Delaware

/in

Delaware: Consideration for Restrictive Covenants

APPLIES TO

As Indicated

EFFECTIVE

As Indicated

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • The validity of consideration given for a restrictive covenant is evaluated at the time of contract formation.
  • Consideration for a restrictive covenant must be adequate in the context.

Discussion

Discussion

 

The Supreme Court of Delaware recently issued two opinions on the matter of consideration for restrictive covenants. Specifically, the validity of consideration given must be evaluated at the time of contract formation, and the consideration must be adequate in the context.

 

Consideration Must be Valid on Contract Formation

 

On February 3, 2026, in North American Fire Ultimate Holdings, LP v. Doorly, the Supreme Court of Delaware measured the validity of consideration at the time an agreement was made. There, an employee was given an award of shares in the employer’s company in exchange for signing a noncompete agreement. The employee subsequently violated the noncompete agreement and the company shares were forfeited as a result. The employee claimed that the noncompete agreement lacked sufficient consideration since the awarded shares were forfeited after entering into the agreement.

The Court said that the awarded shares were valid at the time of entering into the noncompete agreement, which meant there was valid consideration. The validity of consideration is not measured again later at the time of enforcement. Moreover, even though the awarded shares created an opportunity to earn money in the future, they were still a valid form of consideration as they were contractual rights that the employee would not have otherwise been entitled to receive.

 

Consideration Must be Adequate in the Context

 

On March 19, 2026, in Payscale, Inc. v. Norman, the Supreme Court of Delaware distinguished Doorly. Although the validity of consideration is evaluated at the time of contract formation, the consideration must still be adequate in the context of restrictive covenants. Specifically, the balancing-of-the-equities inquiry affords the court discretion to weigh the breadth of a restrictive covenant against the consideration that supports it.  However, the lower court here did not conduct a balancing-of-the-equities analysis in its decision.

 

An employee was awarded company shares twice in exchange for entering into restrictive covenants for noncompete, nonsolicitation, and confidentiality. The opportunity to exercise the shares was contingent on the sale of the parent company. Even though the lower court considered the adequacy of the consideration within the context of the restriction’s geographic and temporal scope, it lacked sufficient information in the pleadings to make a factual determination. Rather, there was sufficient information in the pleading to allow the claim to move forward.

 

Action Items

  1. Review restrictive covenants with legal counsel for compliance.

 

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. © 2026 ManagEase

Illinois

/in

Illinois: “Interested Party” Provision of Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act is Unconstitutional

APPLIES TO

Covered Employers with Temporary and Day Laborers in IL

EFFECTIVE

MAR 6, 2026

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • The Circuit Court of Cook County declared the “interested party” provisions of the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act to be unconstitutional.

Discussion

On March 6, 2026, the Circuit Court of Cook County issued a significant ruling in Figueroa v. Visual Pak Holdings, LLC, declaring the “interested party” provisions of the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act (“the Act”) unconstitutional.

 

The Act imposes a range of pay and benefit requirements on covered temporary and day laborers. In 2023, the Illinois legislature significantly amended the Act to include Section 67, which granted “interested parties” the right to file a complaint with the Illinois Department of Labor and, under certain conditions, initiate a civil action against a staffing agency or third-party client for alleged violations of the Act. “Interested party” was defined under the amendments as organizations that monitor compliance with worker safety, wage and hour, or other statutory requirements. Since its enactment, unions and worker advocacy groups have increasingly relied on the “interested party” provisions to bring civil enforcement actions, and prevailing interested parties were entitled to 10% of any statutory penalties assessed, plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

 

In Figueroa, the Chicago Workers’ Collaborative (CWC) joined three individual plaintiffs in filing a class action complaint against a staffing company and its client alleging various violations of the Act. The defendants challenged the “interested party” provisions as unconstitutional on the grounds that the state of Illinois, not the interested party, is the real party in interest in such actions, and that Section 67 therefore improperly usurped the state Attorney General’s authority to represent the state in litigation.

 

The court determined that Section 67 functions as a qui tam statute because it is the state, and not the “interested party,” that is the entity with “an actual and substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation.” The court then found that the Act was an improper qui tam statute for two reasons: (1) it does not require an interested party to notify the attorney general of the filing for civil action; and (2) it does not grant the attorney general any control over the interested party’s suit. As such, the court ultimately held Section 67 to be unconstitutional.

 

Going forward, the Figueroa decision could redefine how the Act is enforced, potentially limiting civil enforcement actions to those brought by the Illinois Department of Labor or the attorney general, rather than third-party organizations. It is important to note, however, that the court’s ruling is limited to the interested party enforcement mechanism under Section 67 of the Act. All other provisions of the Act, including the substantive pay, benefit, and compliance requirements, remain in full effect.

 

Action Items

  1. Review pay, benefit, and other employer obligations for compliance with the Act’s requirements, as applicable.
  2. Monitor ongoing litigation on enforcement mechanisms under the Act.
  3. Consult with legal counsel to evaluate how this decision may impact pending litigation.

 

 

Illinois: State Supreme Court Significantly Expands Compensable Work Time

Applies to:          All Employers with Employees in IL

Effective:            MAR 19, 2026

 

Quick Look

v  The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the Illinois Minimum Wage Law does not incorporate the federal Portal-to-Portal Act’s exclusions for “preliminary” and “postliminary” activities.

v  Illinois employers can no longer rely on federal FLSA compliance alone to avoid wage and hour liability for time spent on required activities outside of an employee’s scheduled shift.

 

Discussion

 

On March 19, 2026, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Johnson v. Amazon.com Services LLC, which materially alters wage and hour law for Illinois employers. The court held that the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) does not incorporate the federal Portal-to-Portal Act’s (PPA) exclusions for “preliminary” and “postliminary” activities, meaning employer-required pre- and post-shift activities may now be compensable under Illinois law, even if they are not compensable under federal law.

 

In this case, a class action was filed by Amazon warehouse employees seeking compensation for mandatory pre-shift COVID-19 health screenings that took 10 to 15 minutes each day. The federal district court dismissed the claims under both the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the IMWL, applying the federal PPA, which excludes from compensable time “preliminary and postliminary activities” that are not “integral and indispensable” to an employee’s principal work activities. Since the employees’ primary duties involved moving and stacking packages, the court found that health screenings did not meet that standard and dismissed the case in its entirety.

 

On appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the IMWL does not incorporate the PPA’s categorical exclusions for preliminary and postliminary activities. The court first reasoned that the plain language of the IMWL contains no reference to the PPA or to preliminary and postliminary activities. While Illinois incorporated certain FLSA provisions into the IMWL, it did not incorporate the PPA’s exclusions, and the Court declined to read limitations into an otherwise unambiguous statute. The court also noted that the Illinois Department of Labor regulations define “hours worked” more broadly than federal law, encompassing all time an employee is required to be on duty, on the employer’s premises, or at other prescribed places of work. In reaching its decision, the Court emphasized that Illinois wage and hour claims require an independent analysis under state standards, not simply a federal law mirror image.

 

As a result of the ruling, Illinois employers can no longer rely on the PPA’s categorical exclusions to shield pre- and post-shift activities from compensation claims. Until the legislature acts or lower courts provide further guidance, required activities such as donning or doffing required protective clothing, uniforms, or safety gear, completing pre- or post-shift security screenings or inspections, conducting required safety or equipment inspections, or troubleshooting technical issues before beginning primary duties may now be compensable under Illinois law. In short, if an employer requires an activity and it occurs on the employer’s premises or under the employer’s control, it may be compensable under Illinois law, even if it would not be compensable under the FLSA.

 

Action Items

  1. Monitor future developments and legal interpretations of this new standard.
  2. Review timekeeping and compensation practices and policies for compliance with expanded “hours worked” standard.
  3. Consult with legal counsel regarding compensability of specific pre- and post-shift activities.

 

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. © 2026 ManagEase

Indiana

/in

Discussion

Indiana: Tip Pool Law is Retroactive to 2024

On February 24, 2026, Indiana enacted SB 245, which amends the state labor code to expressly authorize tip pooling arrangements, retroactive to June 27, 2024. Previously, tip pooling had been permitted only under nonbinding guidance from the Indiana Department of Labor. Under the amended law, the rules governing tip pools depend on whether the employer takes a tip credit. If the employer takes a tip credit, tips may only be shared among tipped employees, and the employer must notify employees of any required contribution amount. Employers may only take a tip credit for tips each employee actually receives. If the employer pays all employees at least the full minimum wage, tips may be shared among both tipped and non-tipped employees, provided employees are notified of contribution amounts. A “tipped employee” means a person employed in an occupation in which the person customarily and regularly receives tips (e.g., waiter, bellhop, bartender, or counter server), and a “non-tipped employee” means a person employed in an occupation in which the person does not customarily and regularly receive tips (e.g., dishwasher, cook, or janitor). Indiana employers utilizing tip pools should review their current arrangements for compliance with the updated requirements.

 

Indiana: Amended Unemployment Insurance Notice and Eligibility Requirements

Beginning July 1, 2026, SB 162 requires Indiana employers to notify the Department of Workforce Development when an employee is separated from employment under certain conditions, including voluntary resignation without good cause, discharge for just cause or gross misconduct, separation due to a physical condition, or departure to accept other employment or enter self-employment. Employers must also notify the Department when a separated claimant is entitled to vacation pay, payment in lieu of vacation, standby pay, wages in lieu of notice, or retirement pay, or when the employer is aware of other circumstances that may be potentially disqualifying. The amendment also clarifies continuing eligibility requirements for claimants. Indiana employers should review their separation notification procedures for compliance with the updated 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. © 2026 ManagEase

Maine

/in

Discussion

REMINDER | Maine: State PFML Benefits Start May 1st!

Maine’s Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) benefits will begin to be available for qualifying leave taken on or after May 1, 2026. Maine’s PFML program provides up to 12 weeks of partially wage-replaced time off for qualified medical and family reasons. Applications for benefits opened on March 30, 2026, and contributions began on January 1, 2025, to fund the program. Employers must provide specific written notice to employees, based on whether the employer uses a private or public plan, and must display a workplace poster providing details about the PFML program.

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. © 2026 ManagEase

Massachusetts

/in

Discussion

Massachusetts: No Individual Liability for PFML Violations

In Laughlin v. BinStar, Inc., the Massachusetts Superior Court ruled the state’s Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) law does not permit claims against individuals, such as corporate officers, directors, or investors. In the Laughlin case, an employee on PFML leave claimed that company representatives continued to contact him about high-level executive work matters during his protected leave, thereby interfering with his right to take that leave. He sued both the employer and the individual defendants, alleging that the individuals aided and abetted the employer’s violations of the PFML law. The court dismissed the claims because the definition of “employer” under the PFML law limits coverage to employing entities and not individuals.

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. © 2026 ManagEase

Nevada

/in

Nevada: Prevailing Wage Disputes to Be Decided by Labor Commissioner

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Prevailing Wage Projects in NV

EFFECTIVE

FEB 26, 2026

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • The Nevada Supreme Court held that the state’s Prevailing Wage Statutes do not allow a private right of action for employees to recover prevailing wages and overtime.
  • However, the labor commissioner has full authority to investigate violations, assess underpayments, impose penalties, and debar contractors in violation from future public works contracts.

Discussion

In Stuckey v. Apex Materials, LLC, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled the state’s Prevailing Wage Statutes do not allow a private right of action for employees to recover prevailing wages and overtime. Instead, employees must seek an administrative resolution with the Nevada labor commissioner.

 

Here, a class of former employees of contractors and subcontractors on prevailing wage projects alleged they did not receive prevailing wage and prevailing wage overtime compensation on work already performed. However, they did not specify which public works projects were implicated. They sought to recover these wages under the state’s general wage and hour statute and as third party beneficiaries to the contractors’ prevailing wage contracts with Nevada.

 

In reaching its ruling, the court found the prevailing wage statutes do not include an express right of action for employees, and an examination of the statute’s legislative history confirmed that intent. In addition, the general wage and hour statute could not serve as an alternative basis for recovery, as the prevailing wage statutes already provide a specific mechanism for addressing such claims. The court also found that recovering prevailing wages as a beneficiary of a public works contract was inconsistent with the purpose of the prevailing wage statute.

 

This ruling clarifies that prevailing wage plaintiffs must seek administrative redress first before turning to the courts for judicial review. In addition, it greatly reduces the risk of class action litigation for contractors and subcontractors who fail to pay prevailing wages on public works projects. However, the labor commissioner has full authority to investigate violations, assess underpayments, impose penalties, and debar contractors found to be in violation from participating in future public works contracts.

 

Action Items

  1. Review prevailing wage rates and overtime for public works contracts, if applicable.
  2. 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. © 2026 ManagEase

New Jersey

/in

New Jersey: Employers Required to Pay Wages for Work Performed by Undocumented Workers

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in NJ

EFFECTIVE

MAR 19, 2026

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that employers who have undocumented workers perform work must pay those individuals wages in accordance with the state’s Wage and Hour Law and Wage Payment Law.
  • Although the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 makes it unlawful to hire unauthorized aliens for employment in the United States, it does not explicitly prohibit paying wages to those individuals when they have actually performed work.
  • The court found that ruling otherwise would incentivize employers to hire undocumented workers to avoid paying wages.

Discussion

In Lopez v. Marmic, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that employers who have undocumented workers perform work must pay those individuals wages in accordance with the state’s Wage and Hour Law (WHL) and Wage Payment Law (WPL).

 

Here, a realty management company hired a superintendent who used an invalid Social Security Number (SSN) on his W-4 form. The employer only discovered the use of the invalid SSN after the superintendent had performed work for two weeks. The employer informed him it could not legally pay him but continued to provide free housing in exchange for continued work, an arrangement that lasted for years until the superintendent was terminated. The superintendent then filed a wage claim.

 

The court reversed both the trial court’s and appellate court’s rulings that because he was undocumented, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover backpay. Although the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it unlawful to hire unauthorized aliens for employment in the United States, it does not explicitly prohibit paying wages to those individuals when they have actually performed work. The court found that ruling otherwise would incentivize employers to hire undocumented workers to avoid paying wages.

 

The court also rejected the argument that the barter arrangement for housing in lieu of wages established a relationship other than an employment relationship. Likewise, the burden of retaining proof of hours worked and wages paid falls on the employer and not the employee. This ruling aligns with existing case law regarding payment of wages for undocumented workers. In the event an employer suspects a worker may have invalid work authorization status, they should consult with legal counsel as soon as possible.

 

Action Items

  1. Obtain valid proof of work authorization through a valid Form I-9 for all employees.
  2. Have appropriate personnel trained on work authorization requirements.
  3. Consult with legal counsel in cases of suspected invalid work authorization documents.

 

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. © 2026 ManagEase

New York

/in

New York: Department of Health Issues Updated Guidance for Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Home Care Workers in NY

EFFECTIVE

MAR 9, 2026

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • The New York Department of Health issued updated guidance regarding the Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law, clarifying reporting deadlines for covered employers.
  • The law applies to licensed home care services agencies, former fiscal intermediaries and statewide fiscal intermediary, certified home care agencies, and Medicaid managed care organizations.

Discussion

The New York Department of Health issued updated guidance regarding the Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law (WPL) which was a part of the 2020-2021 state budget. The law applies to licensed home care services agencies (LHCSAs), former fiscal intermediaries and statewide fiscal intermediary (FIs), certified home care agencies (CHHAs), and Medicaid managed care organizations (MMCOs). Under the law, in addition to the applicable minimum wage, covered employers must pay $4.09 per hour in New York City and $3.22 per hour in Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk counties, through a combination of additional wages and/or supplemental benefits. The updated guidance provides the following submission deadlines for required reporting.

 

2025 REPORTING YEAR
Form Deadline
LHCSAs, FIs, and SFI
Form LS300 May 31, 2026
2025 Annual Certification of Compliance with Home Care Worker Wage Parity May 31, 2026
CHHAs
Form LS300 April 30, 2026
2025 Annual Certification of Compliance with Home Care Worker Wage Parity May 31, 2026
MMCOs
2025 Annual Certification of Compliance with Home Care Worker Wage Parity May 31, 2026

 

2026 AND SUBSEQUENT REPORTING YEARS
Form Deadline
LHCSAs and SFI
Form LS300 June 1 of each year for the previous calendar year
Form LS301 October 1 each year for the previous calendar year, along with Audited Financial Statements (AFS) or Agreed-Upon Procedures (AUP)
Annual Certification of Compliance with Home Care Worker Wage Parity December 1 of each year for the current calendar year
CHHAs
Form LS300 June 1 of each year for the previous calendar year
Form LS301 October 1 each year for the previous calendar year, along with AFS or AUP
Annual Certification of Compliance with Home Care Worker Wage Parity December 1 of each year for the current calendar year
MMCOs
Annual Certification of Compliance with Home Care Worker Wage Parity December 1 of each year for the current calendar year

 

Action Items

  1. Review wage rates and benefits for compliance with wage parity requirements.
  2. Submit required reporting to the Department of Health through the eMedNY Provider Portal.
  3. Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements.

 

 

New York, NY: Amendments to Delivery Worker Laws Still in Effect

After multiple failed legal challenges, amendments to New York City’s Delivery Worker Laws are in effect. The amendments were adopted on January 26, 2026, and implemented minimum pay protections for third-party grocery delivery workers, required grocery and restaurant delivery apps to provide consumers an option to tip workers at any time, clarified methods for calculating worker compensation, and several other requirements. On January 22, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied covered companies’ requests for injunctive relief from the amendments and also denied a separate motion for a preliminary injunction against the minimum pay requirements. Covered delivery platforms must continue to comply with the amended rules.

 

New York: Study on Effect of AI on New York Economy

On March 19, 2026, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced the launch of the FutureWorks Commission, tasked with studying the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the state’s economy and making recommendations on minimizing the impacts on New York workers. The Commission will issue a report by the end of 2026 with its findings and recommendations for new state laws or regulations to address the anticipated workforce impacts of AI. Members of the Commission have not yet been announced. While the Commission’s work is preliminary and no new obligations are imminent, New York employers that use or are considering AI tools in their operations should monitor the Commission’s findings, as its recommendations may inform future state legislation or regulation.

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. © 2026 ManagEase

Oregon

/in

Oregon: Legislative Updates

APPLIES TO

As Indicated

EFFECTIVE

As Indicated

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • Oregon employers and employees will be subject to a new shared tax assessment to fund BOLI operations.
  • It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to retaliate against an employee for updating personal information based on a lawful change in federal employment authorization documentation.
  • Covered health care facilities must adopt written policies governing responses to law enforcement arrivals and are prohibited from retaliating against employees who distribute state-approved informational materials about immigrant rights.
  • Covered educational institutions must adopt written policies and train employees on how to respond when immigration authorities enter school property or request student information.
  • Criminal penalties for wage theft and unlicensed construction labor contracting violations are increased.
  • Oregon’s minor work-hour protections may not fall below the federal FLSA baseline.
  • The companionship services exemption from minimum wage and overtime requirements is narrowed.

Discussion

The Oregon legislature concluded its 2026 session on March 6, 2026, passing several new and amended laws affecting employer obligations and employee protections. Below is a summary of the key measures that employers should be aware of.

 

BOLI Funding Tax. Effective June 5, 2026, HB 4027 establishes the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) Expenses Fund in the State Treasury and will impose a new shared tax obligation on employers and employees. The Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services will set the tax rate, and once collected, the funds will be used to support BOLI operations, maintain current staffing levels, and fund future positions. The new tax is expected to be around 0.2 cents per hour worked per employee. HB 4027 also increases the cap on the prevailing-wage public-agency fee from $7,500 to $12,500 and requires BOLI to submit biennial reports on whether that fee generates enough revenue to meet staffing needs.

 

New Health Care Without Fear Act. Effective June 5, 2026, SB 1570 establishes the “Health Care Without Fear Act,” which restricts health care facilities and providers from voluntarily sharing a patient’s citizenship status, immigration status, or country of birth with immigration authorities, instead treating the information in the same manner as protected health information. The law also requires covered facilities to develop written policies and procedures addressing, among other things, how to respond when law enforcement arrives at the facility and how to designate areas of the facility that are not open to the public. The law also makes it an unlawful employment practice for a health care facility employer to retaliate or take disciplinary action against an employee for distributing informational or educational materials about immigrant rights and available immigration legal services if the materials are published or made available by a state agency.

 

Immigration Retaliation. Effective June 5, 2026, HB 4111 makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate or retaliate against an employee for updating, or attempting to update, their personal information based on a lawful change in the employee’s federal employment authorization documentation.

 

Notice of Immigration Activities at Schools and Higher Education Institutions. Effective September 30, 2026, HB 4079 requires school districts, public charter schools, education service districts, and higher education institutions to adopt written policies and provide training governing how school personnel must respond when an immigration authority enters school property or requests student information, including a requirement to verify the legal authority of the requesting agency before granting access. While the law broadly extends notification obligations to students, parents, and community providers, covered educational institutions should ensure that compliant policies are developed and that school employees are trained on the required procedures ahead of the law’s effective date.

 

Criminal Penalties on Wage Claims. Effective January 1, 2027, HB 4089 modifies the crime of “theft of services” to include partial payments and clarifies that criminal prosecution for the offense does not preclude a civil lawsuit or administrative proceeding. Under the new law, a direct contractor or subcontractor who knowingly hires an unlicensed construction labor contractor commits a Class A misdemeanor for the first offense and a Class C felony for subsequent offenses. The measure also increases the criminal penalty from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class C felony for intentionally using a construction contractor’s license number without authorization, or for using a construction contractor’s license number regardless of authorization with the intent to deceive the public. The law sets forth imprisonment and monetary penalties for violations, and also requires Oregon’s Interagency Compliance Network to develop methods for gathering and sharing information related to individuals and entities that commit theft-of-services offenses.

 

Labor Standards for Minors. Effective January 1, 2027, HB 4013 establishes a minimum floor for Oregon’s minor work-hour restrictions, requiring that state rules on the total hours a minor may work be at least as protective as the federal FLSA standards in effect as of January 1, 2026. Previously, Oregon law set a ceiling on work-hour limitations for minors, whereas the new law sets a floor, meaning Oregon’s protections for minor employees may not fall below the federal baseline but may be made more restrictive where necessary to conform to changes in federal or state law.

 

Companionship Services Exception Modified. Effective January 1, 2027, SB 1518 modifies the exclusion of “companionship services” employees from Oregon’s minimum wage, overtime, and minimum employment conditions requirements. Under the new law, the exclusion applies only when a person is providing companionship services as defined in federal regulations, specifically 29 C.F.R. § 552.6, as in effect on January 1, 2016, and only if the person is not employed, singly or jointly, by a third party in the business of providing home care or companionship services.

 

Action Items

  1. Review payroll practices to account for new shared BOLI tax assessment.
  2. Covered health care facilities should develop or update policies and procedures to comply with the requirements of the Health Care Without Fear Act.
  3. Review and update antidiscrimination and antiretaliation policies to address the new prohibition related to employee updates to federal employment authorization documentation.
  4. Covered educational institutions should develop written immigration response policies and procedures and implement appropriate training for employees.
  5. Review contractor hiring practices and licensing usage for compliance with wage theft prohibitions, as applicable.
  6. Review and update scheduling practices for minor employees, as applicable.
  7. Review and update worker classification under companionship services exemption, as applicable.
  8. 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. © 2026 ManagEase

Pennsylvania

/in

Pennsylvania: Nonsolicitation Terms Unenforceable

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in PA

EFFECTIVE

FEB 18, 2026

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • Nonsolicitation agreements must have appropriate consideration, not something that the employee would still have received regardless of signing the agreement.
  • Vague and overly broad employee agreements are evaluated based on their plain language.

Discussion

In First Nat’l Trust Co. v. English, a Pennsylvania Superior Court evaluated nonsolicitation agreements for appropriate consideration and whether the terms of the agreement were violated. Here, employees who had signed nonsolicitation agreements left their employment to join a competitor. The employees’ clients followed them to the new company, either because the original employer informed the clients of the departure, or because the clients independently inquired about the employees’ new location and expressed interest in continuing the relationship. There was no evidence that the employees had initiated contact with the clients to ask them to move away from the old employer.

 

First, the court indicated that there was an issue of inadequate consideration when the nonsolicitation agreement was executed. The employer claimed consideration of participation in a performance compensation program and increase in base pay. However, in one instance, the employee was already participating in the performance compensation program and there was no indication that the increase in pay was more than a cost-of-living increase that would have occurred regardless of the nonsolicitation agreement.

 

Second, where the term “solicit” was not defined in the agreement, the court looked to the dictionary definition, which was to initiate contact. Moreover, because “solicit” is a verb, the court found it requires affirmative conduct on the part of the employee to constitute a breach. Because there was no evidence that the employees took affirmative action or solicited clients, they did not breach the nonsolicitation agreement.

 

Third, the agreements were found to be overly broad because they contained no geographic limitation in scope. Such language would arguably prohibit employees from accepting any business from “any former client—including family members and personal friends—anywhere in the world.” The court noted that it would be unreasonable to include in the nonsolicitation agreement the employees’ customers, whose relationships predated each employee’s employment with the employer.  The employer had not financially supported or otherwise facilitated the establishment of the employees’ customer relationships.

 

Employers should work with legal counsel to ensure that nonsolicitation agreements use clearly defined terms, include an express geographic scope, and are supported by meaningful new consideration provided at the time of signing.

 

Action Items

  1. Review nonsolicitation agreements with legal counsel.

 

Northampton County, PA: New Employment Protections

As of April 23, 2026, Ordinance No. 794 implemented discrimination prohibitions and a ban-the-box provision. Specifically, the Ordinance prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of a broad range of protected characteristics, including: “[a]ctual or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions), gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, genetic information, physical marital status, familial status, GED rather than high school diploma, or mental non-job-related disability, relationship or association with a disabled person, source of income, age, height, weight, veteran status, use of guide or support animals and/or mechanical aids, or domestic or sexual violence victim status.”

 

Additionally, employers cannot require job applicants to disclose prior criminal convictions until after an initial interview; this includes asking about criminal convictions on employment applications. Further, employers cannot consider criminal convictions that do not relate to their suitability for employment. Failure to provide the required written notice of denial of employment based on criminal history is also a violation of the Ordinance. Northampton County employers should review their employment applications, background check procedures, and anti-discrimination policies to ensure compliance with the Ordinance’s 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. © 2026 ManagEase