Georgia

Discussion

Georgia: First Offender Act Adds Record-Sealing Enhancements

Effective July 1, 2026, HB 162 amends the state’s First Offender Act to restrict and seal first offender court records at the time the sentence is received rather than when the sentence is fully completed. This means criminal background checks appearing on consumer reports will not and should not include such sealed information. There are limited exceptions when the background check is for criminal justice agency employment, disclosures required by federal or state law, firearm transfer or license determinations, or work that involves interacting with children, the elderly, and vulnerable populations. Georgia employers should be careful not to use such sealed information when evaluating applicants and employees if it inadvertently appears on a criminal records check.

 


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

Hawaii

Discussion

Hawaii: Workers’ Compensation Treatment Plan Rules Amended

Effective July 1, 2026, HB 1509 revises Hawaii’s workers’ compensation law to repeal the option for physicians to transmit a treatment plan to an employer by mail or fax, and now requires employers who wish to deny a treatment plan to file a written denial with the Director of Labor and Industrial Relations within seven days of receipt. The burden is on the employer to show, by a preponderance of medical evidence, that the denial is justified, and a denial not supported by a medical opinion or existing medical records at the time of denial is presumed unreasonable. A treatment plan is deemed accepted if the employer fails to file a written denial within the seven day period, and employers must pay the applicable health care provider for medical care under any accepted or deemed-accepted plan. The law also establishes penalties for employers found to have denied a treatment plan without reasonable grounds, frivolously, or primarily to cause delay, as well as for failing to pay for care under an accepted plan.

 


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

Illinois: Updates to Disparate Impact Liability and Jury Service Compensability

APPLIES TO

As Indicated

EFFECTIVE

JAN 1, 2027

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • Disparate impact liability is codified under the Illinois Human Rights Act, creating an express state-law basis for challenging facially neutral employment practices that disproportionately affect protected groups.
  • Illinois’ Jury Act is amended to require employers with more than 25 employees to compensate employees at their regular rate of pay for time spent serving on jury duty.

Discussion

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed two bills into law impacting employer obligations related to discrimination liability and jury duty compensation. Both measures are discussed below.

 

Disparate Impact Liability. Effective January 1, 2027, SB 3777, titled the Civil Rights Safeguard Act (CRSA), amends the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) to codify disparate impact liability under state law. Under a disparate impact theory, a facially neutral policy or practice may be unlawful if it disproportionately affects members of a protected group, even absent discriminatory intent, unless the employer can satisfy the applicable statutory defense.

 

While disparate impact liability has long been recognized under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the enactment of the CRSA appears driven, at least in part, by the federal government’s retreat from disparate impact enforcement. Against that backdrop, the CRSA preserves a state-law avenue for challenging employment practices that disproportionately affect protected groups, regardless of whether federal agencies continue to pursue such claims. As a result, employers may see an increase in disparate impact enforcement activity from the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR).

 

Separately, employers should also note that the CRSA may carry unintended consequences for employers that utilize criminal background screening, as it extends disparate impact protections to individuals with arrest or conviction records. Employers should be prepared to demonstrate that any criminal history screening criteria are job related, consistent with business necessity, and not susceptible to a less discriminatory alternative.

 

Jury Service Compensability. Effective January 1, 2027, HB 4844 amends Illinois’ Jury Act to require employers with more than 25 employees to compensate employees at their regular rate of pay for time spent serving on jury duty. This represents a significant departure from prior law, which expressly provided that employers were not required to compensate employees for that time. Notably, the amended law does not define certain key terms like “regular rate of pay” and “time serving on jury duty,” which may create uncertainty for employers, absent regulatory interpretation or guidance.

 

Action Items

  1. Review employment policies and practices for compliance with state anti-discrimination, harassment, and retaliation requirements.
  2. Consult with legal counsel on potential disparate impact exposure.
  3. Evaluate criminal background screening procedures for compliance with CRSA requirements.
  4. Review and update jury leave and payroll procedures for compliance, as applicable.
  5. Monitor legislative and administrative guidance for clarification under expanded Jury Act.
  6. Have appropriate personnel trained on the updated requirements.

 

Illinois: Amendments to Pay Transparency Rules

APPLIES TO

As Indicated

EFFECTIVE

   JUN 18, 2026

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • The Illinois Department of Labor adopted comprehensive amendments to the rules implementing the state’s pay transparency law.
  • The amendments define “pay scale and benefits,” “benefits,” and “job posting,” and impose new recordkeeping obligations for employers.
  • The rules confirm that remote and hybrid workers with ties to Illinois may be covered, and they introduce a much steeper penalty structure for job posting violations.

Discussion

On June 18, 2026, the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL) adopted comprehensive amendments to the administrative rules implementing the pay transparency requirements of the Illinois Equal Pay Act of 2003. Since January 1, 2025, employers with 15 or more employees nationwide have been required to disclose pay scale and benefits information in job postings for Illinois-based positions and to notify current employees of promotional opportunities within 14 days of posting them externally.

 

New Definitions. The 2026 amendments define several key terms:

 

  • “Pay scale and benefits” now means the wage or salary, or wage or salary range, along with a general description of benefits and other compensation, including bonuses, stock options, or other incentives the employer reasonably expects to offer for the position.
  • “Benefits” is defined to include health care, retirement benefits, and paid time off, including sick leave, parental leave, and vacation, as well as any other benefit reportable for federal tax purposes, though minor incidental perks are excluded.
  • “Job posting” is defined as a written announcement seeking to hire or accept applications for a specific position, which means general recruitment announcements that do not reference a specific role, such as a “help wanted” sign, fall outside the requirement.

 

Recordkeeping. The amendments also impose new recordkeeping obligations, requiring employers to create and retain records showing the pay scale and benefits included in each job posting, along with records of promotional opportunities communicated to current employees. These records must reflect the posting’s content as it appeared at the time of publication and must be kept for at least five years, or longer if they relate to an ongoing investigation or enforcement action.

 

Remote and Hybrid Workers. The amendments confirm that the law’s reach extends beyond employees physically based in Illinois. Coverage now includes postings for positions performed at least partly in Illinois, as well as positions performed outside the state but reporting to an Illinois-based supervisor, office, or worksite. To determine whether a remote or hybrid position is covered, the state will weigh several factors, including how much of the work is performed in Illinois compared to elsewhere, whether any Illinois-based work is only temporary or occasional, and whether work performed outside Illinois involves the same duties as work performed in Illinois.

 

Penalties. The amendments introduce a more aggressive penalty structure for job posting violations. For active postings, a first violation carries a $500 penalty with a 14-day period to correct it, a second violation carries a $2,500 penalty with a seven-day cure period, and a third or subsequent violation carries a $10,000 penalty with no opportunity to cure. Once an employer reaches a third violation, it becomes subject to automatic penalties without any cure period for five years, and that five-year period restarts with any further violation.

 

Action Items

  1. Review job postings and update templates for compliance with pay transparency requirements.
  2. Update recordkeeping practices to retain job posting and promotional opportunity records for the required period.
  3. Consult with legal counsel on the coverage of certain remote or hybrid roles under Illinois law.
  4. Have appropriate personnel trained on pay transparency requirements.

 

Illinois: Third-Party AI Audits and Whistleblower Protections Enacted

As part of the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act (SB 315), effective January 1, 2028, or 90 days after an AI developer first qualifies as a large frontier developer (e.g., AI frontier model developers with collective annual gross revenues of $500 million in a calendar year), large frontier developers must use a third party to conduct annual independent audits of their AI models to assess the safety of such models and whether they pose “catastrophic risk.” This level of risk is defined as a foreseeable and material risk that the frontier model will materially contribute to the death of, or serious injury to, more than 50 people or more than $1 billion in damage to, or loss of, property arising from a single incident involving creation or release of a weapon, the frontier model evading its controls, or engaging in conduct that could result in the crimes of murder, assault, extortion, or theft. In addition, effective January 1, 2027, a frontier developer cannot retaliate against an employee who discloses information based on their reasonable belief that the frontier developer’s activities pose a specific and substantial danger to the public from a catastrophic risk or that the frontier developer has violated the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act. Frontier developers are also required to provide employees with notice of their whistleblower rights under the law.

 


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

Discussion

Maine: Cybersecurity Requirements for Licensed Hospitals

Effective January 1, 2027, HP 1418 requires licensed hospitals to adopt a cybersecurity plan. The plan must address notification of cybersecurity intrusion, backup communication response, manual records chart integration into electronic systems, managing disruptions to computer systems, a written security incident response plan, training, annual plan testing, procedures for testing and revising the plan, restoring communications with the statewide health information exchange, security incident response review, and post-incident review. They must also adopt annual safety and security plans.

 


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

Discussion

Massachusetts: PFML Contribution Rate Changes for 2027

Effective January 1, 2027, Massachusetts employers with 25 or more workers covered by Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) may deduct and remit up to 100% of the medical leave contribution and up to 40% of the family leave contribution from wages, reversing the current structure in effect through December 31, 2026 (under which employers may deduct up to 100% of the family leave contribution and up to 40% of the medical leave contribution, with the employer covering the remaining medical leave share). Smaller employers, with 24 or fewer covered workers, are not required to contribute an employer share toward medical leave but remain responsible for withholding and remitting the applicable employee shares for both medical and family leave. The change stems from a 2025 IRS ruling that employer contributions to medical leave will be treated as taxable income, prompting Massachusetts to shift more of the medical leave contribution onto employees. Washington made a similar change earlier this year, and other states may follow. The actual 2027 total contribution rate will not be finalized until October 1, and the Massachusetts Department of Family and Medical Leave offers an online calculator to help employers estimate their required contributions. Massachusetts employers should prepare to update payroll processes and employee communications ahead of the new year.

 


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

Missouri

Discussion

Missouri: National Guard Members Can Sue for Reinstatement

Effective August 28, 2026, HB 2593 provides for a private right of action for Missouri employees who are National Guard members for violations of their right to reinstatement after serving on qualifying state active duty. Missouri’s Office of the Attorney General can also bring suit against employers who violate an employee’s right to reinstatement. The state law now mirrors the reinstatement rights provided under Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).

 


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

Nebraska

Discussion

Omaha, NE: Minimum Wage Ordinance

Effective October 1, 2026, Omaha’s Ordinance No. 44716 raises the local minimum wage to $15.00 per hour, with a minimum direct cash wage of $12.87 per hour for tipped employees such as wait staff and bellhops. The ordinance also prohibits retaliation against anyone who exercises rights protected by the Ordinance, files a complaint or informs others of noncompliance, informs others of their rights under the Ordinance, or assists another person in asserting those rights. Violations can result in reinstatement, front pay in lieu of reinstatement along with payment of unpaid wages, and a $500 penalty payable to the City for each day a violation continues after notice. Notably, Nebraska’s attorney general has opined that a similar minimum wage ordinance in Lincoln is preempted by the state Wage Act and therefore invalid and unenforceable, and Omaha’s Ordinance is likely to face a similar legal challenge. Omaha employers should monitor for further developments while preparing to comply with the new rate in the meantime.


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

New Jersey: New Guidance Clarifies Job Protection for TDI and FLI Benefits

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in NJ

EFFECTIVE

JUL 17, 2026

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • Employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits have the right to return to the same job or one with the same pay, benefits, seniority, and other terms of employment.

Discussion

On July 15, 2026, the New Jersey Department of Labor & Workforce Development (Department) issued guidance to address whether recent expansions to New Jersey’s temporary disability insurance (TDI) and family leave insurance (FLI) program also provided job protection to employees. The Department’s guidance now confirms that they do in cases where the leave is not already covered under the New Jersey Family Leave Act (FLA). Previously, covered employees only received job protection if they were also covered under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act and the FLA.

 

Now, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits have the right to return to the same job or one with the same pay, benefits, seniority, and other terms of employment. There are no minimum employer size requirements or work history requirements in order to receive job protection.

 

Action Items

  1. Review and update TDI and FLI policies.
  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 York

New York: Prevailing Wages are Legally Guaranteed

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Prevailing Wage Employees in NY

EFFECTIVE

JUN 23, 2026

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • Workers on public projects can sue for unpaid prevailing wages even if their employer’s written contract never explicitly mentions that requirement.
  • A contract clause shortening the deadline to sue cannot be enforced against workers trying to recover prevailing wages.

Discussion

In Walton v. Comfort Systems USA Syracuse, Inc., the New York Court of Appeals addressed two main issues: (1) whether workers on public projects can sue for unpaid prevailing wages even if their employer’s written contract never explicitly mentions that requirement; and (2) whether a contract clause shortening the deadline to sue could be enforced against workers trying to recover those prevailing wages. The answers were yes to the first, and no to the second questions.

 

Here, there was a dispute involving fire alarm and sprinkler technicians who worked on New York public works projects. The workers claimed they were owed “prevailing wages” (a legally required minimum pay rate for people working on public projects) but their employer’s contracts either denied that prevailing wages applied, said nothing about it, or contradicted each other. When the workers sued to collect the unpaid wages as “third-party beneficiaries” of the contracts (meaning people the contract was meant to benefit even though they didn’t sign it), a federal district court threw out their claims, ruling that the contracts didn’t explicitly promise them prevailing wages and that a one-year time limit written into the contracts had already expired. The case eventually made its way to the federal appeals court, which asked New York’s highest court to weigh in.

 

The New York Court of Appeals said that workers on public projects can sue for unpaid prevailing wages even if their employer’s written contract never explicitly mentions that requirement. Under Labor Law § 220, a promise to pay prevailing wages is automatically written into every public works contract by law, whether or not the actual paperwork includes that language. The court explained that this rule exists specifically to protect workers, and allowing employers to dodge the requirement just by leaving it out of the contract would undermine the entire purpose of the prevailing wage law.

 

The court also said that a contract clause shortening the deadline to sue (in this case, to just one year) cannot be enforced against workers trying to recover prevailing wages. Normally, when someone benefits from a contract as a third party, they’re bound by whatever limits the contract sets, including shortened deadlines. But the court ruled that this general rule doesn’t apply here, because the right to a prevailing wage doesn’t come from private negotiation between the contracting parties; it comes from a constitutional and statutory guarantee designed to protect workers. Since the workers had no say in creating the contract’s terms, the court held it would be unfair and against the law’s purpose to let employers use a shortened, one-year deadline to block workers from recovering wages they’re legally owed.

 

Action Items

  1. Have prevailing wage contracts reviewed by 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

North Carolina

Discussion

North Carolina: Semiweekly Payroll Filing and Deposit Due Dates Amended
Effective July 2, 2026, North Carolina amended its payroll deposit requirements for semiweekly filers under SB 595. Employers that withhold an average of at least $2,000 from employee wages per month must now file returns on a quarterly basis and deposit withheld taxes according to the following schedule: by the following Wednesday if payday falls on a Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday; by the following Friday if payday falls on a Saturday, Sunday, Monday, or Tuesday; or by the next business day if any of the three weekdays following the close of the semiweekly period is a legal holiday.

 


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