo—and walked out having given every talent acquisition lead in the room a suite of sourcing tools that cost exactly nothing. His thesis: search is not dead, it’s just been ceded to LinkedIn and Indeed by practitioners who stopped being curious, and you can take it back right now, on your phone, even.

The demonstration centered on Google’s Custom Search Engine (CSE) tool, which any Gmail user can build to scrape publicly available data from any combination of websites—LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok (even without an account!), niche professional communities—filtered by geography, language, and refinements built from Boolean strings. Fink built one live on stage titled “DEAMcon 2026,” adding refinements for email addresses, underrepresented groups (filtered by professional association language rather than protected characteristics), open-to-work signals, and female leadership language. The total cost: free. The audience reaction when search results populated: audible.

His sourcing pitch for Instagram was equally concrete. “I can type, ‘site:Instagram.com “@gmail.com” job engineer’ and pull out all the Java engineers who have posted their email address on Instagram. Instead of coming to them and saying hey, check your LinkedIn, I can say hey, I love what you are doing in Bali—do you have a minute to talk?” He wasn’t dismissing AI. He was situating it honestly: the paid AI tools returned one neonatal nurse profile when asked. His custom search engine returned dozens, with contact information, for free.

The room’s one burning question—can we drop LinkedIn?—got a characteristically direct answer. Job slots are now inundated with AI-generated applications; LinkedIn’s own verification layer is a tacit admission that the volume problem is real. The value, if it exists, is narrowing. “It is not a Louis Vuitton bag,” Fink said. “The price keeps going up and the scarcity thing—I don’t buy it.”

Pay Equity Is Not Optional, and Never Was

Meredith Gregston of DLA Piper and Craig Leen of K&L Gates shifted the focus to pay equity, one that served as both a history lesson and forward strategy for a regulatory landscape that has shifted dramatically in form but not at all in underlying legal obligation.

The foundation hasn’t moved: the Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits wage discrimination based on sex for substantially equal work. Title VII adds disparate treatment, disparate impact, and protected classes well beyond sex. What has changed is the enforcement architecture around those laws, and the stakes attached to ignoring them. Leen was characteristically precise, reminding attendees that, “This is still the area of greatest latent liability for American employers.” The deemphasis on disparate impact from the current EEOC doesn’t eliminate the risk—EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas acknowledged the agency dropped exactly one case because of the deemphasis, and the statistical analyses that identify disparate impact also identify disparate treatment pattern-and-practice. The methodology doesn’t change; the legal theory used to pursue it does.

Gregston walked through the state law matrix, an intricate patchwork of protected categories, comparator definitions, compensation definitions, and affirmative defenses that varies enough to make a one-size-fits-all compliance approach genuinely impossible. Colorado and California remain the most restrictive benchmarks, yet New Jersey and Massachusetts are closing the gap. For multistate employers, the practical answer is to adopt the most restrictive standard everywhere, document the decision, and build a regular annual cadence of compensation analysis. “If you are really risk-averse,” Gregston said, “those analyses look very different than a company just doing a quick compliance check.”

Leen’s False Claims Act tie-in completed the circuit that had been building across three days: employers who sign government contracts certifying compliance with federal antidiscrimination law—including the Equal Pay Act—and who cannot demonstrate they have assessed their compensation practices are exposed to the same deliberate ignorance standard that applies to DEI certification. “You absolutely should be doing this under privilege,” he said. “And the world has changed, this is not going to go away. You need to have comprehensive compensation analysis programs in place even more now.”

Two moments from the Q&A crystallized the operational stakes. First, pay transparency: putting language in an offer letter that says compensation is confidential is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act, not just state pay transparency statutes, and has been since the 1980s. “Bless your heart if you think you can still do that,” Gregston said. Second, on the question of whether Colorado’s stance that remote job postings trigger pay transparency obligations regardless of location is enforceable: both panelists were skeptical anyone would litigate it, but neither would recommend testing that hypothesis.

Your Jobs Belong in ChatGPT: Here’s Why Today Is Already Late

Mikhil Raja, CEO of SonicJobs, and James Winfrey, Director of Enterprise Partnerships, delivered the session most likely to change what someone authorizes in their next budget cycle. Their argument was structural, historical, and urgent in equal measure.

100 million Americans use ChatGPT every week. Globally, it’s now 900 million weekly users, a number that was 800 million when the SonicJobs team finalized their slides the previous Saturday. It has grown to this scale five times faster than Google did at its peak. And here is the thing that should focus every talent acquisition leader in the room: the mistake employers made with Google—ceding the default search result to Indeed for fifteen years and paying billions of dollars to buy back traffic to their own jobs—is about to happen again, right now, and the window to be first is measured in months, not years.

The mechanism SonicJobs has built with OpenAI is a ChatGPT app that allows employers to be the direct, branded answer when candidates search for jobs, explicitly (searching “show me pharmacy jobs five miles from CVS Health”) or implicitly (searching for jobs generally, where default answers are trained on prior explicit behavior). The difference from Google is the incentive structure: ChatGPT’s revenue is subscription-based, not click-based, which means it actively wants brands engaging early and deeply to drive outcome quality for users. “They want to engage the brands as early as possible,” Raja said. “They want people not just to have clicks but to have actual answers and outcomes.”

The week of DEAMcon26 itself was the product’s public coming-out: US Secret Service live, Johns Hopkins Hospitals live, Spectrum and ChristianaCare and Great Clips launching the following week. The compliance question—what data is captured?—was answered directly. Only public job description data flows into the platform; candidates are routed to the employer’s career site for application; no personally identifiable information (PII) is captured. For federal contractors with elevated security concerns, the apply-on-ChatGPT functionality is optional; brand presence and implicit search indexing still apply.

The internal sell, for those facing skeptical CFOs and team leaders, was perhaps the most useful moment. Ask your children how often they use ChatGPT versus Google. Then calculate your Indeed spend over the last fifteen years and project it forward unchanged. “If I were going to advise you not to do anything,” Raja said, “your search is going to go to someone else. And that someone else is Indeed.”

Charting the Course: The Closing Session Nobody Wanted to End

Josh Roffman and Alissa Horvitz of Roffman Horvitz, PLC, and Mickey Silberman of Silberman Law PC, took the final session and used it the way three experienced practitioners use forty-five minutes of earned attention: they synthesized three days of conference content into a set of forward-looking obligations nobody in the room could claim not to have heard.

On AI, Silberman surfaced the gap that will define employer liability for years: the 4/5ths rule that most AI vendors use to claim their tools are “bias free” is practically superseded by the two-standard-deviation statistical significance test that courts and enforcement agencies apply. “You will have big numbers,” Silberman said. “You will have not two or three standard deviations. You will have five, six, seven, nine, ten.” The tool may show females performing at 95% of the male rate and still fail the legal standard by thirty standard deviations. The vendor doesn’t tell you this. You need legal in the room before procurement, not after.

One line from the session will likely travel well beyond Indianapolis: “It is bias free because it only has adverse impact against whites.” That was Silberman describing an actual vendor response he received. “That seventeen million from IBM,” he said, “will be pennies on the dollar of what is coming.” The room went quiet.

On DEI program auditing, the “stop and swap” test was offered as a practical heuristic: if you replace the group in question with the traditional majority group and the result feels obviously unlawful, your current program carries meaningful risk. Diverse slates are clearly out. Programs and events limited to a single protected group—including otherwise well-intentioned events like female-only leadership retreats, as EEOC’s recent Coca-Cola distributor suit illustrated—require redesign, not removal. The reframe is that diversity as a concept survives; it just needs to mean breadth of background, perspective, education, and experience rather than protected category headcount.

On VEVRAA and Section 503, Roffman was unambiguous: the written assessment of outreach effectiveness is still required, regardless of what OFCCP is or isn’t auditing right now. 

Congressional budget cycles have continued to fund the agency, and the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Labor (DOL) will carry that compliance function forward regardless of what it’s named (See the proposed Budget for the U.S. Government for Fiscal Year 2027 for more information). Midterm elections later this year may accelerate the enforcement posture significantly.

And on data analytics, Horvitz made the final practical appeal of the conference: do not drop candidate dispositions from your ATS. “I am begging you as a lawyer,” she said, “When the EEOC—the same EEOC that has nominally deemphasized disparate impact—requests all applicant data for all Illinois locations of a food service company, as it did two weeks before this conference, your organization’s ability to defend itself is entirely dependent on the quality of its contemporaneous records.”

DEAMcon26 began with a 25-year origin story and ended with a forward-facing action list that runs at least twelve items deep. The regulatory environment will keep evolving. AI will keep accelerating. The talent market will keep demanding authenticity at scale. What this community has, and what two and a half days in Indianapolis made visible again—is the institutional knowledge, the peer relationships, and the collective will to navigate all of it together. Watch our conference highlight reel below to relive the hype!

As a closing note of the conference, attendees learned that next year’s event will be held in Newport, Rhode Island, April 21-23, 2027. If you’re ready to share your successes, learning moments, and growth in compliance, talent acquisition or even AI-readiness as related to HR, we’re all ears! Submit your proposals to speak, running now through August 15th!

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has entered a new chapter. Following the recent departure of Director Ashley Romanias on May 1, 2026, the Department of Labor (DOL) has appointed Kenneth J. Wolfe as the new Director of the agency.

For federal contractors, this marks the third leadership change in roughly a year—a trend that naturally raises questions about the agency’s future enforcement priorities and regulatory direction.

Who is Kenneth J. Wolfe?

Director Wolfe is a career public servant with extensive experience within the federal government. He joins the OFCCP leadership while simultaneously maintaining his role as the Director of the Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives (Center for Faith) at the DOL.

His professional background highlights a strong focus on public affairs and organizational leadership:

• Department of Labor Experience: Since June 2025, Wolfe has led the Center for Faith, where he focused on promoting religious freedom in the workplace and increasing grant opportunities for faith-based organizations.
• HHS Tenure: Before joining the DOL, Wolfe spent nearly 23 years at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). He served as a key spokesperson for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), managing public affairs for the agency’s human services wing.
• Early Career: His background also includes stints as a congressional staffer and a news radio anchor, bringing a unique perspective on communications and legislative processes to the agency.

What This Means for Federal Contractors

Wolfe takes the helm during a period of significant transition for the DOL. With Lori Chavez-DeRemer recently stepping down as Secretary of Labor and Keith Sonderling serving as Acting Secretary, the OFCCP is operating within a broader climate of leadership turnover.

Contractors should keep a close eye on several pending initiatives that may be shaped by this new leadership, including:

• Regulatory Revisions: Potential shifts following the rescission of certain executive orders.
• Section 503 Updates: Proposed changes to the Rehabilitation Act regulations regarding disability and veteran hiring.
• Structural Shifts: Discussions regarding the potential transfer of some OFCCP functions to a newly proposed DOL Office of Civil Rights.

While Wolfe’s background is deeply rooted in public service and faith-based initiatives, his appointment suggests a continued emphasis on workplace protections and perhaps a renewed focus on religious accommodations.

The Excitement Continues on Day Two in the Circle City

If day one of DEAMcon26 set the table—25 years of institutional knowledge, a reshaped regulatory environment, and a keynote that challenged everyone in the room to do different things differently—day two was where the meal got served. Eleven sessions. Three powerhouse general sessions. One jaw-dropping keynote. A morning that opened with a fraud warning so specific it felt like a security briefing, and an afternoon that closed with a jobs data tool designed to make every HR professional in the country smarter and more informed. The texture of Thursday was urgent, practical, and at times, unexpectedly funny. The community that had gathered in Indianapolis was now in a rhythm, and the hallway conversations were starting to match the ones happening on stage.

The Fraud Briefing You Didn’t Know You Needed

Anita Chandrasekhar, Global Head of Talent Strategy at Zapier, opened the day’s general sessions with the kind of talk that makes people silently mentally audit their most recent hires. Her session on AI-enhanced candidate fraud was not theoretical. It was a case study, a framework, and a wake-up call delivered simultaneously, with data that landed hard: projections suggest that by 2028, one in four candidates in certain talent pools could be fake. “I am saying this is not a future problem,” Chandrasekhar said. “This is very much a current problem.”

What’s changed is the sophistication. Deepfakes that glitch convincingly at the 15-minute interview mark. Bot applications perfectly tailored to every job posting. North Korean-linked fraud rings using stolen American identities to infiltrate company systems—one healthcare company hiring a fraudulent candidate who then installed malware and demanded a ransom. Chandrasekhar described Zapier’s layered defense in depth: ATS fraud signals, a pre-recruiter AI screen that saw over 400 applicants drop off rather than complete a 15-minute video round (strong evidence they weren’t real candidates), recording policies with screenshot consent, and a live reference call process that flags whether the applicant’s IP address matches the reference’s.

Her principle was precise and repeatable: look for patterns across multiple signals, never a single flag in isolation. “I do not recommend that we tell them it is because of this unless you are 100% sure.” The room’s show of hands—most had suspected fraud in the past year, very few had a formal process—captured exactly the gap she was there to close.

The Legal Session Nobody Could Afford to Miss Two Years Running

Mickey Silberman’s EEO enforcement session was the morning’s heavyweight. Standing before a room that had already heard Josh Roffman, Alissa Horvitz, Jeremy Mancheski and Craig Leen dissect the IBM settlement the day before, Silberman arrived with a different angle: not just what the settlement means, but what it means for you, specifically, when you sign your next government contract.

The concept he zeroed in on was deliberate ignorance—the middle ground in the False Claims Act’s definition of a knowing false statement. Actual knowledge (you knew you were lying) is one extreme. Reckless disregard is the other. But deliberate ignorance—choosing not to investigate whether you are in compliance before certifying that you are—sits squarely in between, and it is, Silberman argued, exactly the hook this administration will use.

“If you sign a contract that says you are in compliance with your EEO obligations and you are in deliberate ignorance of whether you are or are not in compliance, that is the hook. Right there.” His formula for avoiding it was direct: conduct both qualitative and quantitative EEO assessments annually, under attorney-client privilege, address what you find, and then certify. “You are not in deliberate ignorance anymore, because you are not ignorant anymore, because you deliberately conducted this EEO assessment to determine your compliance before you signed your contract.”

He was equally clear about VEVRAA and Section 503: these AAP obligations are not going away, and signing government contracts without having completed them is “knowingly, falsely certifying.” The message was structural, not political—and it applied regardless of which party holds the White House.

AI Readiness: Chad, the Agent Who Went Rogue

PJ Rossi of Forté HR Advisors opened her concurrent session with a story about Chad—her AI agent, named because it helps to personify the technology—who was tasked with optimizing her LinkedIn profile and scheduling connection requests. “The agent actually went out and made the connections on its own. Not only did he do that, he made the connections—and then he started commenting on posts, as me.” When she asked Chad why, his answer was disarming: she had been too slow, and he was helping.

That story anchored a session on AI readiness that was genuinely practitioner-focused. Rossi’s framework—the “AI sandwich”—placed human training and literacy on the front end and continuous monitoring of outputs on the back end, with technology sandwiched between. The core message: most AI implementations fail because of human factors, not technology ones. McKinsey estimates 70% of implementations will fail due to human resistance; Gartner suggests 60% will be abandoned by 2027. The solution isn’t slowing down AI adoption. It’s doing the readiness work first.

Her practical advice included auditing every tool in the technology stack—”Do you know if AI is running with those tools? You may not be using it, but is the vendor?”—and documenting that you asked. The Workday case, in which a court compelled Workday to provide a list of every employer using a specific AI scoring function, was Exhibit A.

Skills-Based Hiring: Making Instinct Into Insight

Gauri Rege of the American Institutes for Research (AIR) brought rigorous behavioral science to a concept many organizations are still struggling to operationalize. Despite the landmark commitments to skills-based hiring made by companies like Google, IBM, and Delta in the early 2020s, a recent Harvard paper found that just 0.14% of hires made under skills-based practices were candidates without degrees. The gap between the promise and the outcomes is real.

Rege’s lens was systems-thinking: treat hiring not as a moment in time but as an open system with inputs, transformations, and outputs—each vulnerable to bias contamination. Affinity bias, the halo effect, and the contrast effect (judging a candidate relative to the one who interviewed before them, not against the actual job criteria) are the contaminants. Behavioral science doesn’t eliminate them, but structured processes—defined criteria, consistent assessments, diverse evaluation panels—can mitigate them systematically. “When bias enters the process,” she said, “everything kind of falls apart.” The goal is moving from instinct to insight, and the tools to do it are available to every practitioner in the room.

The Visibility Gap in Disability Inclusion

Margaret Ling of the National Organization on Disability (NOD) brought service dog Vixen to the stage (a first for both Vixen and DEAMcon!) and delivered one of the day’s most quietly powerful sessions. Using data from NOD’s Disability Inclusion Blueprint and a companion engagement survey, she surfaced a finding that reframes how many organizations are thinking about their disability inclusion programs.

The data is consistent: companies are building programs. The policies exist. The accommodation processes are in place. And employees with disabilities largely can’t find them. Only 44% of surveyed employees knew where to locate their employer’s accommodation process. Only 34% said senior leaders were open about their own disability. “It is not a compliance failure,” Ling said. “It is a communication and culture failure.”

The four practice areas NOD’s data identifies as high-leverage—accessibility, accommodations, recruitment, and promotion—each carry measurable business outcomes. Adopting just one accessibility practice is associated with a 19% reduction in organization-wide turnover. One accommodation practice: a 55% decrease in exits among employees with disabilities. “We’re not talking about marginal gains,” she said. “We’re seeing double-digit changes in retention, hiring, and promotions.” For federal contractors tracking Section 503 utilization goals, the ROI case is built into the data itself.

Ask Yourself, “Would My Exit Strategy Survive Going Viral?”

Mira Greenland of INTOO and Christina Myers, Executive Director of HR Compliance at Vericast, delivered one of the day’s most candid sessions on separation best practices. The Oracle layoff story—30,000 employees notified by email, with a link to their separation packet and a note that the link might not work—set the tone. “That was a really cold way to take care of that process,” Myers said.

Their framework was built around a series of questions most organizations don’t ask until they need the answers: Has the legal team reviewed the reduction-in-force (RIF) worksheet for demographic patterns? Have managers been role-played through the conversation? Is the room private? Myers was direct about the stakes. “The day I’m not anxious about it, or the day I’m not nervous about it, is the day I should get out of HR, because I’ve forgotten what a major thing it is that I’m about to do with that person.” Outplacement isn’t just a benefit—it’s the pivot that moves a devastated employee from the loss to the next step. The room’s show of hands confirmed what the presenters already knew: virtually no one in it had ever been formally trained on how to let someone go.

Military Talent, SkillBridge, and the Post-and-Pray Problem

TEKsystems’ Samira Searcy and Anita Maguet, and Service to Success’ Peter Cline’s session on military talent acquisition cut through the noise with a single, clarifying insight: effort without strategy produces activity, not results. “Effort doesn’t get you the results you’re looking for,” Maguet said. “It just gets you activity. You will spin your wheels.”

The Mentimeter live poll that opened the session was revealing: nearly every organization in the room was recruiting from LinkedIn, Indeed, referrals, and job boards—the same ponds, fished the same way, with the same competitors. The antidote was threefold: proactive positioning in talent communities before you have open roles; differentiated sourcing channels your competitors aren’t using; and brand as a talent strategy, not a marketing exercise. SkillBridge—the Department of Defense program that allows transitioning service members to intern with employers for up to 180 days while still receiving military pay—was positioned not as a program for entry-level roles, but as a pipeline of mission-ready professionals who can be evaluated before a single salary dollar is committed.

Job Accommodations Boot Camp: Cheap, Simple, & Often Overlooked

Josh Anderson of Easterseals Crossroads ran a session that was part education, part improv workshop. His examples—a UV light that made a seal inspection job accessible and ended up being adopted by the entire assembly line; a Chrome extension and dictation button that cost $0 and accommodated a custodian with a learning disability in under 20 minutes—illustrated the central point: most accommodation failures trace back to communication breakdowns, not technology gaps.

His HAAT model (Human, Activity (context), Assistive Technology) kept the person at the center: start with what the individual can do, identify the specific barriers, and introduce technology only to bridge the gap. “Don’t lead with ADA,” he said with a grin. “You end up talking to a lot of lawyers.” His recommendation for every employer: know your state’s Assistive Technology Act program and the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) at AskJAN.org. Both are free. Both answer questions all day.

Inclusive Pipelines: Vocational Rehabilitation, Ticket to Work, & the Money Nobody Knows About

Two afternoon sessions made the complementary case for untapped talent pools hiding in plain sight. Michelle Krefft of DirectEmployers and colleagues from vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies in New Mexico and Illinois outlined the VR dual-customer model—agencies serve both job seekers with disabilities and employers—and Crystal Hicks of New Mexico DVR delivered the best line of the afternoon: “We are the best-kept secret. We’ve got money. We don’t buy cars or houses. But for other things—we can help you out.”

In the next room, the team from EmployReward Solutions walked employers through the Ticket to Work program and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC). The math was compelling: 8 million Americans receive SSDI benefits and want to return to work; pending bipartisan legislation would expand WOTC eligibility and increase the per-hire credit to $3,000. The barrier isn’t eligibility. It’s fear—specifically, the fear that returning to work will cost beneficiaries their health coverage and disability income. The employment network’s role is to eliminate that fear, one benefits counseling conversation at a time, and to stay in the relationship for three to five years after placement.

Reframing Jobs Data as Strategy

Paul Daniels of the National Association of State Workforce Agencies’ (NASWA) NLx Research Hub closed the afternoon’s general sessions with a presentation that reframed something every employer in the room generates daily as something far more powerful: a data source. Job postings, in the National Labor Exchange (NLx) feed, become real-time labor market intelligence—wage benchmarking, skills demand signals, competitive posting analysis, and the emerging priority of machine readability for AI-powered job search tools.

Daniels previewed a job description scoring prototype that rates postings on candidate appeal, pay transparency compliance, veteran translation, and disability-inclusive language, benchmarked against similar employers. His ask was simple: keep writing good job descriptions. The data already exists. The intelligence layer is being built around it, with employer input, not handed down from above.

The Closing Keynote: 43 Quintillion to One

The day closed the way it perhaps needed to—by releasing the room’s grip on spreadsheets, regulatory frameworks, compliance checklists, and talent acquisition strategies for exactly sixty minutes. Christophe Fox, renowned mentalist with over 100 million online views and a client list spanning NBA teams and Fortune 500 companies, took the stage and proceeded to perform and execute things that were mind-boggling. He guessed a card thought of by a stranger in the crowd. He matched words chosen at random from two separate magazines by two volunteers who had never met. He led the room through a guided visualization in which two seated participants reported feeling the same physical sensation—simultaneously—while their eyes were closed.

The throughline was not mystery for its own sake. Fox framed each feat around probability—specifically, the near-impossibility of this exact combination of people, choices, and circumstances arriving together in one room at all. He held up a Rubik’s cube: 43 quintillion possible combinations, most of which have never existed in human history. He invited a volunteer to scramble it randomly, then revealed a pre-solved cube matching the exact configuration. “The odds of us being here today,” he said, “are astronomically small—as close as you can get to zero. And yet here we are.” He ended with the room’s phones: everyone multiplied a shared random number through a series of steps, and the result resolved exactly to the date and time displayed on their screens—4, 1, 6, 5, 1, 7. April 16th, 5:17 PM. The room went appropriately sideways in astonishment.

For a community that had spent the better part of two days stress-testing risk frameworks and audit trails, it was a fitting reminder that some of the most important outcomes—the right hire, the trusted colleague, the partnership that changes your program—are the ones that emerge from choices that don’t feel like choices at all.

Sushi, S’mores, & Symbiotic Networking Opportunities in the Demo Hall

The evening’s Underwriter Reception followed—a chance to carry the day’s conversations into the kind of informal settings where, as DirectEmployers’ Executive Director Jeff Gill had said on day one, the most important connections in this community tend to form.

Stay tuned for the day three recap highlighting the final morning, including sessions on AI and search relevance, pay equity strategy, getting jobs into ChatGPT, and closing takeaways for government contractors.