Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, HOUSE NEWS—Reps. Scott, Omar pen letters to DOL officials urging continued protections for workers’ rights, (Sep 5, 2025)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The letters urge the DOL to rescind proposals dismantling protections for vulnerable groups of workers.

In a series of letters to Department of Labor (DOL) officials, house labor leaders called on the DOL to uphold workers’ civil rights and to guarantee fair pay, benefits, and a safe working environment. The letters raise concerns surrounding the Trump administration’s implementation of its aggressive deregulatory agenda.

Workers with disabilities. In a letter to Catherine Eschbach, director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) urged that the DOL withdraw a proposed rule rolling back regulations implementing congressionally mandated affirmative action by federal contractors. Scott noted that, in the proposed rule, DOL states that § 503 induces federal contractors to “trespass the ADA’s restrictions on pre-conditional job offer disabilities inquiries in order to avoid regulatory issues with DOL.” This language, he noted, appears to suggest that efforts to improvement employment outcomes for people with disabilities may violate the ADA’s prohibition against disability-related inquiries.

This prohibition, Scott argued, was not intended to prohibit applicants from voluntarily disclosing their disability status or prevent employers from inviting voluntary disclosures. If Congress had intended to make it impossible for federal agencies and contractors to identify disabled applicants and employees to implement affirmative action plans, it would have done so explicitly. Instead, “the goal of the ADA was to prevent discrimination and promote better employment outcomes for people with disabilities,” Scott wrote, citing language in the original legislative proposal referencing “promising programs in the private sector to remove barriers and achieve participation by persons with disabilities.”

Registered Apprenticeship standards. In a letter to Lori Frazier Bearden, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Employment and Training Administration, Scott opposed a DOL proposed rule rescinding many protections afforded to apprentices, thus harming “the high standards of the [Registered Apprenticeship] program.” Scott called on the DOL to withdraw the proposed rule and instead work with Congress to reauthorize the National Apprenticeship Act (NAA). By choosing to pass legislation specifically targeting the apprenticeship labor force, “Congress charged the Department with creating stricter standards than those for workers in the broader labor market.” Scott argued that the proposed rule fundamentally misunderstands that point, rescinding important and longstanding provisions aiming to mitigate workplace discrimination for apprenticeships—in particular, disparate impact discrimination.

Employment Service merit staffing. In a second letter to Bearden, Scott urged the withdrawal of the DOL’s proposal removing the longstanding merit-based staffing rule of the Employment Service (ES) and allowing private entities to receive funding under the Wagner-Peyser Act. The proposal would allow states to continue to use state and local employees but would allow for contractors or other staffing models in the administration of the ES program, potentially resulting in the loss of jobs for existing merit staff and the privatization of multiple ES activities, including job-search assistance, job-referral and placement assistance, and recruitment services for employers with job openings. Scott noted that ending merit staffing could also impact the Unemployment Insurance (UI) system, the Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program and the Local Veterans’ Employment Representative staff, and the Trade Adjustment Assistance case management services. Scott argued that the proposal provides little reliable or detailed data to justify the proposed changes, while ample data exists showing the benefits of merit-based staffing.

EO 11246 implementing regulations. In a second letter to Eschbach, Scott urged withdrawal of a proposal to rescind the implementing regulations for Executive Order (EO) 11246, arguing that the proposal weakens critical civil rights protections benefitting workers and applicants engaged in or seeking work funded by federal contracts—approximately 20 percent of the American workforce. EO 11246 charges the OFCCP with the critical role of ensuring workers are protected from discrimination in taxpayer-funded contracts by requiring federal contractors to take affirmative action to promote equal opportunity. Scott argued that the administration’s “proposition that diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility threaten a ‘merit-based’ society is a fundamental misunderstanding of EO 11246 and OFCCP’s work, including its affirmative action responsibility.” Affirmative action initiatives complement anti-discrimination requirements, Scott argued, to ensure that an individual’s merit is not overlooked because of an employer’s discriminatory and unfair employment practices.

Temporary agricultural employment. In a letter to Bearden, Scott and U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) opposed the DOL’s proposal to rescind the 2024 Farmworker Protection Rule governing the H-2A visa program. The rule “represents an overdue modernization of a rapidly growing program that is crucial to U.S. agriculture yet historically susceptible to labor abuses,” placing H-2A workers at heightened risk of exploitation, driving down labor standards for U.S. workers in similar occupations, and giving a competitive advantage to unscrupulous employers who cut costs by violating the law. The 2024 rule addressed the documented vulnerabilities of temporary agricultural workers through specific, enforceable workplace protections targeting the most serious forms of exploitation and strengthening wage protections for both H-2A and U.S.-based workers through sensible reforms addressing the potential dangers of wage theft and suppression, the letter argued. It also improved administrative and regulatory clarity and reduced litigation risk for responsible businesses while still going after non-compliant operations. The letter further argued that the DOL’s stated rationale for rescinding the 2024 rule as burdensome, overreaching, and inconsistent does not withstand legal scrutiny or reflect the economic and labor data.

News: AgencyNews LaborNews ImmigrationNews Immigration Labor Discrimination FederalRegulations