Multistate Coalition Reaffirms Disparate Impact Enforcement 

APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in CA, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, MI, MN, NM, NV, NY, OR, VT, and WA

EFFECTIVE SEP 17, 2026

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look The attorneys general of fourteen states issued joint guidance reaffirming that disparate impact liability remains enforceable under both state and federal law. The guidance responds to a shift in federal enforcement priorities and reminds employers that private plaintiffs may still bring disparate impact claims under Title VII regardless of federal enforcement direction.

Discussion

On September 17, 2026, the attorneys general (AG) of California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington issued joint guidance reaffirming their commitment to enforcing disparate impact protections under both state and federal civil rights laws. While the guidance does not create new legal obligations, it does provide a direct response to the federal government’s recent efforts to curtail disparate impact enforcement and makes clear that these states intend to fill that gap.

 

By way of background, civil rights laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), recognize two forms of unlawful employment discrimination. Intentional discrimination (or disparate treatment) occurs when an employer treats employees or applicants differently because of a protected characteristic. Disparate impact occurs when a facially neutral policy or practice has an unjustified discriminatory effect on a protected group, even absent discriminatory intent. The disparate impact theory traces back to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1971 decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., in which the Court held that employment practices that exclude a protected group are unlawful if the employer cannot show they are job-related. That framework was statutorily incorporated into Title VII and has not been repealed.

 

The AGs make clear in their guidance that neither the President nor federal agencies can rewrite laws that Congress has passed or change protections established by the Constitution or existing federal and state laws. While acknowledging that recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have narrowed certain enforcement mechanisms, the guidance reiterates that those decisions have not disturbed the legality of disparate impact liability itself. State civil rights laws in these fourteen states independently prohibit disparate impact discrimination, and the AGs state their intent to enforce those laws vigorously.

 

Beyond affirming enforcement, the guidance advocates for proactive steps to identify and eliminate unjustified barriers to opportunity. In the employment context specifically, the AGs highlight several recommended practices: (1) standardizing criteria for recruitment, hiring, advancement, and termination based on skills and experience relevant to the job; (2) ensuring equal access to professional development, training, and mentorship programs; and (3) creating clear procedures for employees to report discrimination or harassment. The guidance also flags AI and algorithmic employment tools as an area of active enforcement focus, noting that embedded biases in these systems can produce disparate effects based on race, sex, age, or other protected characteristics.

 

Employers should also keep in mind that federal deemphasis of disparate impact enforcement does not restrict private plaintiffs. Employees and applicants may still bring disparate impact claims under Title VII, and those claims are evaluated by courts (not federal agencies) applying the same longstanding legal standards.

 

Action Items

1. Evaluate any AI or algorithmic tools used in employment decisions for compliance with applicable anti-discrimination laws.
2. Establish or review procedures for employees to report discrimination concerns.
3. Consult with legal counsel on disparate impact compliance obligations under applicable federal, state, and local laws.
4. Have appropriate personnel trained on anti-discrimination 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

Federal Agencies to Consider Workforce Reductions When Reviewing H-1B Petitions

APPLIES TO All Employers

EFFECTIVE SEP 18, 2026

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look Executive Order 14431, Enhancing Program Integrity and Interagency Coordination in the Administration of the H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa Program, continues to make changes to the H-1B petition process and further restricts its issuance. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Homeland Security are further instructed to take into account whether the employer sponsor directly or indirectly engaged in layoffs within the previous year or plans future layoffs that negatively affect the employment of similarly situated United States workers.

Discussion

Executive Order 14431, Enhancing Program Integrity and Interagency Coordination in the Administration of the H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa Program, continues to make changes to the H-1B petition process and further restricts its issuance. The order directs the U.S. Secretary of State, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Homeland Security to coordinate and consult with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Education, and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration for any relevant wage, employment, academic, industrial or other economic information when processing H-1B petitions and labor condition applications.

 

The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Homeland Security are further instructed to take into account in any labor condition application, petition, visa, and entry of aliens entering or attempting to enter the United States as H-1B nonimmigrants whether the employer sponsor directly or indirectly engaged in layoffs within the previous year or plans future layoffs that negatively affect the employment of similarly situated United States workers.

 

The order cites “large-scale, systematic abuse of the H-1B program” resulting in harming wages, working conditions, and job opportunities of skilled American workers. The order also cites abuse of the H-1B program as a national security threat. The new directives for executive agencies are intended to prevent employers from “displacing American workers or otherwise giving preference to alien workers; misrepresenting the duties, requirements, or working conditions of job opportunities to avoid hiring or training American workers, falsely qualify jobs as specialty occupations, or lower applicable wage requirements.”

 

Action Items

1. Consult with immigration legal counsel regarding H-1B petitions, visas, and labor condition applications.

 

USCIS Updates Policy Guidance for Public Charges

APPLIES TO All Employers

EFFECTIVE As Indicated

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look US. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) updated its Policy Manual to reflect recent changes to Form I-485. A revised form was published on September 18, 2026 and aligns with the Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility Final Rule. The rule updates how the USCIS determines whether an individual is inadmissible for an adjustment of status because they are likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence.

Discussion

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) updated its Policy Manual to reflect recent changes to Form I-485. The Form I-485 is used to apply for a permanent resident card through an adjustment of status. A revised form was published on September 18, 2026, and aligns with the Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility Final Rule. The rule updates how the USCIS determines whether an individual is inadmissible for an adjustment of status because they are likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence.

 

The updated guidance explains which categories of individuals are subject to the public charge inadmissibility grounds for an adjustment of status. The statutory factors for making a public charge inadmissibility determination are: (1) an individual’s age; (2) health; (3) family status; (4) assets, resources, and financial status; and (5) education and skills. Now, any other factor relevant to assessing inadmissibility can be considered including the receipt of means-tested public benefits, such as cash assistance for income maintenance, housing assistance, food stamps, financial aid for college, or any other similar benefit.

 

Lastly, the updated guidance also addresses public charge bonds. If USCIS finds an individual inadmissible, the USCIS officer may invite the individual to post a public charge bond which is a financial guarantee that the individual will not become a public charge. To determine the public charge bond amount, the USCIS officer will consider how much government assistance the alien may be eligible for and potentially receive over the next five years. USCIS will not accept public charge bonds from individuals who did not receive an invitation from USCIS.

 

Action Items

1. Consult with immigration legal counsel regarding adjustments to change of status.

 

 

USCIS Halts Expiration of TPS for El Salvador

On September 9, 2026, USCIS announced it would retain TPS protections for beneficiaries from El Salvador. Unfortunately for employers, USCIS did not announce the new extension period or expiration date for work authorizations. USCIS also did not provide instructions on identifying the new expiration date for updating Form I-9 for affected individuals. Employers should be aware that TPS beneficiaries from El Salvador still have valid work authorizations pending updated USCIS guidance. They should continue to monitor the USCIS website for updates and consult with their immigration legal counsel regarding the work authorization of specific workers.

 

USCIS Fixed Admission Final Rule Blocked by Federal Court

On September 14, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts temporarily paused the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) final rule that would have replaced “duration of status” with fixed admission periods for F, J, and I nonimmigrant visas. In reaching its ruling, the court found that the plaintiff higher education institutions and labor unions were likely to succeed on claims that DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to adequately justify the rule, analyze its costs, or address public comments. This means the existing “duration of status” rules are in effect for the affected visas. Employers should continue to monitor this case and consult with their immigration legal counsel since this is a temporary pause in implementation of the rule while the case goes forward.

 

New Fee Proposed for F-1 OPT Program

On October 8, 2026, DHS proposed a $70,000 fee for foreign students being recommended for the F-1 visa Optional Practical Training (OPT) program for their first 12 months of training, with an additional $30,000 fee required each time a student extends their work authorization under the program. Although colleges and universities would be formally responsible for the fee, the proposed rule explicitly permits schools to pass the cost to the student or their employer. DHS estimates these fee transfers could total up to $169 billion over the next 10 years. The proposed rule is currently subject to a 30-day comment period, so employers should continue to monitor the rulemaking process.

 

---

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

Second Circuit: Court Rejects NLRB’s Employer Dress Code Ruling

APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in CT, NY, and VT

EFFECTIVE SEP 2, 2026

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look The Second Circuit vacated an NLRB ruling that found Starbucks violated the NLRA by requiring employees to change out of union-logo shirts into dress-code compliant attire. The court rejected the NLRB’s Tesla standard, which had created a presumption that all employer uniform or dress code restrictions that limit union insignia are unlawful. The court this standard placed an unjustifiably heavy burden on employers. Instead, the court suggested dress code policies should be evaluated using a balanced three-factor test that weighs both employer and employee interests.

Discussion

In Siren Retail Corp. v. NLRB, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated an NLRB decision finding that Starbucks had committed unfair labor practices by enforcing dress code policies that restricted employees from wearing union-logo shirts and certain pins or buttons during working time.

 

The court took issue with the NLRB’s reliance on the Telsa, Inc. standard, which treated all employer dress code restrictions that limit employees’ display of union insignia as presumptively unlawful, requiring employers to “narrowly tailor” any such restriction to survive scrutiny. The Second Circuit rejected this approach, finding that Tesla placed a “strict-scrutiny-like burden” on employers, even for facially neutral, partial restrictions, without properly weighing the employer’s legitimate interests against employee rights.

 

Instead, the court stated that dress code policies should be evaluated under a “balanced” framework, instructing the NLRB to apply a three-factor test considering: (1) the extent of intrusion on employee rights, specifically, whether the employer imposed a full or only partial restriction on union insignia; (2) whether the policy is facially neutral, nondiscriminatory, and consistently enforced; and (3) the context and circumstances underlying the restriction.

 

Notably, the court did not apply the new three-factor framework to the facts of this case (the matter was sent back to the NLRB for reconsideration under the revised standard), so there is not yet a clear indication of how it will be applied in practice. That said, the decision reflects a meaningful shift toward a more workable standard for employers, one that gives genuine weight to legitimate business interests in maintaining consistent workplace appearance policies, provided those policies are neutral and consistently enforced.

 

Action Items

1. Review existing dress code and appearance policies for compliance.
2. Consult with legal counsel on specific business justifications for employee attire restrictions or mandates.

 

Seventh Circuit: Court Evaluates Undue Hardship in Religious Accommodation Case

APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in IL, IN, and WI

EFFECTIVE SEP 28, 2026

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a hospital employer that terminated a pharmacist after she refused the COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds, finding the employer demonstrated an undue hardship. The decision reinforces that undue hardship analysis must account for the full context of an employer’s operations, not just the individual employee’s proposed accommodation in isolation.

Discussion

In Mason v. Cook County, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought by a hospital pharmacist who was terminated after refusing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

 

In this case, the employee, a pharmacist at a large county hospital, requested a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate based on her Christian beliefs. The county denied the request, determining that exemptions could only be granted to employees whose duties could be performed fully remotely, citing CDC guidance that vaccination was the most effective way to reduce transmission and protect medically vulnerable patients. Because the employee’s role required regular in-person contact with coworkers, patients, and a dedicated COVID-19 treatment floor, no remote option was available. She was terminated after declining to obtain the vaccine.

 

The court’s analysis centered on the undue hardship standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy, which held that an employer faces undue hardship if granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The Seventh Circuit emphasized that this analysis cannot consider the accommodation in isolation. Instead, it must account for the employer’s overall operations and the practical impact of the accommodation in context.

 

Applying that framework, the court found that the employer sufficiently established an undue hardship in this case. The county presented declarations from HR, EEO, and infection control officials documenting that masking and social distancing alone did not adequately address patient and employee safety risks, and that the employee’s specific role (e.g., working in a room with 60 coworkers, counseling patients, and delivering medications to a COVID-19 floor) made an individual exemption particularly problematic. The court also rejected the employee’s disparate treatment claim, finding that a comparison employee she identified was not similarly situated because the two held different jobs, in different locations, with different supervisors, and the comparator employee ultimately obtained the vaccine.

 

While the COVID-19 context makes this case somewhat specific on its facts, the court’s undue hardship analysis under Groff v. DeJoy reinforces that an undue hardship analysis must be grounded in specific facts (e.g., demands of the role, work environment, proximity to coworkers, and the feasibility of alternative arrangements) and supported by concrete evidence. Employers should maintain contemporaneous documentation of employee accommodation requests, the entire interactive process, and any results, including denials. Because the undue hardship analysis may vary based on jurisdiction, employers are also encouraged to consult with legal counsel on any denial that may be based on an asserted undue hardship.

 

Action Items

1. Evaluate religious accommodation requests individually, considering the employee’s specific role, work environment, and the practical impact of the proposed accommodation on operations.
2. Maintain documentation throughout the entire accommodation process.
3. Consult with legal counsel when denying an accommodation request, particularly when based on an undue hardship analysis.
4. Have appropriate personnel trained on religious accommodation requirements.

 

Ninth Circuit: Personal Health Preferences Are Not Religious Beliefs

APPLIES TO As Indicated

EFFECTIVE AUG 13, 2026

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look In an unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that an employee’s refusal of a mandatory COVID-19 vaccine, grounded in personal views about vaccine safety and holistic health, was a secular preference, not a protected religious belief under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Discussion

In Ledezma v. Optum Services, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, in an unpublished opinion, summary judgment for the employer on a religious accommodation claim brought exclusively under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Because the decision is unpublished, it does not carry the weight of binding legal precedent. It also does not address Title VII, meaning employers outside California should not rely on this decision when evaluating their own accommodation obligations.

 

The case arose after the employer terminated Ms. Ledezma for declining to comply with its mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. She requested a religious exemption, citing her Catholic faith, quoting scripture, and arguing that her body was a “temple of the Holy Spirit” that she was religiously required to keep free of harmful substances. The employer denied the request and terminated her, and she subsequently sued under FEHA.

 

To succeed on a religious discrimination claim under FEHA, an employee must generally show three things: (1) a sincere religious belief that conflicts with a job requirement, (2) notice of that belief and conflict to the employer, and (3) an adverse employment consequence for failing to comply. The central question in Ledezma was whether the employee’s objection qualified as a religious belief at all, not whether she was genuinely sincere in holding it.

 

Relying on its 2025 decision in Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Ledezma’s objection was rooted in her personal views about vaccine safety, her longstanding preference for holistic medicine, and her general avoidance of vaccines, all of which represented secular concerns that did not become religious simply because she expressed them in religious terms. The court rejected her argument that grounding an objection in specific Biblical passages made it meaningfully more religious than a general spiritual objection. What matters, the court explained, is not how an employee arrived at their conviction (e.g., whether through prayer, scripture, or spiritual experience), but what the conviction actually is. The court ultimately concluded that where the specific objection ultimately rests on a personal health judgment, it remains a secular preference as a matter of law regardless of the religious framing applied to it.

 

One judge on the three-judge panel would have ruled the other way, finding that Ledezma’s beliefs (including her view that the COVID-19 vaccine would alter what God made) were plausibly religious in nature and that the case should have gone to a jury rather than being dismissed. That view did not prevail, but it reflects the genuine difficulty of these cases and is a reminder that courts are not uniform in how they draw the line between religious belief and personal preference.

 

This decision, although unpublished, reinforces that the nature of the belief, not its vocabulary, is the operative inquiry under FEHA. That said, the decision is not a green light for accommodation denials. Employers should conduct an individualized review of all religious accommodation requests, paying particular attention to what the employee is actually objecting to, and should maintain clear documentation throughout the accommodation process.

 

Action Items

1. Review religious accommodation procedures for compliance with applicable federal and state requirements.
2. Maintain documentation throughout the interactive accommodation process, including, but not limited to, the specific basis for any denial.
3. Have appropriate personnel trained on religious accommodation requirements.
4. Consult with legal counsel when evaluating specific accommodation requests.

 

 

Seventh Circuit: Key Reminders on Title VII Claims

On September 10, 2026, in Ismail v. Steiner, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the U.S. Postal Service on race and national origin discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims brought by a mail carrier who was escorted from the workroom floor by police and placed on a two-day unpaid suspension following a heated altercation with his supervisor. The court found the employee failed to identify a valid comparator because he lacked personal knowledge of the alleged similar incident involving a coworker and did not know whether that employee had been disciplined. On his retaliation claim, the court found a three-year gap between the employee’s prior EEO complaint and the adverse action to be too attenuated to establish causation. Regarding the hostile work environment claim, the court found no evidence that the supervisor’s conduct, however disrespectful, was connected to the employee’s race or national origin. While the case represents a straight forward application of the existing Title VII standards, it serves a s reminder that each claim requires evidence specifically tying an adverse action to a protected characteristic, not just evidence of a difficult working relationship.

 

Seventh Circuit: Employers Get Full Credit for Prior Pension Fund Withdrawals

On September 17, 2026, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an employer-favorable decision in Consumers Concrete Corp. v. Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, holding that when an employer incurs partial withdrawal liability from a multiemployer pension plan and later triggers a complete withdrawal, the credit from the prior partial withdrawal must be applied against the employer’s final withdrawal liability after all statutory adjustments (including the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA)’s 20-year payment cap) rather than earlier in the calculation process. Under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), employers that withdraw from an underfunded multiemployer pension plan must pay their share of the plan’s unfunded vested benefits, and prior partial withdrawal credits exist to prevent employers from being charged twice for the same unfunded benefits. The Seventh Circuit’s approach may substantially reduce, and in some cases potentially eliminate, an employer’s final withdrawal liability. The court expressly disagreed with contrary decisions from the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, creating a circuit split on an issue affecting employers participating in multiemployer pension plans nationwide. Employers currently participating in multiemployer plans, facing a withdrawal liability assessment, or considering restructurings or facility closures that could trigger a withdrawal should consult with ERISA counsel to assess the impact of this decision on their specific circumstances, including any venue considerations given the existing circuit split.

 

---

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

California: Are You Ready for this Year’s Legislative Changes?

APPLIES TO As Indicated

EFFECTIVE As Indicated

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look Financial institutions must implement elder and dependent adult abuse training in 2028. Employers cannot use workplace surveillance tools to monitor employees in a workplace bathroom. Starting January 1, 2029, no one may offer, sell, or conduct a “covered AI audit” without registering with the state. AB 1697 gives employers an additional year to structure their employment contracts for compliance with AB 692’s stay-or-play prohibitions. In 2028, employers must include anti-hate speech training as a component of mandatory sexual harassment training. Employers are prohibited from using workplace surveillance tools that use artificial intelligence on employees for either (1) recognizing, or making inferences or predictions about, an individual’s emotional state, or (2) collecting neural data. California businesses who receive a subpoena, discovery request, or other request for records regarding abortion or gender-affirming health care services that are legally protected health care activities must provide notice to the Attorney General at least seven business days prior to producing records unless a shorter response time is required. If harassment, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence is directed at an employer’s workplace rather than at any specific employee, the employer may, without naming a specific employee, seek a restraining order on behalf of all employees. An employer, law firm, or attorney cannot retaliate against an employee who discloses information in good faith where the individual has reasonable cause to believe there was a violation of laws governing the conduct of attorneys. For purposes of Paid Family Leave (PFL) benefits, “covered active duty” will include duty during training with the regular armed forces, including the National Guard, and duty during training or a call to or order to federal or state active duty. Meal and rest period requirements do not apply to stationary engineers if they are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that expressly provides for certain terms, such as meal periods and final and binding arbitration of disputes regarding meal periods. An employer that requires CPR certification training of its employees must also require those employees to take a separate online video module training, approved by the state, on the use of naloxone. Arbitration enforcement exclusions are aligned with those of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Bond amounts increase for farm labor contractors. Healthcare providers (HCPs) cannot charge patients an administrative fee solely to complete a form for a certificate required for state disability insurance benefits. There will be stronger, more expansive requirements for the Bureau of Investigations to promptly investigate incidents of serious injury, illness, or serious exposure. Prohibitions for engaging in unfair immigration-related practices to retaliate against individuals for exercising or attempting to exercise protected rights under state and local law are expanded to also cover rights protected under federal law. The definition of sex discrimination is aligned across the California Code, and is amended under the Fair Employment and Housing Act’s (FEHA). Minimum wage for agricultural employees, whose residence is either in or out of state, is $19.75 per hour. Who can access state and federal criminal history information and how fingerprints are submitted has changed. Attorneys cannot delegate the practice of law to generative AI. By January 1, 2028, the Government Operations Agency must develop requirements for designation as an “independent verification organization” or “IVO,” which is an AI auditor that is designated by the agency. Employers cannot rely solely on an automated decision system (ADS) when making disciplinary or termination decisions. If an employer relies primarily on an ADS, a human reviewer must corroborate the decision. Employers subject to CalWARN must include additional information in the required notice when a mass layoff, relocation, or termination caused in whole or in substantial part by an AI system or other automated technology replacing or automating employment positions. Firefighters will receive up to 26 weeks of paid leave if disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition. A person applying for a noncertificated position at a local education agency or a private school must provide a list of every previous educational employer. The prospective employer must inquire with each school on the list whether the applicant was the subject of any credible complaints of, investigations into, or discipline for egregious misconduct. Security guards who have finished the required course on the power to arrest and the appropriate use of force can now complete security officer skills training before their registration is issued. As of January 1, 2029, security guard applicants must complete the arrest and use-of-force course before they can be registered. Penalties increase from $200 to $1,000 per employee for an employer’s subsequent failure to file the required pay data report.

Discussion

As expected, the California Legislature was very active this season. This legislative session concluded with the Governor signing a number of bills impacting employers and employees. Below is a summary of the key updates that employers should be aware of.

 

AB 871 | JAN 1, 2028 – Mandated Reporters of Elder Abuse. Financial institution mandated reporting requirements for elder and dependent adult abuse will include annual training and mandated reporting to the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) within two working days. Within 48 hours of filing an IC3 report, the institution must tell the elder or dependent adult that a report was filed. The notice must encourage them to file their own IC3 report, include IC3’s contact information, and be provided by their preferred method of communication.

AB 1331 | JAN 1, 2027 – Workplace Surveillance. Employers cannot use workplace surveillance tools to monitor employees in a workplace bathroom. Employees can remove their surveillance tools when entering a bathroom, unless the employee is required to remain available during meal or rest periods under federal or state law and the tool does not detect or record audio or video and does not have physically embedded or attached AI. Notwithstanding, an employee may voluntarily bring a workplace surveillance tool into a workplace bathroom, and an employer may check workplace surveillance tools for one-time entry and exit of workplace bathrooms. A “workplace surveillance tool” includes video or audio, continuous incremental time-tracking tools, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking, a photo-optical system, or other means; it does not include smoke or carbon monoxide detectors or weapon detection systems that automatically screen a person’s body. The Governor also encouraged further refinement and clarity of the bill.

AB 1405 | JAN 1, 2027 – AI Auditor Requirements. The bill sets up a state registration system for AI auditors, run by the Government Operations Agency. An “AI auditor” is a person or company that assesses an AI system or model on behalf of a third party. By January 1, 2029, the agency must create an online AI Auditor Registry, set annual fees no higher than its administrative costs, and set up a way for the public to report misconduct by registered auditors. Starting January 1, 2029, no one may offer, sell, or conduct a “covered AI audit” without registering. A covered AI audit is one that checks whether an AI system or model’s controls, processes, or systems meet state law, and a report of the audit must be provided to the auditee with certain required information. Licensed CPAs and accounting firms meet the report and independence requirements by following the California Accountancy Act and AICPA standards. The bill also sets forth strict integrity standards and document retention requirements.

AB 1697 | OCT 1, 2026 – Stay-or-Pay Employment Contract Restrictions Paused. As of January 1, 2026, last year’s AB 692 prohibited employers from entering into agreements that “require payment of debts, debt collection, or ending forbearance, or impose any penalty, fee, or cost on a worker if their work relationship terminates.” The current bill AB 1697 gives employers an additional year to structure their employment contracts for compliance. Employers are not liable for any violations occurring between January 1 and December 31, 2026.

AB 1803 | JAN 1, 2028 – Sexual Harassment and Anti-Hate Speech Training. Employers must include anti-hate speech training as a component of mandatory sexual harassment training. Anti-hate speech training must provide practical guidance on recognizing, reporting, and confronting workplace speech that vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred against people based on their protected characteristics.

AB 1883 | JAN 1, 2027 – Workplace Surveillance Tools. Employers are prohibited from using workplace surveillance tools that use artificial intelligence on employees for either (1) recognizing, or making inferences or predictions about, an individual’s emotional state, or (2) collecting neural data. “Workplace surveillance tools” has the same definition as in AB 1331. “Neural data” means information that is generated by measuring the activity of an employee’s central or peripheral nervous system, and that is not inferred from nonneural information. The Governor also encouraged further refinement and clarity of the bill.

AB 1930 | JAN 1, 2027 – Subpoenas for Protected Health Care Service Records. Any entity doing business in California who receives a subpoena, discovery request, or other request for records regarding abortion or gender-affirming health care services that are legally protected health care activities must provide notice to the Attorney General at least seven business days prior to producing records unless a shorter response time is required, in which case notice must be given no later than contemporaneously with producing the responsive record. The prohibition is subject to limited exception where the information requested is not used to investigate the person or implement penalties.

AB 1961 / AB 2179 | JAN 1, 2027 – Workplace Violence Protective Orders. If harassment, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence is directed at an employer’s workplace or a location where employees perform their primary job duties, rather than at any specific employee, the employer may, without naming a specific employee in the petition, seek a restraining order on behalf of all employees at that workplace or location. Starting January 1, 2028, a party or witness may appear remotely at the hearing on a petition for a restraining order.

AB 2039 | JAN 1, 2027 – Whistleblowing on Attorneys. An employer, law firm, attorney, or any person acting on their behalf cannot retaliate against an individual who discloses, may disclose, or is believed to disclose, information in good faith where the individual has reasonable cause to believe there was a violation of laws governing the conduct of attorneys. This protection applies, in part, to employees, former employees, applicants, independent contractors, vendors, clients, and any person with a professional relationship to an attorney or law firm. Retaliation includes termination, demotion, discipline, threats, harassment, blacklisting, adverse contract actions, or any conduct that would deter a reasonable person from reporting misconduct.

AB 2054 | JAN 1, 2027 – Paid Family Leave Benefits for Covered Active Duty. For purposes of Paid Family Leave (PFL) benefits, “covered active duty” will include duty during training with the regular armed forces, including the National Guard, and duty during training or a call or order to federal or state active duty. The revised definition goes into effect as soon as PFL benefits are integrated into the Employment Development Department’s (EDD) claims management system as part of the EDDNext project, but no later than July 1, 2028.

AB 2078 | JAN 1, 2027 – Meal Periods for Stationary Engineers. Meal and rest period requirements do not apply to stationary engineers if they are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that expressly provides for certain terms, such as meal periods and final and binding arbitration of disputes regarding meal periods. A “stationary engineer” is a skilled tradesperson located in a fixed facility who operates, maintains, monitors, and repairs stationary mechanical equipment and building systems whose occupation has a state-registered apprenticeship program that was established before 1965.

AB 2150 | JAN 1, 2027 – Training on Opioid Overdose Reversals. An employer that requires CPR certification training of its employees must also require those employees to take a separate online video module training, approved by the state, on the use of naloxone, to increase the rate of opioid overdose reversals. Employers are responsible for the cost of the training. The training requirement is not a requirement to also administer naloxone. Other training programs may satisfy the requirements under certain circumstances.

AB 2155 | JAN 1, 2027 – Arbitration Agreements Align with Federal Exclusions. This bill aligns arbitration enforcement exclusions with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Specifically, arbitration agreements are not enforceable in contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce, and claims that relate to a sexual harassment or sexual assault dispute.

AB 2227 | JAN 1, 2027 – Surety Bonds for Farm Labor Contractors. Bond amounts increase for farm labor contractors: for payrolls up to $500,000 the bond increases from $25,000 to $50,000; for payrolls up to $2,000,000 the bond increases from $50,000 to $100,000, and for payroll greater than $2,000,000 the bond increases from $75,000 to $150,000. The Labor Commissioner will publish bond information on the public farm labor contractor license database.

AB 2292 | JAN 1, 2027 – Disability Benefits Certificates. Healthcare providers (HCPs) cannot charge patients an administrative fee solely to complete a form for a certificate required for state disability insurance benefits. HCPs also cannot charge an administrative fee for a subsequent recertification examination or for completing a form required to maintain continued eligibility for disability benefits. HCPs may still bill for medical services provided in connection with an examination that is not imposed solely to complete a certificate or form for disability insurance.

AB 2321 | JAN 1, 2027 – OSH Investigations. This bill creates stronger, more expansive requirements for the Bureau of Investigations to promptly investigate incidents of serious injury, illness, or serious exposure. Cal/OSHA must immediately notify the prosecuting authority of any death, any serious injury, illness, or exposure involving 5 or more employees, or any request for prosecution. Willful violations that cause serious injury or illness, or serious exposure, are now covered, not just death or permanent or prolonged impairment. The penalty amounts for willful violations are unchanged.

AB 2495 | JAN 1, 2027 – Unlawful Immigration Practices. Prohibitions for engaging in unfair immigration-related practices to retaliate against individuals for exercising or attempting to exercise protected rights under state and local law is expanded to also cover rights protected under federal law. Additionally, employers cannot engage in conduct, based on a person’s perceived immigration status, that would reasonably tend to dissuade them from engaging in activities they have a legal right to do or abstain from activities they have a legal right to abstain from.

AB 2563 | JAN 1, 2027 – Sex Discrimination. This bill aligns the definition of sex discrimination across the California Code. It also amends the Fair Employment and Housing Act’s (FEHA) definition of sex to specifically include assigned sex or gender category, including female, male, or nonbinary; degree of conformity to sex or gender stereotypes; gender, including gender identity, gender expression, and access to, and use of, gender affirming care and other related health care; pregnancy or related medical conditions (including, but not limited to, childbirth, abortion, lactation, miscarriage, fertility, and contraception); decisionmaking, access to care, or potential or actual use of a drug, device, product, or service relating to pregnancy or related medical conditions; sexual orientation; variations in sex characteristics, including intersex traits or differences in sex development; and perimenopause, menopause, or postmenopause or medical conditions related to perimenopause, menopause, and postmenopause. The bill also specifically states that “discrimination” includes harassment.

AB 2646 | JAN 1, 2027 – Agricultural Worker Minimum Wage. Minimum wage for agricultural employees, whose residence is either in or out of state, is $19.75 per hour, with annual cost-of-living adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index.

AB 2796 | SEP 18, 2026 – Background Checks. Although this bill doesn’t create a general background-check requirement for private employers, it does change who can access state and federal criminal history information and how fingerprints are submitted. Requirements also impact certain employers and individuals, such as organizations serving children or people in care, licensed care facilities, contractors of criminal justice agencies, registered nurses, banking and escrow, contractor employee checks at private and heritage schools, and yacht brokers.

SB 574 | JAN 1, 2027 – AI Disclosures in the Legal Profession. This bill restricts attorneys from delegating the practice of law to generative AI. When using generative AI, attorneys cannot input confidential or personal identifying information into generative AI and must personally verify the accuracy of all citations and correct any hallucinations. Attorneys must also disclose the use of generative AI to the court for all documents submitted and consider whether to disclose the use of generative AI if it is used to create content provided to the public.

SB 813 | JAN 1, 2027 – Independent AI Assessments. By January 1, 2028, the Government Operations Agency must develop requirements for designation as an “independent verification organization” or “IVO,” which is an AI auditor that is designated by the agency as having demonstrated expertise in assessing the risks posed by an AI system and identifying the metrics and methodologies that form the basis for that assessment.

SB 947 | JUL 1, 2027 – No Robo Bosses Act. Employers cannot rely solely on an automated decision system (ADS) when making disciplinary or termination decisions. If an employer relies primarily on an ADS, a human reviewer must corroborate the decision. If an employer cannot corroborate the ADS output, or the human reviewer has concluded that the ADS output is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, the employer cannot use the ADS output to make a disciplinary or termination decision. When an employer has primarily used an ADS, it must (1) provide a meaningful, objective description of the employee’s own data used by the ADS on request from the employee; and (2) provide the affected employee with a written post-use notice at the time the employer informs the employee of the decision. An employer cannot discriminate or retaliate against an employee for pursuing their rights.

SB 951 | JAN 1, 2027 – Technological Displacement Notice. Employers subject to CalWARN must include additional information in the required notice when a mass layoff, relocation, or termination caused in whole or in substantial part by an AI system or other automated technology replacing or automating employment positions: (A) the number, classification or occupation, and work location of layoffs that are substantially due to AI; (B) the job functions performed by those replaced workers that will be automated by AI; (C) the specific type of AI system that substantially resulted in technological displacement; and (D) the statement, “This notice is for a technology displacement” at the top of the notice. The state will publish a summary of the notices received on the EDD website.

SB 1024 | JAN 1, 2027 – Firefighter Postpartum and Recovery Leave. This bill provides 26 weeks of paid leave to firefighters disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition. This benefit applies to fire departments of cities, counties, municipalities, the California State University, Forestry and Fire Protection, and county forestry.

SB 1083 | JAN 1, 2027 – Private School Employee Pre-Hire Investigation. A person applying for a noncertificated position at a local education agency or a private school must provide a list of every previous educational employer. The prospective employer must inquire with each school on the list whether the applicant was the subject of any credible complaints of, investigations into, or discipline for egregious misconduct. The responding school must state whether it submitted a report of the employee’s egregious misconduct to the statewide data system, a copy of all information within its possession that was used to support a substantiated report, and other employment history consistent with the type of information disclosed for certified employees and all relevant evidence. Additionally, a noncertificated employee may be terminated if their current educational employer receives this type of information when the employee failed to comply with the notice requirement or the previous employer failed to disclose required information.

SB 1148 / SB 1203 | JAN 1, 2027 – Security Guard Training. Security guards who have finished the required course on the power to arrest and the appropriate use of force can now complete security officer skills training before their registration is issued. As of January 1, 2029, security guard applicants must complete the arrest and use-of-force course before they can be registered. After registration, guards must complete 42 hours of in-classroom security skills training within six months, with 18 of those hours due within 30 days. No training may be done while the guard is on duty at their post, and employers must pay both for the training and for the guard’s time. Employers must also provide at least 12 hours of paid annual refresher training, including 4 hours of de-escalation practice, and keep training records for inspection.

SB 1149 | JAN 1, 2027 – Bereavement Leave. Employees may take bereavement leave for the death of a designated person. “Designated person” means any individual related to the employee by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. This designated person may be identified by the employee at the time the employee requests the leave. An employer may limit an employee to one designated person per 12-month period for bereavement leave. “Family member” will no longer include parent-in-law.

SB 1237 | JAN 1, 2027 – Increased Penalties for Pay Data Reporting. Penalties increase from $200 to $1,000 per employee for an employer’s subsequent failure to file the required pay data report.

Action Items

1. Update policies and procedures, as appropriate.
2. Implement required notices where applicable.
3. Have appropriate personnel trained on the new and updated requirements.
4. Update training requirements for compliance.
5. Update background screening and pre-hire screening processes, as applicable.
6. Implement AI use policies consistent with procedural requirements.
7. Audit AI functions for compliance.
8. Update minimum wage as applicable.
9. Review surveillance procedures for compliance.
10. Review procedures for submitting required pay data reports for compliance, as applicable.

 

California: Cal/OSHA Releases Revised Draft Workplace Violence Prevention Regulations

APPLIES TO As Indicated

EFFECTIVE TBD

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look In September 2026, Cal/OSHA released an updated discussion draft of its proposed workplace violence prevention regulations for general industry, with targeted revisions ahead of an advisory committee meeting scheduled for October 27, 2026. The Standards Board must adopt a final standard by December 31, 2026, making the October 27 meeting a critical next step toward adoption.

Discussion

In September 2026, Cal/OSHA released an updated discussion draft of the proposed workplace violence prevention regulation for general industry (Title 8, Section 3343). The revision comes ahead of an in-person advisory committee meeting scheduled for October 27, 2026, and follows two prior draft versions (issued in April and July of 2026). The Standards Board must adopt a final standard by December 31, 2026, with formal enforcement expected to begin on January 1, 2027.

 

California’s workplace violence prevention law applies to virtually all employers and work environments in California. The only exemptions are for law enforcement agencies, healthcare facilities (which are covered under separate regulatory standards), remote workers operating completely outside employer control, and small businesses with fewer than 10 employees that are closed to the public.

 

The September draft makes several targeted refinements to the prior July 2026 version, key points of which are summarized below.

 

Supervisor Bypass. The draft modifies the alternative reporting pathway for Type 3 violence (e.g., workplace violence involving a present or former employee, supervisor, or manager). Employees may bypass their direct supervisor to report such incidents not only where the supervisor is involved, but also where the supervisor has not responded to the report as required under the plan’s procedures. The prior version used the phrase “adequately addressed,” which the Standards Board removed as subjective and undefined.

 

Post-Incident Investigation. When conducting post-incident investigations, employers must now solicit employee observations regarding the “conditions and factors that contributed to the incident” rather than the “cause of the incident.” This change reflects the Standards Board’s intent to treat workplace violence incidents as the product of multiple contributing factors rather than a single cause.

 

Definition of “Designated Representative.” The definition has been revised to clarify that “written authorization” carries the same meaning as used in Title 8, Section 3203 (California’s broader Injury and Illness Prevention Program standard).

 

Staffing Level Language. The definition of appropriate staffing levels as a work practice control has been revised to track the language used in the plan’s hazard identification and evaluation section more precisely. It now reads that appropriate staffing levels should be based on the “identification and evaluation of workplace violence hazards” required under the plan, replacing the prior reference to the “employer’s workplace violence hazard assessment.”

 

Recordkeeping Cross-Reference Removed. A reference to Title 8, Section 3204 in the recordkeeping section for employer evaluations and corrective action records has been removed, following stakeholder feedback that the reference was unnecessary.

 

The draft remains subject to change and does not currently alter employers’ compliance obligations. Covered employers should monitor the outcome of the October 27 advisory meeting and subsequent Standards Board activity, given the anticipated year-end adoption deadline.

 

Action Items

1. Review the current draft to assess how the updated requirements may impact existing workplace violence prevention procedures.
2. Consult with legal counsel regarding the application of the proposed regulations to specific workplaces and existing violence prevention programs.

 

California: Cal/OSHA Releases Discussion Draft on Hospital Weapons Screening Requirements

APPLIES TO As Indicated

EFFECTIVE TBD

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look Cal/OSHA released a discussion draft proposing amendments to California’s existing healthcare workplace violence prevention standard to address new weapons screening obligations under AB 2975.

Discussion

On September 14, 2026, Cal/OSHA released a discussion draft proposing amendments to California’s existing healthcare workplace violence prevention standard (Title 8, Section 3342). The draft implements AB 2975, which was originally passed in 2024 and requires the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board to adopt regulatory amendments by March 1, 2027. Once adopted, covered hospitals would have up to 90 days to comply. Key aspects of the draft regulations are outlined below.

 

Entrance Screenings. AB 2975 requires weapons screening at three specific hospital entrances: the main public entrance, the emergency department entrance, and the labor and delivery entrance when separately accessible to the public. The discussion draft expands that requirement, calling for weapons screening of individuals and their personal items at all unrestricted entrances (defined as any entrance open to the public without locks or access-control systems) with the exception of the ambulance entrance. This broader scope could materially affect equipment costs and staffing needs beyond what the underlying legislation contemplated.

 

Screening Technologies. The draft contemplates several permissible screening technologies, including walk-through metal detectors, x-ray and computed tomography systems, millimeter-wave systems, artificial intelligence-assisted weapons detection systems, and magnetic anomaly detection systems. Handheld metal detector wands may supplement but not replace other screening equipment, with limited exceptions for qualifying small, rural, and certain specialty hospitals.

 

Training Requirements. AB 2975 also requires hospitals to assign trained personnel (other than healthcare providers) to operate and monitor weapons screening devices at each covered entrance whenever accessible to the public. The draft retains AB 2975’s eight-hour minimum initial training requirement while specifying seventeen curriculum topics, including weapons and threat recognition, equipment operation and limitations, safe search procedures, de-escalation, implicit bias, disability awareness, and emergency response. The draft also imposes annual refresher training requirements, and additional training upon the introduction of new equipment or hazards.

 

Written Policies and Public Notices. The draft further requires written protocols to address how detected weapons are handled, including that an individual who triggers a screening device must be permitted to leave with the detected item and return without it. It would also establish public notices at screened entrances advising that weapons screening is in effect and that no person will be refused medical care under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Written policies addressing alternative screening procedures for individuals who refuse device screening would also be required.

 

The discussion draft remains subject to change and does not currently alter hospitals’ current obligations under Section 3342. Covered hospital employers should continue to monitor Cal/OSHA’s rulemaking activity for publication of a formal proposed rule and any associated comment period.

 

Action Items

1. Begin assessing entrances that may be subject to weapons screening requirements under the draft.
2. Assess screening equipment options, staffing plans, and associated costs in anticipation of a final rule.
3. Review existing workplace violence prevention plans to identify how a weapons screening policy will integrate with current procedures.
4. Begin preparation for compliance with anticipated training requirements.
5. Consult with legal counsel regarding the application of the draft requirements to specific hospital configurations.

 

California: Cal/OSHA Updates Employer First Aid Kit Requirements

 

APPLIES TO As Indicated

EFFECTIVE JAN 1, 2027

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look Cal/OSHA approved new first aid regulations, modifying requirements for both general industry and construction employers. The final regulations are set to take effect January 1, 2027, pending approval from the Office of Administrative Law.

Discussion

Cal/OSHA has approved updates to first aid requirements for both general industry and construction employers. The final regulations are set to take effect on January 1, 2027, pending approval from the Office of Administrative Law. Covered employers should begin reviewing their workplace safety plans for compliance ahead of the anticipated effective date. Key aspects of the changes are summarized below.

 

General Industry Employers. The new rules make three main changes for general industry employers:

 

• First Aid Kit Contents. Rather than simply maintaining “adequate” first aid materials, employers must ensure that a sufficient number of kits are available to employees. Kit contents must meet the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Class A standard or be determined by an authorized physician or licensed healthcare provider. Under the ANSI standard, critical elements of a first aid kit include, but are not limited to, antiseptics, an assortment of bandages, burn treatment, eye care, and applicable personal protective equipment (PPE).
• Kit Accessibility. In addition to updating the required contents of the kit, the new guidelines require employers to ensure accessibility to employees. While accessibility has previously meant that a first aid kit should be in a central location and not have locked or restricted access, the increased guidelines require employers to communicate the location of the kit to employees and, where feasible, identify those locations through visible signage and labels. Kits must also include a first aid guide that aligns with ANSI standards or is selected by an authorized healthcare professional.
• Workplace Evaluation. One of the more important additions to these requirements is the need for employers to evaluate their workplaces to determine that the supplies and communication provided are specific to their workforce and industry. Employers should consider the size of the workforce, employee work locations, the nature of workplace hazards, and the number of kits needed.  Employers in higher risk industries (e.g., chemical exposure, heat-related illness risk, or trauma hazards) may be required to provide additional specialized supplies.

 

Construction Employers. Construction employers have additional operational responsibilities under the revised requirements, including:

 

• Ensuring a sufficient number of first aid kits are available based on employee access needs;
• Verifying kit contents when a kit is placed into service; and
• Keeping supplies readily available throughout the project.

 

Like general industry employers, construction employers must communicate kit locations to workers and make those locations visible through signage or similar methods whenever practicable, and must evaluate workplace hazards to determine whether additional kits or specialized supplies are necessary.

 

Action Items

• Review existing first aid kits and evaluate them against ANSI-based standards.
• Evaluate whether current kit locations provide employees with prompt access.
• Update and/or add signage or other communication methods to clearly identify kit locations and contents.
• Consult with legal counsel to determine whether specialized supplies are needed, based on employer industry and specific workplace hazards.
• Review and update Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (IIPP) as needed.

 

 

REMINDER | Los Angeles County, CA: Public Housekeeper Training

As of October 1, 2026, covered hotel employers in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County must ensure that each hotel worker who works as a room attendant completes at least six hours of live, interactive public housekeeping training, completes an exam, and receives a public housekeeping certificate within 120 days. The training is required under the Los Angeles County Hotel Workers Protection Ordinance, which took effect in April 2026, and which requires covered employees to, among other things, receive annual training on their rights under the ordinance, trafficking and violence awareness, disease prevention, pest detection, and how to respond to suspected criminal activity. Employers must keep records showing compliance with these requirements.

 

Palo Alto, CA: Minimum Wage Increase

Effective January 1, 2027, Palo Alto’s local minimum wage will increase to $19.25 per hour.  A new Minimum Wage and Employee Know Your Rights poster is available on the City’s website. Employers should ensure hourly rates, overtime rates, and Wage Theft Protection Notices are updated for impacted employees.

---

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

Delaware: Amendments to Delaware Personal Data Privacy Act

APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in DE

EFFECTIVE JAN 1, 2027

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look Effective January 1, 2027, HB 380 amends the Delaware Personal Data Privacy Act (DPDPA) to affect employers using certain automated screening and evaluation tools when individuals’ personal data is used for profiling or reports in connection with decisions that produce legal or other similarly significant effects.

Discussion

Effective January 1, 2027, HB 380 amends the Delaware Personal Data Privacy Act (DPDPA) to cover certain employer uses of automated screening and evaluation tools. Although the DPDPA generally excludes individuals in an employment context from its definition of “consumer,” employers that use AI resume screeners, interview scoring tools, or vendor-generated reports relying on personal data in hiring, promotion, discipline, or termination decisions must now comply with the law’s requirements.

 

Under the amended law, “report” means any written, oral, or other communication of any personal data by a controller or processor, including recommendations, summaries, or automated decisions based on personal data or profiling. “Decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects” means decisions that result in the provision or denial of financial or lending services, housing, insurance, education enrollment or opportunity, criminal justice, employment opportunities, health-care services, or access to essential goods or services.

 

Controllers of sensitive data who engage with vendors to utilize such tools or generate such reports must contractually require the vendor to: (1) provide the affected individual with notice of any adverse action taken based in whole or in part on the report; (2) describe the personal data relied upon in making the decision; (3) inform the individual of the right to obtain further information from the controller; and (4) inform the individual of the right to request human review of the decision where feasible and not contrary to their best interest. Employers should note that purchasing third-party AI tools does not avoid complying with the law’s requirements.

 

The definition of sensitive data has also been expanded to include characteristics often collected for employment purposes like national origin, pregnancy, treatment status, status as transgender or nonbinary, citizenship status, and immigration status. Employers who use such measures or inferences for workforce analytics would need to obtain consent before using the content to generate output using AI tools.

Action Items

1. Review applicability of the DPDPA with legal counsel.
2. Conduct internal evaluation of AI and other employee/applicant profiling tools.
3. Update vendor contracts to include contractual compliance obligations, if applicable. 

 

Delaware: No Captive Audience Meetings

Effective September 30, 2026, Delaware’s HB 84 prohibits employers from discharging, threatening to discharge, or taking or threatening to take any adverse employment action against an employee for refusing to attend, participate in, or listen to communications from the employer in an employer-sponsored meeting during which the employer conveys opinions about political or religious matters (also known as “captive audience meetings”). The law defines “political matters” to include matters related to the decisions to join or support a labor organization. “Religious matters” include matters relating to religious belief, affiliation, practice, membership in, or support of any religious organization, association or other group.

Delaware: Unemployment Eligibility During Labor Disputes Clarified

Effective September 30, 2026, Delaware’s SB 26 amends the state’s unemployment insurance law to extend eligibility to employees involved in labor disputes, other than lockouts. Under prior law, employees in a non-lockout labor dispute were disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits entirely; employees in a lockout situation were already eligible from the date of filing. The amendment now allows employees in a non-lockout labor dispute to collect unemployment benefits after a two-week waiting period, provided they meet all other eligibility requirements, including being able and available for work and completing weekly job search requirements. The two-week waiting period is waived if the labor dispute was caused by the employer’s failure or refusal to comply with an applicable agreement, contract, collective bargaining agreement, or state or federal law pertaining to hours, wages, or other conditions of work, or if the employer hires a permanent replacement worker for the employee’s position. Employers should also be aware that the amendment authorizes the Delaware Department of Labor to impose a penalty on any employer that fraudulently certifies an employee’s ability to return to their prior position upon conclusion of the labor dispute.

 

---

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