Welcome in, today is Friday, October ninth, and we begin with the EEOC moving to scrap its twenty twelve guidance on arrest and conviction records, as reported by HR Dive. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sent a final rule to the White House that would rescind its twenty twelve enforcement guidance on arrest and conviction records in hiring, according to HR Dive. That reporting puts the filing at White House regulatory review on Tuesday. The guidance being withdrawn set the screening framework employers have used for more than a decade: the nature and gravity of the offense, the time elapsed since it, and the nature of the job sought. Bloomberg Law reports the step is part of the agency's broader rejection of unintentional bias claims, following the executive order last April condemning disparate-impact liability. No review timeline or rescission date is clear, so no screening program has to move this week. Counsel quoted in the HR Dive account advises against loosening background-check practice now. Attorneys at Littler wrote that applying a criminal background policy more harshly against one protected class than another would still likely violate Title Seven, and that disparate impact remains recognized by the Supreme Court and codified by Congress, so the plaintiffs' bar can still bring those claims. Reaction among employment-law practitioners leans toward treating the rescission as a signal rather than a green light, with state and local fair-chance rules named as the binding constraint either way. More than half of employers say they are paying higher-than-planned salaries to land candidates with expertise in areas like artificial intelligence. That finding comes from a new study reported by HR Dive, and it puts the strain on approved bands and internal pay equity well before it shows up in an offer letter. A recurring thread among recruiters is verification: as AI expertise commands a premium, some report candidates leaning on AI tools during the interview itself, and say screening methods are being reworked to confirm the skill is real. Separately, HRD Canada reports that AI governance is maturing as adoption grows, but that the guidance given to employees is still catching up. The outlet puts no size on the gap. Where it persists, day-to-day interpretation falls to team leads rather than to policy. Reaction leans toward reframing that as a question of decision rights rather than skills, with a recurring argument that a human in the loop is not the same as someone owning the outcome, and a quieter flag that staff are already using unsanctioned tools while adoption programs roll out above them. Also today, a reminder on the mechanics of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Writing in HR Dive, attorneys Jessica Thaller-Moran and Lauren Hoffman argue that a recent federal appeals court opinion turns on how an employer handled an accommodation request, and that the case is a reminder to get the basics of the interactive process right. The argument points HR teams back to documentation, timing and follow-up, the unglamorous detail that decides whether an accommodation file reads as a good-faith exchange when it is read later by a court. Now, a few more headlines moving the trade today. A federal appeals court has vacated the order requiring the University of Pennsylvania to give the EEOC a list of Jewish faculty and students, PhillyVoice reports, with the case remanded for dismissal. The EEOC says a Wisconsin winter sports venue will pay twenty thousand dollars to settle claims it fired a Christian employee over religious posts on his personal social accounts, per HR Dive. HRD Asia reports Boston Scientific's bid to enforce a non-compete against an employee hired by Johnson and Johnson failed, in a dispute the outlet says came down to customer relationships nobody could prove existed. And finally, FreightWaves counts cuts and closures affecting about one thousand eight hundred fifty workers at fifteen companies in delivery, logistics, food manufacturing and packaging.