Photo of Samantha Bowie

Samantha Bowie

Samantha focuses on labor and employment matters. Samantha’s passion for labor and employment law emerged during her legal studies, where she took every employment-related class available. Her interest is driven by the field’s universal relevance: everyone has experience as an employee, making it a field with challenges every business faces. She provides both preventative counsel and litigation defense and has a particular interest in the unique issues faced by educational institutions.

Follow:Read more about Samantha BowieSamantha's Linkedin Profile
Door with knob opening to a classroom

On January 22, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) voted 2-1 to rescind its “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace,” which had been approved in 2024. In a statement, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas contended that the 2024 Guidance overstepped the agency’s authority by imposing new obligations on employers rather than simply interpreting existing law. Lucas emphasized, however, that “rescinding this guidance does not give employers license to engage in unlawful harassment,” and that the EEOC “will continue to be dedicated to preventing and remedying unlawful workplace harassment.”

Legal office of lawyers, justice and law concept : Judge's gavel or hammer and base used by a judge person on a desk in a courtroom with blurred books and a bookshelf or bookcase in the background.

On April 23, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order #14280 (EO 14280), “Reinstating Commonsense School Discipline Policies.” This order directs the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Attorney General to issue new guidance on school discipline and move away from the disparate impact framework that the Obama and Biden administrations had applied.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has ceased investigating claims based solely on alleged disparate impact discrimination. Traditionally, disparate impact discrimination claims could be proven when a seemingly neutral employment policy or practice disproportionately affected members of a protected class—such as race, gender, or age—even if there was no evidence of an intent to discriminate.

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari on January 17, 2025, in A.J.T. by and through A.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 279, 96 F.4th 1058 (8th Cir. 2024), cert. granted sub nom. A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, No. 24-249, 2025 WL 226839 (U.S. Jan. 17, 2025). At issue is whether students with disabilities are required to satisfy a “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief against school districts they allege have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.