Weakening Worker Protections: EEOC Consent Decrees, Telework Overtime, and the Working Families Flexibility Act in Project 2025's DOL Chapter
Project 2025 proposes to disclaim EEOC authority to enter consent decrees requiring employer actions beyond statutory minimums, redefine overtime for teleworkers by adding a daily 10-hour threshold, and mandate time-and-a-half for Sabbath work—shifting power toward employers under the guise of flexibility or religious observance, but with no current bill numbers or fiscal cost estimates attached.
Project 2025's Department of Labor proposals on pages 587-589 are a blueprint to weaken worker protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act and EEOC enforcement. The most legally concrete is the call to disclaim EEOC's power to enter consent decrees that require employer actions exceeding what the agency could demand under the laws it enforces. In practice, EEOC consent decrees are binding settlements that often mandate systemic changes like anti-harassment training, pay equity adjustments, or hiring reforms. Removing that tool would gut the agency's ability to secure meaningful remedies for discrimination victims, forcing workers to rely on costly individual lawsuits. As of summer 2025, no legislation has been introduced to implement this change, but it remains a live threat in the policy ecosystem.
The telework overtime clarification is equally consequential. Current FLSA rules require overtime pay for all hours over 40 in a week, with no daily minimum. Project 2025 proposes adding a 10-hour daily trigger so that overtime would only apply when an employee works more than 10 hours in a day and exceeds 40 hours in a week. For millions of remote workers who might spread tasks across longer but lighter days, this could eliminate overtime obligations for many hours between 8 and 10 per day. The Sabbath overtime amendment—requiring time-and-a-half for Sunday or alternate Sabbath hours—is internally contested; an alternative view in the same document argues it would incentivize work on the Sabbath rather than rest. Both proposals remain on paper only, with no bills introduced, but they signal a willingness to upend core FLSA protections in the name of religious or workplace flexibility.
Centering workers means reinforcing, not weakening, the FLSA's overtime principle: that labor beyond 40 hours deserves premium pay, regardless of where or when it is performed. Instead of a daily 10-hour loophole or a Sunday surcharge that could price low-income workers out of rest, policy should expand overtime coverage and close existing exemptions. And EEOC enforcement power must be preserved, not stripped, to ensure that consent decrees remain a powerful tool for systemic civil rights remedies. Any so-called family-friendly flexibility that erodes overtime protections is a false choice—workers should not have to trade fair pay for paid time off.
The humanitarian alternative
Instead of weakening overtime protections, the Department of Labor should strengthen enforcement of existing FLSA rules, increase the salary threshold for overtime eligibility, and ensure that workers can choose paid leave that is truly flexible and accessible. Telework overtime should remain tied to the standard 40-hour week without a daily cap, with clear guidance on how employers must track time. EEOC consent decree authority should be preserved and expanded to cover emerging discrimination issues like algorithmic bias in hiring. Family-supportive policy should focus on paid family and medical leave, affordable childcare, and raising the minimum wage, not on religious mandates or new bureaucratic metrics.
Original source — excerpted
project2025 Project 2025 ch. 19: Department of Transportation (pp 620-622)"— 587 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Disclaim power to enter into consent decrees. EEOC should disclaim power to enter into consent decrees that require employer actions that it could not require under the laws it enforces. l Reorient enforcement priorities. EEOC should reorient its enforcement priorities toward claims of failure to accommodate disability, religion, and pregnancy (but not abortion). Refocusing Labor Regulation on the Good of the Family. The DEI revo- lution in labor affected not only the administrative state, but it has also targeted much of the private sector. Owing to the combination of regulatory pressure and eager human resources offices in the private sector, much of American labor and employment policy has become institutionally oriented toward “woke” goals. Retracting regulations that support this revolution is a good first step, but more is needed. We must replace “woke” nonsense with a healthy vision of the role of labor policy in our society, starting with the American family. l Allow workers to accumulate paid time off. Lower- and middle-income workers are more likely be in jobs that are subject to overtime laws that requir…"