Senate HELP Committee Hearing: Key Takeaways for Employers from the July 16, 2025 Nomination Review

On July 16, 2025, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee convened to review the nominations of three individuals whose roles could significantly shape the future of federal labor and employment policy:

• Crystal Carey, currently a partner in private law practice and a former NLRB attorney for eight years, was nominated for general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
• Brittany Panuccio, an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida with prior roles at the Departments of Education and Justice, was nominated for commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
• Dr. Brian Christine, a urologist specializing in men’s sexual health and a former political candidate in Alabama, was nominated for assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The discussion offered valuable insights into the regulatory priorities and enforcement philosophies that may soon influence workplace compliance, labor relations, and inclusion, equity & diversity (IE&D) strategy across sectors.

This hearing builds on the Committee’s recent confirmation activity, including reviews of Susan Monarez for director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Andrea Lucas for EEOC commissioner. While some nominees have advanced, others have withdrawn or faced extended deliberation, underscoring the Committee’s active role in shaping leadership across key federal agencies.

Crystal Carey – NLRB General Counsel Nominee

Carey emphasized her commitment to following the law and respecting longstanding Board precedent. She was asked about the constitutionality of the NLRB and stated she would defer to the courts on that issue. She acknowledged operational challenges, noting that the previous administration’s efforts to expand or diverge from precedent, combined with staffing shortages, have contributed to longer average case processing times and a growing backlog.

Importantly, Carey expressed interest in conducting an organizational assessment of the NLRB to ensure appropriate resource allocation and support for field agents. She committed to recusing herself from matters involving former clients, and stated that future cases—such as those involving so-called “captive audience” meetings or joint employment—would be handled on a case-by-case basis, guided by statute and fact-specific analysis.

Implication for Employers: Employers should anticipate continued scrutiny of labor practices and case-by-case enforcement, particularly in areas involving independent contractors, joint employment, and organizing activity. Ensuring compliance with existing precedent and maintaining clear documentation will be essential, especially as the agency evaluates its internal capacity and enforcement posture.

Brittany Panuccio – EEOC Commissioner Nominee

Panuccio highlighted her commitment to protecting women’s rights and the rights of individuals with disabilities. Regarding enforcement strategies, she emphasized her commitment to treating individuals as individuals—not as members of identity groups. She reaffirmed the EEOC’s longstanding position that its doors are open to all complainants and confirmed this stance was reinforced by the recent Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services, 605 U.S. ___, No. 23-1039 (2025) (unanimous decision authored by Justice Jackson rejecting the “background circumstances” test for majority-group plaintiffs; held that Title VII protects all individuals equally and that evidentiary standards must align with the statute’s text).

Panuccio further expressed concern about expansive interpretations of Title VII that go beyond the plain meaning of the statute. She stated that prohibitions against discrimination should be vigorously enforced in whatever form they take and noted that while some recent EEOC decisions under the previous administration had been struck down, she would interpret the law based on its text.

Implication for Employers: Employers should expect a more textualist approach to Title VII enforcement, with increased attention to neutrality and individual treatment. IE&D programs should be carefully structured to avoid assumptions based on group identity and to ensure alignment with statutory language. Proactive legal review and consistent application will be key to mitigating risk.

Dr. Brian Christine – Assistant Secretary for Health Nominee

Christine addressed a range of public health topics, including mental health, vaccine safety, and gender-affirming care. He emphasized the importance of informed consent and patient privacy and stated that Title X funds will not be allotted to support abortion services when asked about healthcare for women. He also responded to questions about tribal health and teen pregnancy education, emphasizing that these topics are best addressed in consultation with parents and tribal communities. He separately discussed long COVID data collection, noting its importance for public health research and policy development.

Christine affirmed his commitment to “do no harm” and to support individuals with gender dysphoria, while also stating his opposition to federal funding for gender-affirming surgeries.

Implication for Employers: Healthcare and public health employers should anticipate increased attention to data collection, patient privacy, and culturally competent care. Federal funding recipients may see expanded expectations around workforce support and compliance with evolving health standards. For employers integrating health equity into their IE&D strategy, Christine’s remarks suggest a shift toward individualized care models and community-specific engagement, particularly in tribal and underserved populations.

Themes and Strategic Considerations

Across all three nominations, several themes emerged that merit attention from employers:

• Neutral Enforcement and Statutory Fidelity: Nominees emphasized adherence to statutory language and case-by-case enforcement, signaling a shift away from expansive interpretations of federal mandates.
• Resource Constraints and Operational Impact: Carey highlighted staffing shortages and backlog pressures at the NLRB, suggesting that resource allocation may impact enforcement capacity. Her proposed organizational assessment could shape future agency effectiveness.
• Individualized Treatment Over Group-Based Assumptions: Panuccio’s remarks reinforced the importance of treating employees as individuals, which may influence how IE&D programs are evaluated under Title VII.
• Public Health and Privacy: Christine’s testimony emphasized the importance of informed consent, strong privacy protections, and culturally responsive care—particularly in the context of tribal consultation and addressing Indigenous health disparities through federally funded programs.

Conclusion 

While the HELP Committee hearing was focused on nominations, it offered a clear window into the regulatory posture likely to shape labor, employment, and public health enforcement in the coming years. For employers, the message is clear: ensure policies are grounded in statutory compliance, reinforce training around neutrality and individual treatment, and prepare for increased oversight in areas where law and identity intersect.

As organizations review and refine their IE&D strategies, preferably under privilege, it’s important to recognize that employers must ensure that the actions taken within these programs are inclusive in practice – not exclusionary or preferential. A thoughtful, legally sound approach to IE&D can help foster equal opportunity, belonging and inclusion for all people in the workplace while minimizing risk.