New Labor Challenges for Employers: Major Changes to H-1B Visa Process and Enforcement

APPLIES TO

All Employers

EFFECTIVE

As Indicated

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Employers must submit a $100,000 fee in connection with H-1B petitions as of September 21, 2025.
  • DHS issued a proposed rule to implement a weighted selection process to favor allocation of H-1B visas to higher skilled and higher paid foreign workers.
  • DOL announced enforcement measures to ensure employers prioritize hiring American workers and hold employers accountable for H-1B abuse.

Discussion

Last month, the federal government announced several changes to the H-1B visa program. On September 19, 2025, the President issued a proclamation instituting a dramatic change in the H-1B petition process that set off confusion. On the heels of this announcement, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a proposed rule to replace the current random lottery system with a weighted system that prioritizes high paying jobs. Lastly, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced new employer H-1B enforcement measures. There appears to be a lot of misinformation about these proposals. Here’s what employers need to know.

 

New H-1B Visa Fee

 

Citing abuse of the H-1B visa program in order to replace American workers with lower-paid labor, the proclamation restricts entry into the United States by requiring a payment of $100,000 for H-1B petitions effective September 21, 2025. Employers must provide payment prior to filing an H-1B petition on behalf of a potential worker who is outside the United States. The fee requirement is set to expire twelve months from the effective date unless it is extended. The Secretary of State was instructed to issue additional guidance. The Secretary of DHS is also permitted discretion to waive the fee requirement if “the hiring of such aliens to be employed as H-1B specialty occupation workers is in the national interest and does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.”

 

The proclamation instantly created confusion for employers by not providing clarity in several areas. The Department of State (DOS) and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued guidance to address the most common questions asked below. Employers should use the following information in conjunction with consulting with their immigration legal counsel since additional guidance is expected.

 

Does the new $100,000 fee apply to new or existing H-1B visa holders? A September 20, 2025 USCIS memo stated the fee applies to new petitions. The memo goes on to make clear it does not apply to petitions filed before the effective date of the proclamation, currently approved petitions, or to individuals who currently have valid H-1B visas in their possession.

 

Should current H-1B visa holders refrain from traveling outside the United States due to the proclamation? No. The USCIS memo also clearly states the proclamation “does not impact the ability of any current visa holder to travel to or from the United States.”

 

Does the proclamation apply to fees connected with renewing currently valid H-1B visas? No. The DOS FAQ issued September 21, 2025 states that current payments or fees required for H-1B renewals are not affected by the proclamation.

 

In addition to the new fee requirement, the proclamation also instructs the Secretary of Labor to initiate rulemaking to revise the prevailing wage levels to be consistent with the goal of the proclamation to protect American workers. The proclamation also instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to “initiate a rulemaking to prioritize the admission as nonimmigrants of high-skilled and high-paid aliens.”

 

Legal challenges to the new fee requirement and other proposed changes are almost certain. Congress has the right to establish naturalization rules under the U.S. Constitution. In addition, there is legal precedent which supports Congress’ right to establish the terms and conditions of visas.

 

DHS Proposal to Replace Random Lottery Selection

 

DHS issued a proposed rule on September 24, 2025 entitled Weighted Selection Process for Registrants and Petitioners Seeking To File Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions. The proposed rule would implement a weighted selection process to favor allocation of H-1B visas to higher skilled and higher paid foreign workers while still preserving the ability of employers to obtain workers at all wage levels. Currently, the United States uses a lottery system where it allocates a limited number of H-1B visas (the H-1B cap). Registrants are randomly selected based on properly submitted electronic registrations. The intention of the proposed rule is to move away from random selection to a weighted selection process.

 

The weighted selection process would rely on each beneficiary’s equivalent wage level based on the highest Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) wage level that the beneficiary’s employer intends to pay. This wage would equal or exceed the relevant Standard Occupational Classification code in the area of intended employment. There would be four wage bands into which beneficiaries would be assigned. The higher the wage band, the more registrations the beneficiary would be entitled to, thereby increasing their likelihood of selection. The wage bands and corresponding registrations are as follows:

 

  • OEWS Level I = 1 registration for “entry” level workers;
  • OEWS Level II = 2 registrations for “qualified” workers;
  • OEWS Level III = 3 registrations for “experienced” workers; and
  • OEWS Level IV = 4 registrations for “fully competent” workers.

 

Regardless of the number of registrations submitted for a beneficiary, the beneficiary would only be counted once toward the allocation of H-1B visas. The selection process would still occur through a random, computer-generated process. The fiscal year cap on total H-1B workers would also still be maintained.

 

Written comments on the proposed rule are due by October 24, 2025. Legal challenges are also expected. Data from DHS in 2020 showed that the vast majority of H-1B workers were paid at Level I or II wages. This means the weighted selection process will require employers to increase their wages in order to obtain a higher likelihood of their beneficiary being selected in the new process.

 

DOL Increased Enforcement Measures

 

On September 19, 2025, the DOL announced enhanced enforcement measures to ensure employers comply with H-1B requirements. Project Firewall’s intent is to make sure employers prioritize hiring American workers and hold employers accountable for H-1B abuse. As part of its enforcement, the DOL will conduct investigations of employers to maximize H-1B program compliance which will be personally certified by the Secretary of Labor for the first time in the DOL’s history. Investigations will be certified where there is reasonable cause to believe an employer is non-compliant.

 

Employers found to be in violation of the H-1B program can be required to pay back wages to affected workers, pay civil monetary penalties, and be barred from future use of the H-1B program. The DOL will also share information with the following government agencies to ensure compliance: U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and USCIS.

 

Next Steps for Employers

 

Employers who rely on H-1B workers are facing multiple changes and increased scrutiny in how they participate in the H-1B visa program. What should employers do to manage the scope and scale of these changes?

 

Because these proposed changes are new, additional guidance and legal challenges are expected. Legal counsel can help advise employers on how best to protect their business operations and stay compliant. There is also a lot of misinformation regarding the changes which is causing confusion for holders of H-1B visas. Work with legal counsel to draft communications that keep affected workers up to date on what is required. Employers should also prepare for the implementation of these changes while legal challenges are pending. This includes ensuring job descriptions and pay levels are commensurate with the H-1B program requirements. Individuals within the organization who oversee or are part of the H-1B petition process should be kept informed and trained on the most current requirements.

 

Action Items

  1. Consult with legal counsel experienced in immigration.
  2. Communicate consistently with H-1B workers.
  3. Review job descriptions and pay levels.
  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

Federal Government Shutdown Impacted E-Verify

APPLIES TO

All Employers Using E-Verify

EFFECTIVE

As Indicated

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Employers using E-Verify found out on October 1, 2025 that the service was suspended due to the ongoing government shutdown.
  • On October 9, however, E-Verify sent another email and issued a notice that its services were operational once again.
  • Employers had until Tuesday, October 14, 2025 to create cases for employees who were hired during the period of time the services were unavailable.

Discussion

E-Verify Suspended

 

Employers using E-Verify found out on October 1, 2025 that the service was suspended due to the ongoing government shutdown. An email sent by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) stated that it was due to a lapse in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations and statutory authority to continue the E-Verify program during the lapse. The email notice reiterated employer obligations to complete and retain Form I-9 regardless of the E-Verify service being taken offline. This included reaffirming that employers enrolled in good standing in E-Verify were still authorized to perform remote examination of employees’ Form I-9 documents. The notice also confirmed that employees could not resolve E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmations (TNCs) during this time. The email was available briefly on E-Verify’s What’s New section of their website, but then was taken down shortly after it was posted.

 

E-Verify Resumes Services

 

On October 9, however, E-Verify sent another email and issued a notice that its services were operational once again. Employers had until Tuesday, October 14, 2025 to create cases for employees who were hired during the period of time the services were unavailable. The notice provides answers to the following questions:

 

What if an employer is not able to create a case by the third business day after the employee began to work because E-Verify was unavailable? Use the prompt available during case creation which requires a reason for the delay. Select “Other” in the dropdown and enter “E-Verify not Available.”

 

What if the unavailability of E-Verify affected an employee’s ability to contest a mismatch? Additional time will be given to contact Social Security Administration (SSA) or DHS if the Referral Date Confirmation notice stated action was to be taken by October 1, 2025 or later. Refer to the next question below for more information.

 

What if an employee received a mismatch (TNC) and intended to contest it but the employer’s Referral Date Confirmation was impacted by the E-Verify’s suspension? Employers must revise the date to when the employee must contact the SSA or DHS. There are three options:

 

  • The best option is to print a new “Referral Date Confirmation” notice that will have the new date employees must contact SSA or DHS to begin resolving their mismatch.
  • The next option is to log in to E‑Verify, select the employee’s case to find their new referral date, and write the new date on the previously issued “Referral Date Confirmation” For E-Verify+ cases, review the “What’s Next” page for an updated date.
  • The third option is to add six (6) federal business days to the date on the employee’s “Referral Date Confirmation” notice. Federal business days are Monday through Friday and do not include federal holidays.

 

What if you are a federal contractor required to enroll in or use E-Verify and could not? Enroll or use E-Verify as soon as possible. Any calendar day when E-Verify was unavailable will not count toward any of the federal contractor deadlines.

 

What if E-Verify is suspended again?

 

Although E-Verify’s notice stated that it was in service again, many users reported they were still unable to create new cases. With continued uncertainty around the shutdown and continued technical issues, employers should prepare for the event that E-Verify could be unavailable again. Employers should remember that the unavailability of E-Verify does not excuse them from their obligation to complete and retain Form I-9 for new hires. In addition, employers should reference the existing guidance issued during the suspension and resumption of service as a roadmap to handling new cases. Guidance could change, however, so continue to monitor the E-Verify website for the most up-to-date information.

 

Action Items

  1. Review the notice regarding resumption of services here.
  2. Provide updated Referral Date Confirmation dates to employees, where applicable.
  3. Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements.
  4. Continue monitoring the E-Verify website for updates.

 


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

Recent Immigration Updates

APPLIES TO

All Employers

EFFECTIVE

As Indicated

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • On September 19, 2025, the President issued an Executive Order instructing the Secretary of commerce, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a “Gold Card” program where an individual who makes an unrestricted gift to the Department of Commerce can receive expedited processing for an immigrant visa.
  • On October 2, 2025, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued an interim final rule, Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for the Temporary Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in Non-Range Occupations in the United States, which drastically changes the H-2A visa program’s minimum wage policy.
  • Temporary Protected Status and Employment Authorization Document termination dates are updated on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website.
  • On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed for termination of the TPS program for Venezuelan nationals while the underlying case challenging the merits of the termination proceeds.
  • Effective October 16, 2025, a notice published in the Federal Register titled Immigration Parole Fee Required by HR-1 Reconciliation Bill states that DHS will begin imposing and collecting a $1,000 fee for “any alien who is paroled into the United States.”

Discussion

 

Gold Card Visa Program

 

On September 19, 2025, the President issued an Executive Order instructing the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a “Gold Card” program where an individual who makes an unrestricted gift to the Department of Commerce can receive expedited processing for an immigrant visa. The gift amounts are to be $1 million individually or $2 million for an entity on behalf of an individual. This monetary gift is to be evidence of eligibility in addition to consideration of public safety and national security concerns. The gift amounts are to be deposited into a separate fund in the Department of the Treasury and used to promote commerce and American industry.

 

Within 90 days of the date of the Executive Order, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security must:

 

  • Establish a process for application and expedited adjudication of Gold Card petitions, visa issuance, and adjustment of status.
  • Specify the date on which applicants or sponsors may begin to submit gifts for consideration under the Gold Card program.
  • Establish a process for a Gold Card holder sponsored by a corporation or similar entity to abandon his or her status and for the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to consider the original gift as evidence of eligibility for a different individual specified by the corporation or similar entity.
  • Establish administrative fees to cover the cost of expedited processing.
  • Establish maintenance and transfer fees for corporations or similar entities sponsoring individuals under the Gold Card program.
  • Consider expanding the Gold Card program to other visa applicants engaging in a new commercial enterprise.

 

The White House also issued a Fact Sheet which emphasized that the program’s purpose was to increase investment, revitalize industry, and create economic growth for the U.S.

 

H-2A Final Rule Changes Minimum Wage Policy

 

On October 2, 2025, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued an interim final rule, Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for the Temporary Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in Non-Range Occupations in the United States, which drastically changes the H-2A visa program’s minimum wage policy. The H-2A program allows U.S. agricultural employers to use foreign nationals to fill temporary agricultural jobs in anticipation of a labor shortage. As part of this process, the DOL calculates the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) which is the minimum hourly wage that employers must pay to H-2A workers. Employers must comply in order for H-2A workers to not negatively affect wages and working conditions of domestic agricultural workers in similar positions. The AEWR is calculated based on data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Labor Survey (FLS) which lists average wages for farmworkers in a state or region. In 2023, there was controversy over a new rule that would significantly raise certain H-2A wages. This resulted in a lawsuit that blocked the new rule and led to the suspension of the publication of the FLS.

 

The new interim final rule will now base AEWRs for farmworkers, agricultural equipment operators, livestock workers, graders/sorters, and packers on the statewide average hourly wages reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Wage Statistics (OEWS) survey for the five most common Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes. The AEWRs will also be based on two skill levels:

 

  • Skill Level I – Entry level wage rate based on the average hourly gross wage paid to the lower third of all workers in the five SOC codes comprising the field and livestock workers (combined) category or, for occupations outside of that category, the average hourly gross wage paid to the lower one-third of all workers in the specific SOC code assigned to the employer’s job opportunity.
  • Skill Level II – Experience-level or qualified employees who possess, either through education, training, or experience, demonstrated skills or knowledge to perform the work covering the SOC code.

 

An adjustment will be applied to the OEWS wage rates to also reflect fixed costs, like housing, that H-2A employers are required to provide to their workers for no cost. A rate table included in the interim final rule also shows that for certain states, the state minimum wage will become the highest applicable wage rate for H-2A workers unless it is lowered downward by the nonmonetary compensation adjustment.

 

Although the rule is effective October 2, 2025, interested parties have until December 1, 2025 to submit comments on the rule.

 

EAD Expiration Updates for TPS and Humanitarian Parole

 

There have been several changes this year to the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and humanitarian parole programs. Below is a non-exhaustive summary for the countries most affected by ongoing litigation and changes to the termination dates of their programs and associated Employment Authorization Documents (EADs). For additional information on specific countries, please review the USCIS website.

 

Country TPS Expiration Date TPS-Related

EAD Expiration Date

Haiti February 3, 2026 EAD auto-extended through February 3, 2026
Honduras September 8, 2025 September 8, 2025
Nicaragua September 8, 2025 September 8, 2025
Ukraine October 19, 2026 EAD expires when TPS ends
Venezuela 2023 TPS designation ended April 7, 2025; and

2021 TPS designation ends November 7, 2025.

TPS beneficiaries who received TPS-related employment authorization documents (EADs), Forms I-797, Notices of Action, and Forms I-94 issued with October 2, 2026, expiration dates on or before February 5, 2025 will maintain work authorization and their documentation will remain valid until October 2, 2026, pursuant to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s order dated May 30, 2025.

 

TPS Ends for Venezuela

 

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed for termination of the TPS program for Venezuelan nationals while the underlying case challenging the merits of the termination proceeds. The case challenging DHS’ authority to end TPS benefits for Venezuelan nationals was appealed from a district court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that DHS lacked authority to vacate the TPS benefits.  This ruling only affects the lower court’s order that termination of the program was suspended pending review of the underlying legal challenge to the validity of the TPS termination. This decision allows termination of the program to proceed while the legal challenge is ongoing. Venezuelan nationals will no longer have legal status as of November 7, 2025. Employers whose workforce is made up of Venezuelan nationals with TPS benefits should consult with legal counsel to understand the ramifications of the Court’s ruling.

 

New $1,000 Parole Fee

 

Effective October 16, 2025, a notice published in the Federal Register titled Immigration Parole Fee Required by HR-1 Reconciliation Bill states that DHS will begin imposing and collecting a $1,000 fee for “any alien who is paroled into the United States.” Parole is a grant of temporary permission to enter the U.S. for urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons, but does not confer immigration status. DHS interprets this to mean each time an alien is granted parole, the fee will be required. This includes initial parole from outside the U.S., Congressionally authorized “parole in place,” re-parole, or parole from DHS custody. Collection begins October 16, 2025 for individuals granted parole or re-paroled while physically present in the U.S.

 

The notice identifies ten exceptions to the fee where there is insufficient time for admission through the normal visa process. The Secretary of Homeland Security will determine if the following exceptions are met:

 

  1. The individual has a medical emergency that is life-threatening or they cannot obtain necessary treatment in the foreign state in which they are residing;
  2. The individual is the parent or guardian of a minor individual described in #1 above;
  3. The individual is needed in the U.S. for an organ or tissue donation;
  4. The individual has a close family member whose death is imminent;
  5. The individual needs to attend the funeral of a close family member;
  6. The individual is an adopted child with an urgent medical condition who is in legal custody of the petitioner for a final adoption-related visa;
  7. The individual is a lawful applicant for adjustment of status and is returning to the U.S. after temporary travel abroad;
  8. The individual has been returned to a contiguous country and is being paroled to attend an immigration hearing;
  9. The individual has been granted the status of Cuban and Haitian entrant as defined in the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980; or
  10. The Secretary of Homeland Security determines a significant public benefit has resulted or will result from the individual assisting in a law enforcement matter.

 

Action Items

  1. Consult with immigration legal counsel on ongoing immigration changes.

 


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

Proposed OBBB Regulations Issued for the Tip Tax Deduction

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Tipped Employees

EFFECTIVE

Pending

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Proposed regulations issue clarifying requirements for tip tax deduction.
  • Qualified tips must be received in customarily tipped jobs, received as cash, and paid for voluntarily.

Discussion

The Treasury Department recently issued proposed regulations to implement the tip tax deduction created under the One Big Beautiful Bill. Specifically, individuals may take up to a $25,000 tax deduction on their income tax returns for qualifying tips received in the taxable year, which amount may be reduced by $100 for every $1,000 earned by which the adjusted gross income exceeds $150,000 ($300,000 for married couples filing jointly).

 

The proposed rule explains the requirements necessary for tips to be qualified for the tax deduction:

 

  • Qualified tips must be received in customarily tipped jobs. The proposed rule incorporates the previously released draft list of 68 customarily tipped jobs that are eligible for the tip deduction.

 

  • Amounts must be received as cash. This includes cash, check, credit card, debit card, gift card, tangible or intangible tokens that are readily exchangeable for a fixed amount in cash (such as casino chips), and any other form of electronic settlement or mobile payment application that is denominated in cash. Excluded payments are items paid in any medium other than cash, such as event tickets, meals, services, or other assets that are not exchangeable for a fixed amount in cash (such as most digital assets).

 

  • Tips must be paid voluntarily and without any consequence in the event of nonpayment, are not the subject of negotiation, and are determined by the payor. Mandatory amounts automatically added to a customer’s bill by the vendor or establishment are not qualified tips. For example, a mandatory percentage added to a service bill is not a qualified tip. The customer must have the option not to pay a tip when paying an invoice or bill.

 

  • Tips are not payment for the price of services performed. They must be in excess of the amount agreed to, required, charged, or otherwise reasonably expected to have to be paid for the services in an arm’s-length transaction.

 

  • Qualified tips do not involve illegal activity, prostitution, or pornography.

 

  • Tips received by employees with ownership interest in or employed by the tip payor are not qualified.

 

Additionally, employees who enter into a Tipped Employee Participation Agreement as part of the Tip Reporting Determination Agreement (TRDA) program or a Model Gaming Employee Tip Reporting Agreement as part of the Gaming Industry Tip Compliance Agreement (GITCA) program may determine the amount of qualified tips using the applicable tip rate in their agreement (and amounts reported on Form 4137) in lieu of reporting actual tips received.

 

The proposed rule provides a number of examples to further explain these requirements. Employers should review the proposed rule for further guidance. It is unclear what the timing will be for approving the proposed rule in light of the current government shutdown. Employers should continue to monitor the situation for updates.

 

Action Items

  1. Review the proposed rule here.
  2. Prepare to calculate qualified tips received in 2025 for disclosure on tax reporting forms.

 


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

FTC Overhauls Enforcement and Oversight of Non-Compete Agreements

APPLIES TO

All Employers

EFFECTIVE

As Indicated

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • The FTC’s Joint Labor Task Force is now active, launching its first enforcement action targeting non-compete agreements used broadly across all employee levels.
  • The FTC will assess non-competes using a reasonableness standard, balancing employer interests against employee hardship and public harm.
  • The FTC has dropped its legal defense of the Biden-era rule banning non-competes, opting instead for case-by-case enforcement.
  • Employers are invited to submit information about their competitors’ use of non-competes, with a particular focus on healthcare industry practices.

Discussion

First Enforcement Action of the Joint Labor Task Force

 

In February 2025, the FTC’s Chairman directed the formation of a Joint Labor Task Force, with an aim of “rooting out and prosecuting deceptive, unfair, and anticompetitive labor-market practices that harm American workers.” Following formation of the Task Force, the FTC has taken its first enforcement action targeting a company that imposed non-competes on all new hires, regardless of role. As a result of the enforcement action, employers should note that blanket non-compete policies may trigger federal scrutiny. The resulting consent order requires the company to notify employees that non-competes are void and limits non-solicitation clauses to customers the employee directly served in the past 12 months.

 

New Legal Standard for Non-compete Evaluation

 

In a separate statement, issued on September 4, 2025, the FTC announced that they will use a fact-specific approach similar to the common-law “rule of reason,” when evaluating whether a non-compete is narrowly tailored to protect legitimate business interests (with limited exceptions). Among the factors relevant to the FTC’s finding of unlawfulness here included:

  • The size of the company, both in terms of employees and business;
  • Whether the company required non-competes of all employees or a subset of employees;
  • The behavioral, temporal, and geographic scope of the non-compete provisions; and
  • Whether the employees with non-competes had job duties that might justify non-compete restrictions.

 

FTC Drops Biden-Era Non-compete Ban

 

Employers will recall that the Biden-era FTC proposes a near complete ban on non-compete agreements in April 2024. This proposed rule has been subject to significant ongoing litigation and the FTC was required to update the appellate court on their intentions to continue to defend the ban by September 8. Just before their deadline, the FTC announced that they will stop pursuing the action and filed paperwork to dismiss their legal actions. Rather than defending the rule, the FTC has indicated that they will address non-compete agreements “through enforcement actions against companies that misuse them in violation of the law.”

 

Information Requested from the Public on Use of Non-compete Agreements

 

On September 4, 2025, the FTC published a public request for information (RFI) asking the public to provide information on the use and enforcement of employee non-compete agreements. Employers are encouraged to participate in the FTC’s public inquiry, especially if they’ve experienced hiring challenges due to competitors’ non-compete practices. This is an opportunity to influence future enforcement and policy direction.

 

The public has 60 days to respond to the FTC’s RFI, which asks a number of questions, including which employers are using non-compete agreements, what are the terms of those agreements, and how are they being enforced. The FTC also offers a confidential submission option to protect the confidentiality of many of these types of agreements.

 

Action Items

  1. Review non-compete and non-solicitation agreements with legal counsel.
  2. Continue to monitor enforcement efforts from the FTC.

 


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

Department of Labor Issues Opinion Letters on Several Wage and Hour Issues

APPLIES TO

All Employers

EFFECTIVE

September 30, 2025

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • In specific circumstances, the employer should include “emergency pay” earned for hours worked within the regular rate for purposes of overtime premium calculations.
  • When one employer employs a worker for one set of hours in a workweek, and another employer employs the same worker for a separate set of hours in the same workweek, that scenario may be, under appropriate circumstances, “horizontal” joint employment.
  • Front-of-house oyster shuckers may be considered employees that customarily and regularly receive tips and can be included in the tip pool.
  • An employer seeking to calculate the hourly equivalent of FMLA leave available to an employee should do so based on the employee’s actual, normally scheduled workweek.

Discussion

On September 30, the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued several opinion letters clarifying several issues under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The issuance of the opinion letters was the result of the Deputy Secretary of Labor’s announcement in June to provide meaningful compliance assistance in understanding how federal labor laws apply in specific situations. The opinion letters addressed tip pooling, emergency pay, the interplay between the FLSA and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and joint and several liability for overtime for commonly controlled entities.

 

Emergency Pay

 

FLSA2025-04 addressed whether “emergency pay” provided to firefighters and other employees of a city must be included in the regular rate of pay used to calculate overtime premiums and how to calculate the regular rate when such pay is included. This opinion letter specifically addresses a firefighter/paramedic receiving a premium payment of one half the employee’s regular hourly rate of pay (the base or usual hourly rate) for every hour worked during an emergency period. This is defined as a period where, due to a disaster or emergency declaration, only some designated emergency employees must work. While the job duties remain the same, other factors, like extreme weather, make the duties more likely to cause physical hardship.

 

The WHD found, under these specific facts, the employer at issue should include “emergency pay” earned for hours worked within the regular rate for purposes of overtime premium calculations. The FLSA requires payment “at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [the employee] is employed” to all non-exempt employees for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. The “regular rate” must include “all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee,” and must reflect all payments earned during the workweek, exclusive of overtime payments.

 

The FLSA provides for eight exclusions from the regular rate of pay. The situation at hand did not fit either of the two exclusions which most likely may have applied: discretionary bonuses and regular premium pay. This particular payment was not paid pursuant to a policy that left no discretion as to whether they are owed to the employee. Also, it is not an excludable premium because: (1) it is not contingent upon the employee working in excess of any particular amount of hours; (2) it is not contingent upon the work being performed “on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, or regular days of rest, or on the sixth or seventh day of the workweek”; and (3) it is not contingent upon the work being performed outside “the basic, normal, or regular workday … [or] workweek” of the employee. Therefore, the emergency pay should be included in the regular rate of pay to calculate overtime premiums for any non-exempt employees.

 

The calculation method to follow is as described below.

 

Straight-time earnings with emergency pay (Total hours worked in a workweek x Base hourly rate) + (Hours of emergency pay x Base hourly rate x Emergency pay rate as percentage of base hourly rate) = Total

 

Regular rate $ Straight-time earnings with emergency pay = Total

Total hours worked in a workweek

 

Premium rate Regular rate x Emergency pay rate as percentage of base hourly rate = Total

 

Overtime Premium Premium rate x Overtime hours = Total

 

Total Compensation Straight-time earnings with emergency pay + Overtime premium = Total

 

Using the WHD’s provided example of an employee earning a base wage of $20 per hour for a total of 50 hours in a workweek, during which 20 hours are emergency pay hours paid at a rate of one half the base hourly rate:

 

Straight-time earnings with emergency pay (50 hours x $20) + (20 hours x $20 x 0.5) = $1,200

 

Regular rate $1,200       =$24

50 hours

 

Premium rate $24 x 0.5 = $12

 

Overtime Premium $12 x 10 overtime hours = $120

 

Total Compensation $1,200 + $120 = $1,320

 

 

Joint Liability for Overtime

 

FLSA2025-05 addresses whether two entities that are physically connected, and whose ownership, management, and operations appear common, are jointly and severally liable for all aspects of compliance under the FLSA. This opinion letter addresses an employee who works at a restaurant and a members-only club which operate on separate floors of a hotel but whose ownership, management, operations, and other factors appear to be common. The employee’s rate of pay is the same for both employers. The establishments share a kitchen, offer substantially the same food and beverages, and operate under similar trade names. The employee performs work in the same workweek for both establishments as do other employees. The employee is also “clocked in” at one establishment while assigned to another. Managers in one establishment participate in disciplinary matters for the other establishment. Picking up additional hours at one establishment while working primarily at another puts the employee beyond 40 hours worked in the workweek. However, the employee was told they would not be eligible for overtime since the establishments were two different companies.

 

Under the FLSA, separately incorporated entities may be considered a single employer with respect to an employee, or employees, for purposes of compliance with the FLSA. Alternatively, even if two or more entities are considered separate employers, they can nonetheless be “joint employers” for purposes of liability for wages and overtime. When one employer employs a worker for one set of hours in a workweek, and another employer employs the same worker for a separate set of hours in the same workweek, that scenario may be, under appropriate circumstances, “horizontal” joint employment. This can occur where employers interchange or share employees.

 

Here, the WHD found evidence that there was horizontal joint employment: (1) they shared a kitchen and had similar food and beverage menus; (2) managers periodically supervise and manage both facilities; (3) the facilities have the same owners; (4) the employees can clock in at one establishment and be directed to work at the other; and (5) there are identical rates of pay. Employers with similar structures should be aware that corporate formalities are not enough to overcome the operational realities.

 

Tip Pooling and Front-of-House Employees

 

FLSA2025-03 addresses whether a restaurant employer may include “front-of-house” oyster shuckers in a traditional tip pool with servers for whom the employer takes a tip credit. This opinion letter addresses a seafood restaurant employer that requires servers to contribute to a tip pool that includes other employees that do not receive tips directly from customers. This includes front-of-house oyster shuckers at the oyster bar in the dining room. These oyster shuckers are also included in the tip pool. The back-of-house oyster shuckers work in the restaurant’s kitchen and are not a part of the tip pool. The employer also takes a tip credit towards its federal minimum wage obligation for the servers.

 

Employers are generally required to pay employees no less than the federal minimum wage. However, the FLSA permits an employer to satisfy a portion of its minimum wage obligation for tipped employees by taking a tip credit equal to the difference between the required direct wage (which must be at least $2.13 per hour) and the federal minimum wage. Only employees who customarily and regularly receive tips are considered when taking a tip credit. An employer taking a tip credit can require employees to participate in a tip pool only if the tip pool is limited to employees who customarily and regularly receive tips. Examples of included employees are waiters, bellhops, waitresses, countermen, busboys, and service bartenders. Examples of excluded employees are janitors, dishwashers, chefs, and laundry room attendants. The WHD has found, however, that counter person(s) who interact with and serve customers may participate in tip pools, like itamae-sushi chefs, teppanyaki chefs, sommeliers, and hibachi waiter-chefs.

 

The common thread in WHD’s guidance is that to be an individual who customarily and regularly receives tips, an employee must engage in service-related functions and have sufficient interaction with the customers who leave tips, a portion of which are subsequently contributed to a tip pool. In the case of the front-of-house oyster shuckers, they may be considered employees that customarily and regularly receive tips and can be included in the tip pool. Similar to sommeliers, they directly service the customers by sharing and detailing oyster offerings, make suggestions to customers regarding the oyster offerings, and field questions about the different options. They also prepare the oysters in plain view of the customers like an itamae-sushi or teppanyaki chef. The back-of-house oyster chefs do not meet these requirements and are properly excluded from the tip pool. This interpretation is consistent with prior WHD guidance defining occupations that “customarily and regularly” receive tips.

 

FLSA and FMLA

 

FLSA2025-02-A addresses how to calculate the number of hours of Family and Medical Leave Act leave available to correctional law enforcement employees who work a fixed “Pitman Schedule” requiring 12-hour shifts over a two-week cycle that includes mandatory overtime. In this opinion letter the WHD addressed the appropriate method for calculating intermittent or reduced schedule FMLA leave hours when employees work fixed schedules that include mandatory overtime hours and may volunteer for additional hours that are not part of the published weekly schedule. The employer’s published schedule mandates 84 hours of work every two weeks. Therefore, the employer calculates the 12-workweek FMLA leave entitlement as equivalent to 504 hours. This calculation excludes voluntary hours that are not part of the published hours.

 

The FMLA regulations provide that an employer may calculate an employee’s FMLA leave entitlement by converting fractions of a workweek of leave to their hourly equivalent in a manner that equitably reflects the employee’s total normally scheduled hours. These are generally the hours the employee would have worked but for the use of leave. It is common for employers to convert the entitlement to 480 hours of FMLA leave per leave year for employees who work a 40-hour workweek. However, it is the specific employee’s actual schedule that determines the conversion calculation. Similarly for intermittent leave, the leave use should not result in a reduction in the total amount of leave to which the employee is entitled beyond the amount of leave actually taken.

 

In this specific case, the conversion of the 12-workweek FMLA leave entitlement to a 504-hour leave entitlement is in accordance with the FMLA’s requirements. It properly includes normally scheduled hours while excluding voluntary additional hours. When deducting from the FMLA entitlement, mandatory overtime hours are included properly.

 

Action Items

  1. Review inclusion of emergency pay in calculations for determining overtime, if applicable.
  2. Evaluate commonly controlled entities sharing employees for joint overtime liability with legal counsel, if applicable.
  3. Regularly review tip and tip pooling policies for eligible participants and compliance with tip credit requirements, if applicable.
  4. Review calculation of FMLA entitlement to include regularly scheduled and mandatory overtime hours, where applicable.

 


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

Sixth Circuit: Avoid Aggressive Tactics to Determine Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs for Religious Accommodations

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in KY, MI, OH, and TN

EFFECTIVE

September 29, 2025

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • On September 29, 2025, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled an employee who challenged the employer’s process for granting a religious accommodation could proceed with their case alleging that they were subjected to an adverse employment action due to the employer’s aggressive testing of their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Discussion

On September 29, 2025, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a married couple that challenged their employer’s process for granting a religious accommodation could proceed with their case alleging that they were subjected to an adverse employment action. Here, the employer was a national laboratory in Tennessee that required all employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccination or face termination. The plaintiffs, a married Christian couple, believed that the vaccine mandate violated their religious beliefs opposing abortion because the COVID-19 vaccines were developed using cells extracted from aborted fetuses. However, those requesting a religious accommodation would have to go on unpaid leave or use vacation days until the end of the pandemic.

 

The plaintiffs sued for and received a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the unpaid leave policy. During this period, the wife qualified for a medical accommodation. However, the husband was told he needed to sit for a panel interview during which the employer’s representatives would examine him about this religious beliefs. During this process, he was required to read and respond to a fact sheet that contained information about cell lines from aborted fetuses and quotes from faith leaders that differed from his beliefs. The plaintiffs sued for disparate treatment, failure to accommodate, and retaliation due to their objections to the vaccine mandate. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant employer, and the plaintiffs appealed.

 

While the court ultimately found the wife did not have standing and suffered no harm due to the fact she received a medical accommodation, the court did find the husband’s claims were held to too high of a standard by the district court. Under recent Supreme Court precedent in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, an employee does not need to show that the discrimination caused a “materially adverse” impact beyond that they were forced to choose between faith and work. In order to prove his disparate treatment claim, the husband had to show only that he was treated worse than other employees and not that the harm incurred was significant. For the failure to accommodate claim, the husband only had to show that the harm is having to choose between violating his religious beliefs and violating workplace policies. Lastly, as to the retaliation claim, the court found that a reasonable juror could find that the interview process the husband had to endure “could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making” a request for accommodations.  Ultimately, the court found that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to all of the husband’s claims and remanded it for a jury trial in accordance with its opinion regarding the burdens of proof for each separate claim.

 

This case reinforces that employers should not use aggressive tactics to determine whether an employee’s religious beliefs are sincerely held in order for a religious accommodation to be provided. Instead, employers should focus on whether the accommodation can be provided or whether it would constitute an undue hardship.

 

Action Items

  1. Review process for evaluating requests for religious accommodation.
  2. Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements.
  3. Consult with legal counsel prior to denying requests for religious accommodation.

 


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

Alaska: Final Regulations Published for Paid Sick Leave Law

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in AK

EFFECTIVE

September 25, 2025

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development has published final regulations for the state’s new paid sick leave (PSL) law.
  • The regulations address the implementation of the PSL law, providing clarification on topics including, but not limited to, determining employer size, front-loading leave, cash-out policies, compensation rates, and hours worked.
  • The regulations also address how employers must notify employees about company paid sick leave policy terms, as well as individual employee PSL usage and accrual.

Discussion

The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development has published final regulations and FAQs for the state’s new paid sick leave (PSL) law. Enacted by ballot measure in 2024, the PSL law went into effect on July 1, 2025, with the regulations taking effect as of September 25, 2025.

 

By way of background, all employers are covered under the PSL law, and most employees are eligible, with exceptions for government workers, youth and student workers, and employees exempt from minimum wage and overtime under Alaska state law. Under the PSL law, employers with fewer than 15 employees must allow them to accrue and use up to 40 hours of sick leave per year and employers with 15 or more employees must allow annual accrual and use of up to 56 hours of leave. Key aspects of the final regulations are summarized below.

 

Determining employer size. The regulations explain how employers should count employees to arrive at their size, which determines whether the employer must provide 40 or 56 hours of PSL per year. The regulations direct employers to use a full-time equivalent calculation for the previous calendar year by adding all hours worked by all employees during the calendar year and dividing this sum by the number of hours a full-time employee would work during the calendar year.

 

Front-loading leave. Notably absent from the PSL law was whether employers are permitted to front-load PSL for employees. The regulations confirm that employers may opt to front-load PSL at the beginning of the year, exempting employers from having to allow employees to carry over their accrued, unused leave at the end of the year.

 

Establishing an accrual year. The regulations stipulate that unless an employer front-loads PSL, they must establish a consecutive 52-week year during which PSL accrues. Employers that don’t establish an accrual year have a calendar year automatically established.

 

Cash-out policies. Employers may have a policy that allows (but does not require) employees to “cash out” unused, accrued paid time off and sick leave in place of carryover at the end of the year or at separation of employment. The regulations require the cash-out policy to be in writing and provided to employees. Employees must voluntarily sign off on the cash-out.

 

Rate of compensation. The regulations outline what methods should be used to determine compensation rates for piece work and workers with commissions, bonuses, noncash compensation and varied hourly rates.

 

Hours worked. The regulations define “hours worked” to exclude holidays, vacation and uncompensated, nonworking on-call hours, which are further defined.

 

Alternate employer policies. The PSL law allows employers to meet their PSL obligations with their own paid leave or paid time-off plans, as long as the plan meets the requirements of the law. The regulations further specify that employers must notify employees in writing that the alternate policy will be used to satisfy the PSL law. The regulations also state that leave provided beyond what the PSL statute mandates is not subject to the PSL law.

 

Employer notice obligations. The regulations require employers to include in employees’ pay statements the amount of PSL the employee has used in the accrual year as well as the employee’s PSL balance.

 

Employee notice obligations. Under the statute, employees must make a good-faith effort to provide advance notice of foreseeable PSL to their employer. They must also make a reasonable effort to schedule foreseeable paid sick leave in a manner that does not unduly disrupt the employer’s operations. The regulations add that employers may require up to 10 days’ notice of foreseeable leave if this requirement is in a policy provided to the employee. The policy may further require that employees not schedule medical appointments during peak business hours, when work is time-sensitive or when there is a mandatory meeting, if the employee’s absence would unduly disrupt business operations. Employees who were provided with the policy but who fail to follow it may be disciplined or have their PSL denied.

 

Verification of leave. The regulations provide that employers do not have to pay for sick leave if they have not received documentation they requested (as permitted by the law) to verify leave of more than three consecutive days. However, the regulations require employers to include the verification requirement in their written sick leave policy that is provided to employees.

 

Notification methods. Under the regulations, employers may satisfy their written notice obligations by providing the notices in person, by mail, by email, in a paycheck, in a printed or electronic handbook or manual, or in a workplace posting.

 

Action Items

  1. Review full final regulations here.
  2. Review and update paid sick leave policies as applicable.
  3. Update employer PSL notification procedures.
  4. 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

California: Are Recent Legislative Updates Really that Shocking?

APPLIES TO

As Indicated

EFFECTIVE

As Indicated

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • PERB will take action for employee rights when the NLRB does not.
  • Leaves for crime victims and attending judicial proceedings are consolidated under the Civil Rights Division.
  • Paid sick leave is formally amended to allow usage for jury duty, attend judicial proceedings, and address crime victim needs.
  • Public works employers have 10 days to produce payroll records upon request, otherwise the DLSE may withhold penalties from the contract award.
  • Stay-or-pay agreements are a prohibited restraint of trade, subject to limited exception.
  • There will be statutorily mandated interagency cooperation for processing agricultural employee claims.
  • The requirement to rehire displaced workers as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic has been extended another year through the end of 2026.
  • There are changes to public works annualization of per diem wages to ensure proper calculation.
  • The state Attorney General may bring a lawsuit against a contractor or deny a license application or renewal where the contractor has failed to properly pay its workers.
  • The Division of Workers’ Compensation is required to develop templates for a medical evaluation request form and a qualified medical evaluator (QME) report form.
  • Rideshare drivers will have the ability to organize while still being classified as independent contractors.
  • Workers’ compensation parties must disclose a financial interest in an entity providing services.
  • Manicurists and commercial fishers will continue to be exempt from using the “ABC” test to determine independent contractor status through 2029 and 2031, respectively.
  • Large developers of artificial intelligence models must have whistleblower processes for their employees.
  • Where an employer fails to pay a final judgment for unpaid wages within 180 days of the final judgment, they are subject to a civil penalty of up to three times the judgment amount plus attorneys’ fees and costs.
  • By February 1, 2026, all employers must provide employees with a stand-alone written notice of rights. Employers must provide current employees the opportunity to name an emergency contact no later than March 30, 2026.
  • Where an employee’s assessment, testing, admission, or acknowledgment of their own personal bias is made in good faith and solicited or required as part of a bias mitigation training does not constitute unlawful discrimination.
  • Employers must retain collected demographic information separate from personnel files. Pay data reporting will change as of January 1, 2027 to include 13 more data points.
  • There are clarifications on how the CRD manages received complaints under FEHA, including tolling deadlines.
  • An employee’s right to review their personnel file related to their performance includes education and training records, which must identify specific information.
  • Paid family leave benefits will be expanded to include caring for a designated person with a serious health condition.
  • Contractor joint liability requirements and exceptions are clarified.
  • A CalWARN notice of mass layoff, relocation, or termination must include new information.
  • The pay transparency law amends the definition of “pay scale” to mean a good faith estimate of the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire.
  • The statute of limitations for violations of the equal pay law is extended to three years, regardless of whether a violation is considered willful. Other changes extend and clarify requirements.
  • The Construction Trucking Employer Amnesty Program offers a settlement option to eliminate employer liability.
  • Expense reimbursement requirements are identified for commercial drivers.
  • The Division of Workers’ Compensation may obtain a lien on an uninsured employer’s real property transferred to hide the asset.

Discussion

California’s legislative session has come to a close with the Governor signing a number of bills impacting employers and employees. As in previous years, the California Legislature has been active this season. Here is a summary of key updates employers should be aware of.

 

AB 288 | JAN 1, 2026 – PERB is California’s version of the NLRB. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), already existing to protect public employees, is expanded to protect all employees that otherwise would be protected by the terms of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), but are, by act or omission of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), not in fact protected. The bill seeks to ensure that all California workers maintain the freedom to engage in collective action, to organize, form, join, or assist labor organizations, and engage in collective bargaining. PERB will have similar authority to address collective bargaining and employee claims as exists for the NLRB.

 

There will be a phase in period for adjudicating unfair labor practice cases: the bill is effective January 1, 2026 for employers with 500 or more employees for refusal to bargain or acknowledge election certification or unilateral withdrawal of recognition of an employee representative by an employer of any size (Category 1 cases); July 1, 2026 for claims that an employer of any size refused to bargain, recognize, or give effect to an election certification (Category 1); January 1, 2027 for claims that an employer failed to bargain in good faith where engaged for bargaining for over six months without agreement (Category 2); January 1, 2027 for all other cases, which are organized within this category from priority 1 to 4 (Category 3). Priority of cases is designated in order of Category. Unfair practice violations may result in $1,000 civil penalties per worker per violation.

 

AB 406 | OCT 1, 2025 – Reinstates Protections Against Qualifying Acts of Violence for Violations Prior to December 31, 2024; Moves Leave to Attend Judicial Proceedings to the Government Code; Expands Paid Sick Leave. As of January 1, 2025, protections including leave for victims of qualifying acts of violence was moved from the Labor Code to the Government Code to provide the Civil Rights Division (CRD) authority over alleged violations. This bill reinstates the provisions existing under the Labor Code on or before December 31, 2024 to apply only to alleged actions or inactions occurring on or before that date. The previous protections are reinstated until 2035.

 

The bill also transfers enforcement authority for discrimination prohibitions relating to crime victims, including when the victims are employees’ family members, taking leave to attend judicial proceedings from the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) to the Civil Rights Department as of January 1, 2026, by transferring laws from the Labor Code to the Government Code. The current Labor Code sections will apply to violations occurring on or before December 31, 2025, and those laws will sunset as of 2035.

 

Finally, the paid sick leave law has been amended to specifically allow for leave to be taken (1) to attend judicial proceedings relating to crime victims as was stated in the Labor Code prior to 2025; (2) for purposes of jury duty, appearing as a witness in a judicial proceeding, and to obtain certain crime victim relief as of January 1, 2025; and (3) for crime victims to attend judicial proceedings as of January 1, 2026. These changes reflect reconciliation of provisions among the moving parts of these laws to be consistent across code sections and expand on what already existed.

 

AB 538 | JAN 1, 2026 – Public works access to payroll records. Contractors and subcontractors must currently maintain payroll records for employees on public works projects. When the request for records is made through the project-awarding public agency, and the agency does not have a certified copy of the records, this bill requires the agency to obtain the payroll records from the contractor. Once the contractor receives the request from the awarding agency, the contractor has 10 days to comply. If the contractor fails to comply, the DLSE is notified and may seek to withhold penalties from the contract award.

 

AB 692 | JAN 1, 2026 – “Stay-or-Pay” Agreements are a Restraint of Trade. This bill prohibits employers from entering into agreements that require payment of debts, debt collection or ending forbearance, or imposes any penalty, fee, or cost on a worker if their work relationship terminates. Provided that certain requirements are met, this restriction does not apply to tuition repayment costs for a transferable credential, enrollment in an approved apprenticeship program, or repayment of a hiring bonus that is not tied to specific job performance. These prohibitions apply to contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026. Victims or worker representatives may bring civil lawsuits for violations of the law, which may result in a minimum of a $5,000 penalty per worker, plus injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. The Governor encouraged further legislation in 2026 to preclude “stay-or-pay” agreements in collective bargaining.

 

AB 845 | [Upon Legislative Appropriation] – Agricultural Employee Claims. This bill requires any agency within the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to route complaints received from agricultural employees to the proper state agencies with jurisdiction over the complaints, and prohibits the transmitting entity from disclosing the identity and personal information of the complainant to the extent prohibited by law without their consent.

 

AB 858 | JAN 1, 2026 – Extension for Rehiring Displaced Workers. This bill extends Labor Code § 2810.8 through January 1, 2027. Previously expiring at the end of 2025, former employers in the hospitality and business service provider industries must offer re-employment to those who were laid off for qualifying reasons during the COVID-19 pandemic when positions are available for which they qualify, in addition to other notice and recordkeeping requirements.

 

AB 889 | JAN 1, 2026 – Changes to Public Works Annualization of Per Diem Wages. Employers use annualization to calculate fringe benefit credits that may be applied to prevailing rate wages on public work projects. This bill removes existing exceptions for employers to pay the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for public works projects and revokes annualization exemptions authorized before January 1, 2026. Employers are authorized to take full credit for the hourly amounts contributed to defined contribution pension plans that provide for both immediate participation and essentially immediate vesting even if the employer contributes at a lower rate or does not make contributions to private construction. The employer has the burden to prove that the credit for employer payments was calculated properly. Employers are required to produce records of employee hours and employer payments on private construction sufficient for the Labor Commissioner to verify that the credit for employer payments was properly calculated on an annualized basis; the Labor Commissioner may deny the employer credit for employment payments if the employer does not produce the requested records.

 

AB 1002 | JAN 1, 2026 – Contractor Penalties for Wage and Hour Violations. The state Attorney General may bring a lawsuit against a contractor or deny a license application or renewal where the contractor has failed to pay its workers the full amount of wages that the workers are entitled to under state law, has not fulfilled a wage judgment, or is in violation of an injunction or court order regarding the payment of wages to its workers. A good faith mistake regarding which wage rate applies to a particular category of work will not be considered a violation of the law.

 

AB 1293 | JAN 1, 2026 – Workers’ Compensation Qualified Medical Evaluators Report Form Template. This bill requires the Division of Workers’ Compensation to develop templates for a medical evaluation request form and a qualified medical evaluator (QME) report form. The Division is required to adopt regulations to implement this bill by January 1, 2027.

 

AB 1340 | JAN 1, 2026 – Transportation Network Company Drivers Labor Relations Act. This bill requires that transportation network company (TNC) drivers, providing prearranged passenger transportation services, have the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of TNC driver organizations, to bargain through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from such activities. This essentially gives rideshare drivers the ability to organize while still being classified as independent contractors. The PERB is required to enforce these rules.

 

AB 1398 | JAN 1, 2026 – Workers’ Compensation Disclosure Requirements. All interested parties in a workers’ compensation case must disclose to a third-party payer, or other entity to whom a claim for payment is presented for services furnished pursuant to a referral, a financial interest in an entity providing services. The disclosure must be made in writing, at the time the claim for payment is presented for services furnished pursuant to a referral.

 

AB 1514 | JAN 1, 2026 – Extended Independent Contractor “ABC” Exemption for Licensed Manicurists and Commercial Fishers. Under Labor Code § 2778, manicurists and commercial fishers are exempt from using the “ABC” test to determine independent contractor status. Those exemptions were set to sunset and now have been extended until 2029 and 2031, respectively.

 

SB 53 | JAN 1, 2026 – Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA). Large developers of artificial intelligence models are required to follow specified standards when creating frontier models and to publish information about their models on their websites. For employers, it creates whistleblower protections for those working with foundation models and prohibits a frontier developer from preventing, or retaliating against, a covered employee from or for disclosing information to the Attorney General, a federal authority, the employee’s superior, or an employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the reported issue, if the covered employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses that the frontier developer’s activities pose a specific and substantial danger to the public health or safety resulting from a catastrophic risk or that the frontier developer has violated the TFAIA. It also requires frontier developers to have specified internal reporting procedures for this purpose. This bill preempts any similar local laws enacted on or after January 1, 2025.

 

SB 261 | JAN 1, 2026 – DLSE Enforcement of and Penalties for Wage Theft. Where an employer fails to pay a final judgment for unpaid wages within 180 days of the final judgment, they are subject to a civil penalty of up to three times the judgment amount. Penalties are distributed 50/50 between employees and the DLSE. The Labor Commissioner or public prosecutor must be awarded court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees for successful judgment enforcement.

 

SB 294 | FEB 1, 2026 – Workplace Know Your Rights Act. By February 1, 2026, all employers must provide employees with a stand-alone written notice of rights to each current employee through personal service, email, or text message, or other method if it can reasonably be expected to be received by the employee within one business day of sending. The written notice must also be provided to each new employee upon hire and annually to existing employees. The Labor Commissioner is expected to provide a template notice by January 1, 2026. The notice must describe employee rights to workers’ compensation benefits, notice of inspection by immigration agencies, organize a union or engage in concerted activity, and when interacting with law enforcement at the workplace, as well as other information deemed necessary by the Labor Commissioner. Employers must keep records of compliance for three years, including the date that each written notice is provided or sent.

 

If an employee has notified their employer that they would like their designated emergency contact to be notified in the event they are arrested or detained, the employer must notify the designated emergency contact if the employee is arrested or detained on their worksite or if the employer is otherwise aware of arrest or detention away from the worksite during work hours. Employers must provide current employees the opportunity to name an emergency contact no later than March 30, 2026, and at the time of hire for new employees hired after March 30, 2026. The employer must also allow employees to provide updated emergency contact information through their duration of employment.

 

SB 303 | JAN 1, 2026 – Admissions During Bias Mitigation Training Do Not Trigger FEHA Protections. Where an employee’s assessment, testing, admission, or acknowledgment of their own personal bias is made in good faith and solicited or required as part of a bias mitigation training does not constitute unlawful discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). This measure is enacted in part to encourage employers to conduct bias mitigation training.

 

SB 447 | JAN 1, 2026 – Workers’ Compensation Firefighter and Peace Officer Death Benefits Extended. When a local firefighter or peace officer dies as a result of an accident or injury caused by external violence or physical force while performing their duty, workers’ compensation rules require the employer to continue providing health benefits to the deceased employee’s minor dependents under the benefits extended to the surviving spouse, or if there is no surviving spouse, until the minor dependent reaches a certain age. This bill extends that age from 21 to 26 years old.

 

SB 464 | JAN 1, 2026 – Pay Data Reporting Update. Employers with 100 or more employees have been required to provide pay data reporting to the State. This bill amends those requirements. First, this bill requires employers to retain collected demographic information separate from personnel files. Second, it makes civil penalties mandatory, rather than optional, for failure to report, which are $100 per employee for a first violation and $200 per employee for subsequent violations. Finally, pay data reporting will change as of January 1, 2027 to include 13 more data points, for a total of 23 data points reported. Employers will need to start collecting the required data in 2026 to prepare for reporting in 2027.

 

SB 477 | JAN 1, 2026 – CRD Procedural Updates Under FEHA. There is a set process for how the CRD manages received complaints under FEHA. This bill makes some clarifications and expands the reasons for tolling certain timed procedures. The bill clarifies the definition of “group or class complaint” to mean any complaint alleging a pattern or practice. Where a group or class complaint would otherwise cover another complaint made, the department will issue a right-to-sue notice for that complaint on request or at the conclusion of the group or class complaint. Additionally, the time for a complainant to file a civil action under certain identified statutes is tolled until one year after the department issues either a written notice that it has closed its investigation without electing to file a civil action for the alleged violation, or written notice that the complaint has remained closed following an appeal to the department if a timely appeal is made to the original closure. The time for the CRD to bring certain claims against an employer or issue right-to-sue letters may be tolled during a dispute resolution proceeding (e.g., mediation), based on mutual written agreement by the parties, during the time the CRD’s investigation is extended due to a pending petition to compel, or during a timely appeal for closing the complaint.

 

SB 487 | JAN 1, 2026 – Workers’ Compensation Benefits and Obligations for Firefighters and Peace Officers. This bill says that an employer is entitled to receive no more than 1/3 of the third-party defendant’s liability insurance policy limit for an injured peace office or firefighter, if the employee establishes that their total damages exceed the net recovery after satisfaction of the employer’s claim and that the total liability insurance limits available are insufficient to fully compensate the employer and employee’s proven damages. The bill limits an employer’s right to reimbursement, subrogation, or lien to the maximum recovery threshold. Employers are prohibited from asserting any recovery by an injured employee as a credit or offset against future workers’ compensation benefits and must have a settlement or release to limit the employer’s claim for reimbursement to the portion of the settlement not allocated to the employee under this bill.

 

SB 513 | JAN 1, 2026 – Personnel Records Clarified. An employee’s right to review their personnel file related to their performance includes education and training records. Education and training records must include the name of the employee, the name of the training provider, the duration and date of the training, the core competencies of the training (including skills in equipment or software), and the resulting certification or qualification.

 

SB 590 | JUL 1, 2028 – Paid Family Leave to Care for Designated Persons. Paid family leave benefits will be expanded to include caring for a designated person with a serious health condition. “Designated person” means any care recipient related by blood or whose association with the individual is the equivalent of a family relationship. This is consistent with the definition of designated person under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), which differs from the definition under the state paid sick leave law. Upon request to the EDD for wage replacement benefits for leave to care for a designated person, the employee must identify the designated person, and attest under penalty of perjury how that person is related by blood or is the equivalent of a family relationship.

 

SB 597 | JAN 1, 2026 – Contractor Joint Liability Clarified. Contractors are currently liable for wages of subcontractor employees. This bill limits the direct contractor’s liability to payments for labor required by the subcontractor’s agreement with the laborer or the subcontractor’s collective bargaining agreement. Additionally, liability of direct contractors will not be based on the employer’s misclassification of the craft of a worker. The statutory remedies are deemed to be cumulative of any other available remedies. Further, a direct contractor is not otherwise liable for fringe or other benefit contributions if it pays outstanding fringe and other benefit contributions owed to the worker through a joint check made payable to the subcontractor and the labor trust fund. The definition of “direct contractor” was revised to mean a contractor that has a direct contractual relationship with an owner or any other person or entity engaging contractors or subcontractors for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work on behalf of the owner.

 

SB 617 | JAN 1, 2026 – CalWARN Notice Revision. A CalWARN notice of mass layoff, relocation, or termination must include (1) whether the employer plans to coordinate services, such as a rapid response orientation, through the local workforce development board, the employer plans to coordinate services through a different entity, or the employer does not plan to coordinate services with any entity; (2) the email and phone number of the local workforce development board and a scripted description of the board; (3) a description of the statewide food assistance program known as CalFresh, the CalFresh benefits helpline, and a link to the CalFresh internet website; and (4) a functioning email and telephone number of the employer for contact. When coordinating services with a local workforce development board, an employer must do so within 30 days from the date of the notice.

 

SB 642 | JAN 1, 2026 – Pay Transparency and Equal Pay Updates. Currently, employers must disclose the pay scale of a position in job postings and upon request. This bill revises “pay scale” to mean a good faith estimate of the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire. Additionally, the statute of limitations for violations of the equal pay law is extended to three years, regardless of whether a violation is considered willful. There is also a six-year lookback period for obtaining remedies. The bill states that a cause of action under the equal pay law arises when an alleged unlawful compensation decision or practice is adopted, an individual becomes subjected to an unlawful compensation decision or practice, or an individual is affected by application of an unlawful compensation decision or practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid. For purposes of equal pay, “sex” has the same definition as is used under FEHA and equal pay must be provided as compared to those of “another” sex rather than the current standard of the “opposite” sex; and “wages” and “wage rates” include all forms of pay, including, but not limited to, salary, overtime pay, bonuses, stock, stock options, profit sharing and bonus plans, life insurance, vacation and holiday pay, cleaning or gasoline allowances, hotel accommodations, reimbursement for travel expenses, and benefits.

 

SB 809 | JAN 1, 2026 – Misclassification of Construction Drivers; Vehicle Expenses. Currently, the Motor Carrier Employer Amnesty Program allows a motor carrier performing drayage services to be relieved of liability for statutory or civil penalties associated with the misclassification of commercial drivers as independent contractors if the motor carrier enters into a settlement agreement with the commissioner. This bill creates a similar program, known as the Construction Trucking Employer Amnesty Program, allowing an eligible construction contractor to be relieved of liability for certain statutory or civil penalties associated with the misclassification of construction drivers as independent contractors, if the eligible construction contractor executes a settlement agreement negotiated with, or approved by, the Labor Commissioner prior to January 1, 2029. Additionally, the Labor Code will state that mere ownership of a vehicle used by a person in providing labor or services for remuneration does not determine whether that person is an independent contractor; the statutory “ABC” test determines independent contractor status.

 

Currently, employees are required to be reimbursed for necessary expenditures incurred in the discharge of their duties. This bill expressly requires reimbursement for expenses related to use of a personal or commercial vehicle while performing their job duties. With respect to construction trucking, a commercial motor vehicle driver who owns the truck, tractor, trailer, or other commercial vehicle that they use in performing their job duties is entitled to reimbursement for the use, upkeep, and depreciation of that vehicle, regardless of whether the vehicle is owned by the driver as an individual or through a corporate entity. This addition to the Labor Code is “declarative of existing law.” The amount to be reimbursed for the use of the truck, tractor, or trailer must be negotiated either by the driver (or their representative) and the employer. The amount negotiated must be either a flat rate reimbursement or a per-mile reimbursement, but must at least be the actual amount expended by the driver for a flat rate reimbursement or the standard mileage reimbursement rate set by the IRS. This expense reimbursement may be paid directly to the driver in the driver’s name or to a corporate entity owned and controlled by the driver if the vehicle is owned by the corporate entity.

 

SB 847| JAN 1, 2026 – Workers’ Compensation Lien on Real Property. This bill allows the Division of Workers’ Compensation to obtain a lien on an uninsured employer’s real property transferred after an employee’s injury, where the transfer indicates that it was made as a gift with no transfer tax paid or was intended to hide the asset.

 

Action Items

  1. Have appropriate personnel trained on compliance with the National Labor Relations Act.
  2. Update leave policies for compliance.
  3. Have legal counsel review and update employee contracts in 2026.
  4. Maintain processes to rehire displaced workers as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  5. Review public works annualization of per diem wages to ensure proper calculation.
  6. Conduct a wage and hour audit to confirm appropriate pay is provided to employees.
  7. Have legal counsel review independent contractor classifications for compliance.
  8. By February 1, 2026, provide employees with a stand-alone written notice of rights.
  9. By March 30, 20206, provide current employees the opportunity to name an emergency contact.
  10. Retain collected demographic information separate from personnel files.
  11. Prepare to expand pay data collection in 2026.
  12. Ensure education and training records identify required information.
  13. Update CalWARN notices with newly required information for 2026.
  14. Evaluate pay scale measurements for disclosure in compliance with pay transparency requirements.
  15. Have an equal pay audit conducted to evaluate compliance.
  16. Update expense reimbursement procedures for personal and commercial drivers.

 


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

Colorado: Workers’ Compensation Changes to Employee Selection of Treating Physician

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in CO

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2028

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Injured employees will be able to select their treating physician.
  • Employers must provide written notice to employees of their right to designate a physician.

Discussion

HB 1300 will give employees broader ability to select their primary treating physician for purposes of receiving health care in connection with a workers’ compensation claim. Within seven days of receiving notice of an on-the-job injury, employers must give written notice to the employee of their right to designate a treating physician, including where to access the Division of Workers’ Compensation’s list of Level I and Level II accredited physicians. The Division will provide a template designation form on which employees are required to designate their preferred provider.

 

The designated physician must be within 70 miles of the employee’s work or home address, unless there are three or fewer physicians within 70 miles who are willing to treat the injured employee, in which case the designated physician must be within 100 miles, unless the employee can show good cause otherwise.

 

The employee may make one treating physician designation any time after injury, but before being placed at maximum medical improvement. If the employee declines to designate a physician within seven days after receipt of notice of their right to designate, an employer or insurer may designate the Level I or Level II listed physician on their behalf. However, the employee may still subsequently designate a physician. An employee can subsequently change their designated treating physician once within 120 days after the first physician designation, but before the employee reaches maximum medical improvement.

 

For injured employees who are not a resident of Colorado, an employer must designate a treating physician within 10 days after receiving notice of an on-the-job injury and notify the employee of the designation in writing. The treating physician may be within 100 miles of the employee’s home address. If the employer or insurer declines to timely designate, the employee may designate a treating physician within 100 miles of the employee’s home in writing to the employer or through attendance at an appointment with the employee’s designated physician.

 

In an emergency situation, an injured employee must be taken to any physician or health-care facility that is able to provide the necessary care. Once emergency care is no longer required, the treating physician selection procedures may be followed. Within seven days of receiving notice that emergency care is no longer required, an employer or insurer must provide written notice to the injured employee of their right to designate a treating physician.

 

Additionally, an employer or the employer’s insurer will be required to use the Division of Workers’ Compensation’s utilization standards when responding to a request for authorization from a treating physician. If they do not, the director of the Division may deem the physician’s services as authorized, reasonable, and necessary and require payment for the services by the employer or the employer’s insurer.

Action Items

  1. Review the bill here.
  2. Implement the notice of rights and physician designate form when provided by the Division.
  3. Update procedures to include timing requirements to send the notice.
  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