APPLIES TO All Employers

EFFECTIVE As Indicated

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

Quick Look On October 20, 2025, USCIS has issued guidance on the new $100,000 H-1B visa fee implemented under the presidential proclamation Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers. Effective October 30, 2025, DHS ended automatic extension of EADs for most categories for renewal applicants.

Discussion

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) provided additional guidance on the new H-1B visa fee requirement. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced it was ending automatic extensions of employment authorization documents (EADs).

 

New Guidance on $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee

 

On October 20, 2025, USCIS has issued guidance on the new $100,000 H-1B visa fee implemented under the presidential proclamation Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers. The guidance provides answers to the following questions:

 

Who does the fee apply to? It applies to new H-1B petitions filed at or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on September 21, 2025 (Effective Date), on behalf of beneficiaries: (1) who are outside the U.S.; and (2) do not have a valid H-1B visa. It does not apply to those already in the U.S. with a valid H-1B visa.

 

Does the fee apply to a change of status, amendment, or extension of stay? Yes, in certain situations. If a petition is filed after the Effective Date and requests a change of status or amendment or extension of stay and USCIS determines that the individual is ineligible for a change of status or an amendment or extension of stay, then the fee must be paid. It does not apply to petitions filed before the Effective Date.

 

Does the new fee affect travel for H-1B visa holders? No. It does not prevent any holder of a current H-1B visa, or any beneficiary following petition approval, from traveling in and out of the United States.

 

How does an employer pay the fee? Employer should pay through the www.pay.gov portal. Instructions on payment can be found here: https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/1772005176. Proof of payment is required for every applicable H-1B petition, so employers should be certain to obtain a receipt.

 

Are there any exceptions to the new fee requirement? Yes, the Secretary of Homeland Security can approve exceptions when: (1) a particular alien worker’s presence in the United States as an H-1B worker is in the national interest; (2) no American worker is available to fill the role; (3) the alien worker does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States; and (4) requiring the petitioning employer to make the payment on the alien’s behalf would significantly undermine the interests of the United States. Requests for exceptions should be submitted to: H1BExceptions@hq.dhs.gov.

 

DHS Ends Automatic Extensions of EADs

 

Effective October 30, 2025, DHS ended automatic extension of EADs for most categories for renewal applicants. In the interim final rule Removal of the Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documents, DHS cites automatic extension as a security threat that could pose an imminent threat to the American public. Under prior regulations, EADs could be automatically extended for up to 540 days for renewal applicants. Foreign nationals could present an expired EAD along with an I-797C Notice of Action as proof of continued employment authorization.

 

Now, foreign nationals who file renewal of Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, will not receive an automatic 540-day extension of their current EAD. The I-797C Notice of Action will no longer contain information regarding automatic extensions of EADs. USCIS will add appropriate information to the Notices of Action clearly indicating that the document is not evidence of employment authorization and cannot be used by itself or in conjunction with an expired EAD as proof of employment authorization.

 

Individuals seeking a timely renewal of their EADs are instructed to properly file a renewal application up to 180 days before the expiration of their EAD. There are limited exceptions for certain TPS-based EADs, so employers should check the USCIS website for the most recent information regarding TPS and EAD expiration dates.

 

This change has the potential to create significant disruptions to employers if their employees’ work authorization expires. Employers should review their Forms I-9 and schedule reminders for employees prior to 180 days from their EAD expiration date to submit applications for renewal. This interim final rule does not impact the validity of EADs that were automatically extended prior to October 30, 2025 or which are otherwise automatically extended by law or Federal Register notice.

 

Action Items

1. Review Forms I-9 for expiration of EADs and notify employees, where applicable.
2. Consult with immigration counsel for impacts to workforces with foreign workers.

---

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

APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in KY, LA, MI, MS, OH, TN, and TX

EFFECTIVE As Indicated

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

Quick Look The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that the NLRB “lacks statutory authority to award full compensatory damages.” The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said that the NLRB lacked authority to award “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms.”

Discussion

The Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals each recently addressed the type of damages the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has authority to dispense under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Specifically, the NLRA says violations may result in the equitable remedies of reinstatement and back pay. The previous Board took the position that it could impose a broad range of consequential damages for NLRA violations. The Third and Ninth Circuits previously created a split on this issue. Recent decisions have widened that split.

 

Fifth Circuit Ruling

 

On October 31, 2025, in Hiran Management v. NLRB, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said the NLRB “lacks statutory authority to award full compensatory damages.” There, employees were terminated after going on strike in violation of the employees’ right to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining.” The Board ordered the employer to make the employees whole “for any loss of earnings and other benefits, and for any other direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms suffered as a result” of the unfair labor practices. The Fifth Circuit followed a strict interpretation of the NLRA and rejected the Board’s award of damages.

 

Sixth Circuit Ruling

 

On November 5, 2025, in NLRB v. Starbucks, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said that the NLRB lacked authority to award “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms.” There, an employee led a unionizing movement and was subsequently terminated for allegedly leaving an employee alone for 30 minutes. The Board ordered the employer to compensate the employee as a result of the NLRA violation. The Sixth Circuit said that the NLRA’s authority to take “affirmative action” was intended as a “phrase of art,” rather than a “literal phrase encompassing all types of relief.”

 

The split in Circuits is likely to lead to review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The NLRB may also choose to change position on its authority to award remedies once the NLRB achieves a quorum status. Continue to look for updates on this issue.

 

Action Items

1. Review NLRB claims and awards with legal counsel for compliance with these rulings.

---

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

APPLIES TO All Employers with Independent Contractors in AL, FL, and GA

EFFECTIVE October 16, 2025

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

Quick Look On October 16, 2025, in Galarza v. One Call Claims, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a business classifying workers as independent contractors does not matter where the economic reality clearly demonstrates an employment relationship.

Discussion

On October 16, 2025, in Galarza v. One Call Claims, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a business classifying workers as independent contractors does not matter where the economic reality clearly demonstrates an employment relationship. Here, three insurance adjusters worked for the defendant company after Hurricane Harvey. While there was an independent contractor agreement with each of the adjusters, they worked full-time for nearly two years with tight schedules and oversight from the defendant. The adjusters sued the defendant alleging that they were really misclassified employees who were owed overtime wages. The court agreed.

 

In reaching its ruling, the court applied the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) economic reality test. The court applied the factors to the adjusters’ arguments as shown below:

 

1. The nature and degree of the alleged employer’s control over the manner in which work is performed. The defendant controlled the adjusters’ schedules and hours by setting work schedules and reviewing timesheets. They were threatened with discharge if they worked outside set hours. They were not free to perform other work.
2. The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill. They were paid non-negotiable, fixed day wages. The adjusters paid their own expense, but this was a cost-cutting measure that benefitted the defendant.
3. The worker’s investment in materials or hiring additional workers as necessary to complete their task. The adjusters had no authority to hire others. The defendant supplied computers, telephones, email accounts, and ID badges that they were required to use while working in-person.
4. Whether the worker’s job requires a special skill. This factor weighed in favor of the defendant since the adjusters acquired their skills and licenses prior to their assignment with the defendant.
5. The permanency and duration of the relationship between the worker and alleged employer. The defendant retained the adjusters for an indefinite and extendable period of time during which the workers did not service any other companies, similar to at-will employment, supporting employee status.
6. The extent to which the worker’s services are an integral part of the alleged employer’s business. Without the adjusters’ services, the defendant had no service or product to sell.

 

Five of the six factors in the economic realities test favored the adjusters. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment favoring the defendant and found that a jury should decide whether the adjusters were employees. This case reiterated the interpretation under the FLSA that it is the relationship between the parties that controls the classification of employees and independent contractors and not a business’ label of that relationship.

 

Action Items

1. Review independent contractor status with legal counsel.

---

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

APPLIES TO Employers with Employees in MA

EFFECTIVE October 22, 2025

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

Quick Look The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that retention bonuses are not “wages” under the Massachusetts Wage Act and are therefore not subject to its strict payment timing rules.

Discussion

On October 22, 2025, in Nunez v. Syncsort Incorporated, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that retention bonuses are not considered “wages” under the Massachusetts Wage Act. The case involved a senior employee who received a retention bonus agreement contingent on remaining employed through specific dates and maintaining good standing. Although the employee ultimately received the full bonus, he sued under the Wage Act, claiming the second installment was paid late (eight days after his termination) and sought mandatory treble damages.

 

The Court unanimously affirmed the lower courts’ dismissal of the Wage Act claim, emphasizing that not all forms of compensation qualify as wages under the statute. While the Wage Act covers compensation paid solely in exchange for labor or services (e.g., salaries, hourly wages, and earned commissions), it does not extend to contingent payments like retention bonuses. The Court clarified that retention bonuses are additional compensation tied to an employee’s agreement to remain employed through a future date, and therefore fall outside the scope of the Wage Act’s protections.

 

While this decision provides some relief for employers, it emphasizes the importance of clearly documenting the terms of such bonuses, including the conditions for earning and payment. Employers are encouraged to consult with legal counsel when designing compensation agreements or evaluating potential liability exposure under the Wage Act.

 

Action Items

1. Review compensation agreements, including retention bonuses, with legal counsel.

---

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