Kentucky: Recent Legislative Updates

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in KY

EFFECTIVE

June 26, 2025

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Kentucky OSHA is now aligned with federal OSHA requirements.
  • Kentucky courts cannot give deference to government agency interpretations of the law.

Discussion:

The Kentucky state legislature recently passed two bills affecting employers. First, Kentucky has a state-run OSHA plan that must meet the minimum requirements of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). However, HB 398 prohibits the Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Standards board from adopting or enforcing any safety regulations that federal OSHA has not adopted or that is more stringent than what federal OSHA has adopted. The bill also makes several changes to align requirements with federal OSHA, such as filing deadlines and recognizing that de minimis violations have no penalty. There were a number of other adjustments impacting the complaint process, repeat violations citations, and abatement periods.

 

Second, SB 84 essentially codifies the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo at the state level. Last year, Loper Bright took the position that government agency legal interpretations should not receive deference from the courts. Similarly here, the bill specifically says that the “interpretation of a statute or administrative regulation by an administrative body shall not be entitled to deference from a reviewing court,” nor should administrative interpretations be made with the expectation of receiving deference.

 

These bills were originally blocked by the governor, but the legislature overrode the vetoes. This means that the bills will go into effect June 26, 2025.

 

Action Items

  1. Update safety policies and procedures as applicable.
  2. Have appropriate personnel trained on the new requirements.

 


Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase

Nebraska: Marketplace Network Platform for Independent Contractors

APPLIES TO

Employers with Employees in NE

EFFECTIVE

September 9, 2025

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • For unemployment purposes, a new Nebraska law will classify individuals using a “marketplace network platform” as independent contractors, if certain conditions are met.

Discussion:

Nebraska’s legislature passed LB 229 which classifies workers who use a marketplace network platform as independent contractors under the state’s unemployment statute, if certain conditions are met. The law is set to go into effect on September 9, 2025.

 

With limited exceptions, the law defines a “marketplace network contractor” as a person who: (1) enters into a written agreement with a marketplace network platform to use the platform to connect with individuals or entities seeking services; (2) performs services for individuals or entities in exchange for compensation or payment; and (3) does not perform services at a physical business location operated by the marketplace network platform in Nebraska. The law defines “marketplace network platform” as “a person that maintains a digital network to facilitate services by marketplace network contractors to individuals or entities seeking those services and accepts requests from the public only through the platform’s digital network or mobile application, and not by telephone, facsimile, or in-person at a retail location.”

 

To be classified as an independent contractor under Nebraska’s law, the following four conditions must be met:

 

  • The marketplace network contractor and marketplace network platform agree in writing that the marketplace network contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee of the marketplace network platform;
  • The marketplace network platform does not unilaterally prescribe specific hours during which the marketplace network contractor must be available to accept service requests submitted through the marketplace network platform’s digital network;
  • The marketplace network platform does not prohibit the marketplace network contractor from engaging in outside employment or performing services through other marketplace network platforms except while the marketplace network contractor is performing services through the marketplace network platform’s digital network; and
  • The marketplace network platform is not allowed to terminate the contract of the marketplace network contractor for not accepting a specific service request.

 

Other employers who are not using a “marketplace network platform” will continue to be subject to the state’s ABC test for determining whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor for unemployment purposes.

 

Action Items

  1. Review worker classifications with legal counsel to determine appropriate designation as employee or independent contractor.

 


Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase

New Jersey: Commissions are Wages

APPLIES TO

All Employers with NJ Employees Earning Commission

EFFECTIVE

March 17, 2025

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • In Musker v. Suuchi, Inc., the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled commissions are considered wages under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (NJWPL).
  • This ruling now means that commissions are subject to the NJWPL’s requirement of timely wage payments and the prohibition on withholding wages as illegal deductions.

Discussion:

In Musker v. Suuchi, Inc., the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled commissions are considered wages under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (NJWPL). Here, an employee sold personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic for the employer. The employee earned commission for PPE sales in addition to base salary. The employee generated approximately $34,448,900 in gross revenue from her PPE sales. Both the employee and employer then disagreed on the total value of the commissions owed. The employee then filed a claim that the unlawfully withheld commissions were owed to her as wages under the NJWPL.

 

In reaching its ruling, the Court overruled a previous lower court ruling that had classified commissions as supplementary incentives and not wages. Specifically, the NJWPL defines wages as “the direct monetary compensation for labor or services rendered by an employee, where the amount is determined on a time, task, piece, or commission basis excluding any form of supplementary incentives and bonuses which are calculated independently of regular wages and paid in addition thereto.” Now, the Court finds commissions have always met the definition of wages since “a commission directly compensates an employee for performing a service.” This ruling now means that commissions are subject to the NJWPL’s requirement of timely wage payments and the prohibition on withholding wages as illegal deductions.

 

Action Items

  1. Review and revise commission agreements with legal counsel.
  2. Update payroll processes for payment of commissions.
  3. Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements.

 


Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase

Oregon: New Protections for Warehouse Workers

APPLIES TO

All Employers with OR Warehouse Employees

EFFECTIVE

As Indicated

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • HB 4127 provides certain warehouse employees with protections regarding quotas.
  • Employers are required to provide a written summary of any applicable quota to each employee subject to that quota and are prohibited from taking adverse action against an employee for failing to meet a quota unless the employee received the written summary for the relevant quota.
  • Employers monitoring work speed data must provide certain types of records upon request to current and former employees who believe they have been disciplined for failing to meet a quota.

Discussion:

Effective January 1, 2025, HB 4127 provides certain warehouse employees with protections regarding quotas. Employers with 100 employees at a single warehouse distribution center in Oregon or 1,000 employees at one or more warehouse distribution centers statewide who use quotas must provide employees with certain notice and record requirements. A “quota” is in effect if an employee may suffer an adverse employment action for failing to “perform at a specified productivity or speed, perform a quantified number of tasks or handle or produce a quantified number of materials, within a defined time period.” A “warehouse distribution center” is an establishment engaged in any services relating to warehousing and storage, merchant wholesale of durable or nondurable goods, or retailing using electronic shopping and mail-order houses, subject to some exceptions.

 

An employee is any non-exempt employee who works at a warehouse distribution center, excluding drivers or couriers. The law does not apply to a union employer if the collective bargaining agreement provides an employee performance evaluation metric that is subject to review and negotiation according to the terms of the agreement and rights to request records that are substantially equivalent to the law’s record requirements.

 

Notice Requirements. Effective January 31, 2025, employers are required to provide a written summary of any applicable quota to each employee subject to that quota and are prohibited from taking adverse action against an employee for failing to meet a quota unless the employee received the written summary for the relevant quota. The notice must include the quantified number of tasks to be performed, or materials to be produced or handled, within a defined period and a description of the potential consequences, including any adverse employment actions, that an employee may face as a result of the employee’s failure to meet the applicable quota. Notice must be provided at the time of hire, within two business days after making a change to a quota applicable to the employee, and when taking an adverse employment action against the employee for failing to meet the applicable quota.

 

Recordkeeping Requirements. Employers monitoring work speed data must provide certain types of records upon request to current and former employees who believe they have been disciplined for failing to meet a quota. Work speed data includes the following:

 

  • the quantity of tasks performed;
  • the quantity of items or materials handled or produced;
  • the rate or speed at which the employee performs assigned tasks;
  • measurements or metrics of employee performance in relation to an applicable quota; and
  • time categorized as performing tasks or not performing tasks.

 

An employer has 21 calendar days from the request date. The free copy of the record must include:

 

  • the information required to be included in the quota notice described above (or, in the case of a former employee, such information related to the applicable quota for the 90 days immediately preceding the employee’s separation from employment); and
  • the employee’s work speed data for the 90 days immediately preceding the date of the employee’s request (or, in the case of a former employee’s timely request, their work speed data for the 90 days immediately preceding their most recent separation from employment).

 

Covered employers should review their obligations as soon as possible. The Bureau of Labor and Industries will be enforcing the law. Violations may result in filing of a complaint with civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation.

 

Action Items

  1. Read the bill here.
  2. Prepare and provide required notices.
  3. Retain records of work speed data, if applicable.
  4. Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements.

 


Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase

April Updates

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

USCIS Updates Policy Manual to Reflect Two Sexes

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is updating its Policy Manual to clarify the recognition of only two biological sexes, male and female. For purposes of adjudicating benefits and issuing documents, USCIS will consider a person’s sex as that which is generally evidenced on the birth certificate issued at or nearest to the time of birth.

 

NLRB: Ping-Pong Quorum Update

Following her initial dismissal in January, NLRB Board Member Gwynne Wilcox was reinstated in early March, when a district court found her termination by President Trump to be unlawful and in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. The federal government requested a stay of the district court’s order reinstating Wilcox, which was granted by a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on March 28, 2025, again removing Wilcox from her position with the NLRB and leaving the NLRB without a quorum. Wilcox immediately sought further review from the full Circuit Court, which ultimately vacated the previous panel decision and allowed Wilcox to return to work with the NLRB, as of April 7, 2025. With a quorum achieved, the NLRB is expected to begin operating immediately, but we expect there to be additional challenges to the recent rulings that may impact the quorum again in the near future.

 

Federal BOI Rule Only Applies to Foreign Companies and Owners

Consistent with the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s March 2, 2025 announcement, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued an interim final rule removing the requirement for U.S. companies and individuals to report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. “Reporting company” has been revised to mean only those entities that are formed under the law of a foreign country and that have registered to do business in any U.S. State or Tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office. “Domestic reporting companies” and U.S. beneficial owners are exempt from BOI reporting requirements. Foreign entities that meet the new definition of a “reporting company” and do not qualify for an exemption from the reporting requirements must report their BOI to FinCEN under new stated deadlines. See FinCEN’s FAQs for more information.

 

San Francisco, CA: HCSO and FSO Reporting DUE May 2, 2025

Employers covered by the San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance (HCSO) and/or the Fair Chance Ordinance (FCO) must submit the 2024 Employer Annual Reporting Form no later than May 2, 2025, or be subject to a penalty of $500 per quarter. The required form and instructions are available on the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) website. Under the HCSO, employers with 20 or more workers must spend a minimum amount on health care for employees who work 8 or more hours per week, and must report on the number of total employees per quarter, total employees eligible for the HCSO per quarter, total employer healthcare expenditure, and the variety of healthcare options offered to employees. The FCO applies to employers located or doing business in San Francisco with at least five employee anywhere. For positions where an employee works at least eight hours per week in San Francisco, including through temp or employment agencies, employers must report the total number of hires in San Francisco, whether background checks were performed, and whether applicants with criminal histories were hired.

  

Illinois: Equal Pay Registration Certificate Filings Briefly Delayed

The Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL) is providing employers an additional day to file their certifications. Employers with certification deadlines between January 1, 2025 and March 30, 2025 now have until March 31, 2025. Employers can ask IDOL for additional extensions. The delay is due to two key recent changes which required updating the portal for submissions. First, a new data template requires the inclusion of whether each position submitted is subject to a collective bargaining agreement and whether the position is paid hourly or salaried. If a position is hourly, employers must also include the pay rate. Second, there is a more streamlined process for submitting Compliance Statements and other forms via a web-based submission. Employers no longer have to download, complete, scan, and upload forms. Due to these changes, employers are encouraged to delay submissions until after March 17, 2025 for the updated portal launch. Employers should visit the updated FAQs for more information.

 

Maryland: Delay in PFML Implementation

The Maryland General Assembly recently passed a final bill to establish new implementation dates for Maryland’s paid family and medical leave insurance program in order to give employers more time to prepare for implementation, particularly in light of the “the unprecedented level of uncertainty resulting from recent federal actions.” Payroll deductions will begin January 1, 2027. Benefits will become available by January 3, 2028. The Governor is expected to sign the bill in the coming weeks, and Maryland Department of Labor (MDOL) announced it will begin updating the proposed regulations. Continue to look for updates on the MDOL website.

 

Virginia: New Threshold for “Low Wage” Workers Under Noncompete Law

SB 1218 will amend Virginia’s noncompete ban for “low-wage” workers to include individuals designated as non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Virginia’s existing law prohibits employers from entering into, or enforcing, noncompetes with “low-wage” employees, which was previously defined as workers whose average weekly earnings were less than the average weekly wage of Virginia. In 2025, the average weekly wage in Virgina is $1,463.10 per week ($76,081 annually). Effective July 1, 2025, “low-wage employees” will include any employees who are entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek, regardless of their average weekly earnings.

 

Virginia: Workplace Violence Prevention for Hospitals

Effective July 1, 2025, HB 2269 will require hospitals in Virginia to establish a workplace violence incident reporting system that documents, tracks, and analyzes incidents of workplace violence. Employers will be responsible for making workplace improvements to prevent workplace violence, and must provide continuing education to employees on topics like de-escalation techniques, risk identification, and violence prevention. Under the law, hospitals are required to communicate the reporting system to all employees and maintain detailed records of reported incidents for at least two years. Additionally, hospitals must report incident data quarterly to their chief medical and nursing officers, and annually to the Department of Health starting July 1, 2026.

 

Wyoming: New Noncompete Ban

Effective July 1, 2025, SF 107 will prohibit employers from enforcing noncompete covenants that restrict any person’s right to receive compensation for labor. The new law will apply prospectively to any contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2025, and will apply to both employees and independent contractors. The law also restricts certain training repayment agreements and expense relocation agreements, unless they meet certain statutory requirements. There are limited exceptions to the noncompete ban, specifically for individuals classified as “executive and management personnel,” as well as professional staff. Additionally, the law permits noncompete covenants in limited circumstances related to the purchase or sale of a business or to the extent that it is required to protect trade secrets.

 


Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase