Artificial intelligence continues to evolve in science labs, boardrooms, and workplaces, but legislative efforts to regulate its use at the federal level might be as complicated to navigate as the Python and Java code behind the tools is to the non-technical laymen.

To understand what is moving in the compliance landscape, lawmakers, AI tech experts, and business leaders came together in Washington, DC, last month for a policy discussion focused on AI in the workplace, hosted by Axios and TechNet.

Policy and government relations execs at companies that sell tools and platforms that use the tech, as well as Congressional leaders themselves, are eyeing state governments to take on the bulk of the legislative burden right now in AI’s commercial infancy.

“What [states] are doing is what they often do, seeing a vacuum,” said John Sampson, head of US public policy at Workday. “As long as that vacuum exists, they will continue to engage on trying to figure out what the path forward on regulating AI is.”

For more on the future of AI legislation, keep reading here.—AD

The acting Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) chair threatened US law firms over their DEI practices earlier this week, prompting former commissioners to publicly disagree with the directive.

The latest. Andrea Lucas issued a letter to 20 law firms on Mar. 17, claiming that the DEI messaging on their websites may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The letter did not explicitly state which practices Lucas deems unlawful. It also requested information about the firms’ DEI initiatives. Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and Sidley Austin are among the targeted firms that have already removed DEI-specific language from their websites since President Trump took office. The EEOC chair also claimed that employers are not allowed to have “voluntary employee groups” based on protected characteristics, and encouraged would-be whistleblowers to report law firms for their DEI practices.

Seven former EEOC commissioners rebuked Lucas’ message, issuing a letter, expressing their “grave concerns” over the warnings, which, they said, violate the terms of the commission.

For more on the former EEOC commissioners’ response, keep reading here.—KP

A rule that includes abortion as a medical condition for which employees can request accommodations under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) is facing renewed scrutiny.

The rule, which was issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) last year, is being challenged by several states in a lawsuit that was revived last month. Acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas has also said she plans to “reconsider portions” of the rule once the agency has a quorum.

EEOC plans to challenge PWFA rule. The PWFA, which took effect in June 2023, requires employers with 15 or more workers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees who are pregnant, have given birth, or are experiencing related medical conditions, unless such accommodations pose an undue hardship to the employer.

In the EEOC’s 2024 rule for implementing the PWFA, it said abortion fell under the category of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” arguing this was consistent with the courts’ longstanding interpretation of the same phrase in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

For more on the scrutiny surrounding the PWFA’s abortion provision, keep reading here.—CV