Ninth Circuit: Religious Nonprofits May Require Non‑Ministerial Staff to Share Their Beliefs
|
APPLIES TO
Qualified Religious Employers with Employees in AK, AR, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands
|
EFFECTIVE
JAN 6, 2026 |
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
|
Quick Look
- The Ninth Circuit ruled that the First Amendment’s church‑autonomy doctrine protects a religious nonprofit’s decision to hire only co‑religionists for non‑ministerial roles when tied to its faith‑based mission.
|
Discussion
In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Brown, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the state’s anti-discrimination law against a Christian ministry in connection with the organization’s hiring of non-ministerial employees.
The case arose after the Mission received an application for a non-ministerial position from an individual who openly expressed beliefs and conduct that were inconsistent with the organization’s religious teachings on marriage and sexuality. Because adherence to its statement of faith is required of all staff, the Mission ultimately declined to hire the applicant and later filed suit, arguing that Washington’s updated anti-discrimination law interfered with the organization’s ability to maintain a faith-based workforce.
As part of employment, the Mission required all employees, including administrative, IT, and operations staff, to participate in prayer and chapel services and to follow its religious teachings. The organization emphasized that these shared beliefs were essential to its internal faith community and its service-based ministry. The Court agreed, holding that, beyond the ministerial exception, the First Amendment’s broader church-autonomy doctrine also protects a religious organization’s ability to require non-ministerial staff to adhere to the organization’s sincerely held religious beliefs when those beliefs are central to the organization’s mission.
The Court’s ruling prevents the state from enforcing the Washington Law Against Discrimination against the Mission’s religious-based hiring criteria, confirming that religious nonprofits may rely on the church-autonomy doctrine when making faith-based hiring decisions for non-ministerial roles, when such criteria is tied to their religious identity and mission.
Action Items
- Review hiring practices for compliance with applicable federal and state requirements.
- Consult with legal counsel regarding application of religious-based hiring criteria.
- Have appropriate personnel trained on employer hiring practices and applicable requirements.
Ninth Circuit: Misleading Communications May Render Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
Applies to: All Employers with Employees in AK, AR, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands
Effective: JAN 28, 2026
| Quick Look
v Class action courts have authority to deny enforcement of arbitration agreements where they impact the class process.
v Arbitration agreements may not be enforced due to an employer’s misleading communications. |
Discussion
In Avery v. TEKsystems, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said that an employer’s communications about signing a mandatory arbitration agreement during a class action lawsuit from employees were misleading, giving the lower court a basis on which to deny arbitration enforcement for class members.
Here, a lawsuit against the employer for alleged wage and hour violations of its California employees was in the process of seeing class action certification. While this was happening, and near the winter holidays, the employer sent two emails – (1) notifying all employees of a mandatory arbitration agreement and requesting that it be signed even though the language of the communication indicated that a signature was unnecessary, and (2) notifying potential class employees that they could opt out of the arbitration agreement in favor of class action participation, but that they needed to sign the opt out to do so. However, the potential class employees had no knowledge yet of the lawsuit or pending class certification, and the employer’s communication failed to sufficiently address this information. There were also two different deadlines for each action.
Moreover, the employer repeatedly disparaged the efficacy of class actions and claimed that class actions are “wasteful, inefficient means for resolving disputes” that “tend to enrich only attorneys rather than the individuals who may have legitimate claims.” Further, the employer inaccurately stated that a class action “requires [the employer] to ignore individual employee issues and concerns.” The communications also said that employees could consult with their own legal counsel but also said they were not allowed to share the emails.
The Ninth Circuit said that a district court in a class action has “the broad authority to exercise control over a class action and to enter appropriate orders governing the conduct of counsel and parties,” including to control the opt-out process. The court said that the employer’s actions ultimately sought to interfere with statutory opt-out procedures by changing it from an opt-out process to an opt-in process through the arbitration agreement and through misleading communications sent to employees.
Action Items
- Review arbitration agreements and communications around arbitration agreements with legal counsel.
Eleventh Circuit: McDonnell Douglas Standard Isn’t the Only Hurdle in Discrimination Cases
Applies to: All Employers with Employees in AL, FL, and GA
Effective: DEC 5, 2025
| Quick Look
v The McDonnell Douglas standard of proof does not eliminate the need for a broader “convincing mosaic” standard in the context of a motion for summary judgment.
v Even if an employer can show it had a legitimate reason for its actions, a totality of the circumstances approach may cause its motion to fail. |
Discussion
In Ismael v. Roundtree, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that the McDonnell Douglas framework does not necessarily apply in the context of a summary judgment motion. The McDonnell Douglas standard says that a plaintiff must prove their case on its face, which then shifts the burden to the defendant to show a legitimate business reason for their action, and finally allows the plaintiff to show that the employer’s reason was just pretext. Here, the court found the McDonnell Douglas standard to be too rigid in the context of a summary judgment motion, saying that a “convincing mosaic” standard was appropriate under the circumstances.
Here, an employee filed a discrimination claim against his employer, who then made a motion for summary judgment. The district court found that, even though the plaintiff proved his case on its face, the employer met its burden under the McDonnell Douglas standard and granted the motion. However, there was significant additional evidence presented indicating that the employer’s presented evidence was unreliable and that the employer treated the plaintiff differently from other employees.
The appellate court indicated that lower courts should use a convincing mosaic standard in summary judgment, which has its own procedural standard of proof. Specifically, a convincing mosaic standard means “(1) that a plaintiff will always survive summary judgment if he presents circumstantial evidence that creates a triable issue concerning the employer’s discriminatory intent,” and (2) that a “triable issue of fact exists if the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, presents a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination by the decisionmaker.” The court said that the pretext standard under McDonnel Douglas should not be confused with the convincing mosaic standard that should apply in the context of a summary judgment motion.
Ultimately, the broader convincing mosaic standard means greater potential scrutiny over employer actions in litigation. Although this case focuses on legal procedure, it highlights the need for employers to be consistent in their policy enforcement and discipline and to document their legitimate business reasons for disciplinary action.
Action Items
- Have appropriate personnel trained on employer policies and consistent enforcement.
- Implement processes to consistently document legitimate business reasons for disciplinary action.
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
Other Federal Agency Updates
/in HR AlertsEEOC Updates
APPLIES TO
All Employers with 15+ Employees
EFFECTIVE
JAN 22, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
Since the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has reached quorum, it has begun taking action. There was some recent activity of note to employers.
Harassment Guidance
The EEOC formally rescinded the entirety of its Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. The Guidance was last updated in 2024 to consolidate legal updates and other guidance. In 2025, a federal court blocked portions of the Guidance regarding sexual orientation and transgender status from being enforced on the basis that the EEOC exceeded his rulemaking authority. Rescission of the entire document reflects current Chair Lucas’ previously stated intention to remove or change the guidance. It is unclear at this time whether the EEOC will replace the Guidance. Regardless, employers should note that the EEOC’s rescission of its own guidance does not change federal or state law or the potential for employers to be sued under federal and state law for unlawful harassment.
Litigation Intervention
The EEOC issued a Resolution Concerning the Commission’s Authority to Commence or Intervene in Litigation, outlining when the agency will commence or intervene in pending litigation. Although Congress has long authorized the EEOC to intervene, the agency has for decades delegated most of that authority to its General Counsel, resulting in relatively few interventions. This new Resolution generally shifts authority back to the Commission itself, specifically requiring a majority vote following receipt of a recommendation from the EEOC’s General Counsel (e.g., in large expenditure cases, when taking a position contrary to precedent, when taking a position on unsettled or controversial law, or for any other reason). Employers should note that the EEOC is signaling its intention to more actively pursue litigation against employers.
If employers receive a claim from or litigation by the EEOC, employers should immediately engage their legal counsel to appropriate defend against the claim.
Action Items
DOJ Launches AI Litigation Task Force
In December 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the U.S. Attorney General to establish an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Litigation Task Force to challenge state laws that are considered to be “inconsistent” with federal AI policy. On January 9, 2026, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the Task Force’s launch in an internal Department of Justice (DOJ) memorandum, indicating that the Task Force will review and challenge state AI requirements on grounds including federal preemption and interstate commerce concerns. The Task Force will be led by Bondi or her designee, and will include representatives from several senior DOJ offices. Announcement of the Task Force follows broader administration efforts to shift AI governance toward a centralized federal framework and reevaluate state-level AI regulations. Employers should continue to monitor the Task Force’s enforcement efforts.
OSHA Extends Compliance Dates for Hazard Communication Standard
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has extended all compliance deadlines associated with the 2024 updates to the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) by four months. The first deadline for manufacturers, importers, and distributors to update labels and Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) for substances has moved from January 19, 2026, to May 19, 2026, and the corresponding employer deadline for workplace labeling, safety program updates, and training has shifted from July 20, 2026, to November 20, 2026. For mixtures, the manufacturer/importer/distributor deadline is now November 19, 2027 (formerly July 19, 2027), and the employer deadline has been extended to May 19, 2028 (formerly January 19, 2028). OSHA explained that these extensions allow time for the agency to finalize and publish guidance materials before the revised requirements take effect.
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 Court Updates
/in HR AlertsNinth Circuit: Religious Nonprofits May Require Non‑Ministerial Staff to Share Their Beliefs
APPLIES TO
Qualified Religious Employers with Employees in AK, AR, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands
EFFECTIVE
JAN 6, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Brown, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the state’s anti-discrimination law against a Christian ministry in connection with the organization’s hiring of non-ministerial employees.
The case arose after the Mission received an application for a non-ministerial position from an individual who openly expressed beliefs and conduct that were inconsistent with the organization’s religious teachings on marriage and sexuality. Because adherence to its statement of faith is required of all staff, the Mission ultimately declined to hire the applicant and later filed suit, arguing that Washington’s updated anti-discrimination law interfered with the organization’s ability to maintain a faith-based workforce.
As part of employment, the Mission required all employees, including administrative, IT, and operations staff, to participate in prayer and chapel services and to follow its religious teachings. The organization emphasized that these shared beliefs were essential to its internal faith community and its service-based ministry. The Court agreed, holding that, beyond the ministerial exception, the First Amendment’s broader church-autonomy doctrine also protects a religious organization’s ability to require non-ministerial staff to adhere to the organization’s sincerely held religious beliefs when those beliefs are central to the organization’s mission.
The Court’s ruling prevents the state from enforcing the Washington Law Against Discrimination against the Mission’s religious-based hiring criteria, confirming that religious nonprofits may rely on the church-autonomy doctrine when making faith-based hiring decisions for non-ministerial roles, when such criteria is tied to their religious identity and mission.
Action Items
Ninth Circuit: Misleading Communications May Render Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
Applies to: All Employers with Employees in AK, AR, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands
Effective: JAN 28, 2026
v Class action courts have authority to deny enforcement of arbitration agreements where they impact the class process.
v Arbitration agreements may not be enforced due to an employer’s misleading communications.
Discussion
In Avery v. TEKsystems, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said that an employer’s communications about signing a mandatory arbitration agreement during a class action lawsuit from employees were misleading, giving the lower court a basis on which to deny arbitration enforcement for class members.
Here, a lawsuit against the employer for alleged wage and hour violations of its California employees was in the process of seeing class action certification. While this was happening, and near the winter holidays, the employer sent two emails – (1) notifying all employees of a mandatory arbitration agreement and requesting that it be signed even though the language of the communication indicated that a signature was unnecessary, and (2) notifying potential class employees that they could opt out of the arbitration agreement in favor of class action participation, but that they needed to sign the opt out to do so. However, the potential class employees had no knowledge yet of the lawsuit or pending class certification, and the employer’s communication failed to sufficiently address this information. There were also two different deadlines for each action.
Moreover, the employer repeatedly disparaged the efficacy of class actions and claimed that class actions are “wasteful, inefficient means for resolving disputes” that “tend to enrich only attorneys rather than the individuals who may have legitimate claims.” Further, the employer inaccurately stated that a class action “requires [the employer] to ignore individual employee issues and concerns.” The communications also said that employees could consult with their own legal counsel but also said they were not allowed to share the emails.
The Ninth Circuit said that a district court in a class action has “the broad authority to exercise control over a class action and to enter appropriate orders governing the conduct of counsel and parties,” including to control the opt-out process. The court said that the employer’s actions ultimately sought to interfere with statutory opt-out procedures by changing it from an opt-out process to an opt-in process through the arbitration agreement and through misleading communications sent to employees.
Action Items
Eleventh Circuit: McDonnell Douglas Standard Isn’t the Only Hurdle in Discrimination Cases
Applies to: All Employers with Employees in AL, FL, and GA
Effective: DEC 5, 2025
v The McDonnell Douglas standard of proof does not eliminate the need for a broader “convincing mosaic” standard in the context of a motion for summary judgment.
v Even if an employer can show it had a legitimate reason for its actions, a totality of the circumstances approach may cause its motion to fail.
Discussion
In Ismael v. Roundtree, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that the McDonnell Douglas framework does not necessarily apply in the context of a summary judgment motion. The McDonnell Douglas standard says that a plaintiff must prove their case on its face, which then shifts the burden to the defendant to show a legitimate business reason for their action, and finally allows the plaintiff to show that the employer’s reason was just pretext. Here, the court found the McDonnell Douglas standard to be too rigid in the context of a summary judgment motion, saying that a “convincing mosaic” standard was appropriate under the circumstances.
Here, an employee filed a discrimination claim against his employer, who then made a motion for summary judgment. The district court found that, even though the plaintiff proved his case on its face, the employer met its burden under the McDonnell Douglas standard and granted the motion. However, there was significant additional evidence presented indicating that the employer’s presented evidence was unreliable and that the employer treated the plaintiff differently from other employees.
The appellate court indicated that lower courts should use a convincing mosaic standard in summary judgment, which has its own procedural standard of proof. Specifically, a convincing mosaic standard means “(1) that a plaintiff will always survive summary judgment if he presents circumstantial evidence that creates a triable issue concerning the employer’s discriminatory intent,” and (2) that a “triable issue of fact exists if the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, presents a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination by the decisionmaker.” The court said that the pretext standard under McDonnel Douglas should not be confused with the convincing mosaic standard that should apply in the context of a summary judgment motion.
Ultimately, the broader convincing mosaic standard means greater potential scrutiny over employer actions in litigation. Although this case focuses on legal procedure, it highlights the need for employers to be consistent in their policy enforcement and discipline and to document their legitimate business reasons for disciplinary action.
Action Items
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
/in HR AlertsCalifornia: Whistleblower Protections for Misunderstandings of the Law
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in CA
EFFECTIVE
DEC 15, 2025
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
In Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce, Inc., the California Court of Appeal said that an employee may receive whistleblower protection even if they are mistaken about the law. Labor Code § 1102.5 merely requires that an “employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute.”
In this case, an employee believed he was being paid less than other employees for similar work, although not on the basis of any protected category. He presented his case to his employer, but was sent home and ultimately terminated. A lower court dismissed his whistleblower claim because of his misunderstanding of the Equal Pay Act. The Equal Pay Act does not prohibit pay variances, only discriminatory variances in pay.
For purposes of whistleblowing protection, “the relevant inquiry is not whether the conduct ‘actually violated’ any specific statute or regulation, but whether the plaintiff ‘reasonably believed that there was a violation.’” The court specifically said, “The employee could be mistaken about his or her understanding of (1) the law, (2) the facts, or (3) the law and the facts.” Ultimately, the court found that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial for the jury to find that the employee reasonably believed that a legal violation occurred, notwithstanding his misunderstanding of the law.
This case highlights the caution employers must take when terminating an employee who believes they are reporting a legal violation. Even if the employee is incorrect about the law, they may still receive whistleblower protections. Employers should consult with legal counsel before taking adverse action against an employee under these circumstances.
Action Items
California: Outdated Agreement Terminology was Not Intended to Follow Current Arbitration Enforcement
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in CA
EFFECTIVE
DEC 24, 2025
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
In LaCour v. Marshalls of CA, LLC, the California Court of Appeals looked to the intention of the parties in an arbitration agreement to determine its enforceability. There, the court reviewed an arbitration agreement from 2014, which preceded much of the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) waiver analysis in arbitration agreements that employers must navigate today. This meant that the age of the agreement was determinative of the parties’ intent, in that they could not have intended compliance with court rulings that had not yet been issued.
There, an employee brought representative-only PAGA claims in court. In response, the employer attempted to compel the employee’s individual PAGA claims in arbitration in light of Viking River’s rule allowing the split of individual versus non-individual PAGA claims in arbitration. However, the agreement had older terminology, stating broadly that the parties agreed to bring individual claims in arbitration and waived class, collective, or PAGA representative claims, and a provision severing invalid portions of the agreement and requiring in that instance that PAGA claims be brought in court. The court said that the parties could not have intended to distinguish individual and non-individual PAGA claims for purposes of arbitration based on a legal standard that did not yet exist, and therefore found that the employee’s individual PAGA claims could not be compelled to arbitration.
This case highlights the need for employers to periodically have employees sign updated arbitration agreements to indicate their intent to comply with the latest court rulings and interpretations of enforceability of arbitration agreements.
Action Items
California: New Paid Sick Leave Poster 2026
Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 406 in 2025, which made technical updates to California’s paid sick leave law to clarify that employees may use paid sick leave during certain types of leave. California employers must now update their workplace postings to include the newly revised Healthy Workplaces/Healthy Families Act (HWHFA) paid sick leave poster issued by the DLSE in January 2026. This new poster reflects recent legislative changes clarifying that paid sick leave may be used during victims’ leave, court-related leave, and jury duty. It also reiterates employees’ rights to use paid sick leave for their own or a family member’s health care and confirms that retaliation or discrimination for using paid sick leave is prohibited. Employers should ensure that the updated poster is displayed in a conspicuous place where employees can easily see and read it.
REMINDER | California: Know Your Rights Act Notice Required as of February 1, 2026
As of February 1, 2026, pursuant to SB 294, all employers must provide employees with a stand-alone written notice of rights to each current employee through personal service, email, text message, or other method if it can reasonably be expected to be received by the employee within one business day of sending. The written notice must also be provided to each new employee upon hire and annually to existing employees. Employers must keep records of compliance for three years, including the date that each written notice is provided or sent.
California: Pay Data Reporting for Year 2025
California Gov’t Code § 12999 requires employers with 100 or more payroll or labor contractor employees, with at least one employee in California, to annually submit data on the pay, hours worked, and demographics of their employees to the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). The reporting portal opened on February 2, 2026, with a deadline for submission by May 13, 2026. In anticipation of this year’s reporting cycle, the CRD has released updated Excel templates, instructions, user guide, employer handbook, and FAQs.
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
Florida
/in HR AlertsFlorida: Updated Screening Rules for Employers Hiring Sensitive Positions
As of January 1, 2026, Florida’s HB 531 will require employers hiring individuals to work with children or vulnerable adults in positions that are subject to mandatory level two employment screening to include a link to the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration’s clearinghouse website in all job advertisements and postings.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase
Maine
/in HR AlertsMaine: New Regulations on Employee Surveillance
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in ME
EFFECTIVE
TBD (Anticipated Summer 2026)
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
Maine’s new law, enacted under LD 61 and titled An Act to Regulate Employer Surveillance to Protect Workers, positions Maine among the few states with statutory surveillance requirements, but goes much further than the notice-only approaches adopted in other states.
LD 61 regulates “employer surveillance,” broadly defined as monitoring employees through computers, phones, radios, or other electronic systems, including electromagnetic, photoelectronic, and photo‑optical tools. The statute applies to both public and private employers, and its definition of “employee” includes any individual who provides services in exchange for wages or remuneration, suggesting that the law may reach certain contract workers as well. The law does include several exclusions, such as employer use of surveillance cameras for safety or security purposes, GPS or safety systems installed on employer‑owned vehicles, and certain monitoring activities in “personal care services” settings where surveillance may be conducted by employers, clients, patients, or unpaid caregivers.
Under the law, employers are prohibited from engaging in surveillance in an employee’s home, on the employee’s personal property, or in the employee’s personal vehicle, unless such surveillance is genuinely required for the employee’s job duties. The law also prohibits employers from requiring employees to install data‑collecting or monitoring software on their personal devices. Employees have a statutory right to refuse such requests, a limitation that may significantly impact bring‑your‑own‑device policies and the design of remote‑work technology systems.
In addition to these prohibitions, LD 61 imposes several notice obligations for employers. Specifically, employers must:
Notably, however, the law does not require a workplace posting, nor does it require employers to collect written acknowledgments from employees.
The Maine Department of Labor has authority to enforce the statute, and violations carry civil penalties ranging from $100 to $500 per violation. There is no private right of action, meaning employees cannot sue directly under the law, but the penalty structure still creates meaningful compliance risk for employers with large workforces or widespread monitoring tools.
The Act will become effective 90 days after the close of Maine’s current legislative session, with an anticipated effective date sometime in summer 2026.
Action Items
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
Maryland
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Baltimore, MD: Requirement for Pregnancy Accommodations in Effect for Employers
As of January 10, 2026, Ordinance 25‑078 requires Baltimore employers with two or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy, recovery from pregnancy, or a related condition. Examples of reasonable accommodations include, but are not limited to: (1) offering an eligible employee more frequent or longer breaks; (2) acquiring or modifying accessible equipment or seating; (3) temporarily transferring an eligible individual to a less strenuous or hazardous position, if available, with return to the current position after pregnancy or recovery; (4) restructuring of an eligible individual’s job; (5) assigning an eligible individual light duty; (6) providing an eligible individual with assistance for manual labor; and (7) allowing an eligible employee to take a modified work schedule. Employees have protections from adverse actions for requesting or using a reasonable accommodation. Employers are also required to develop and implement a written pregnancy accommodation policy and include it in a handbook, if one is provided.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase
New Jersey
/in HR AlertsNew Jersey: Expanded Leave Obligations, Reporting Requirements, and Public Works Regulations
APPLIES TO
As Indicated
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
Expansion of Family Leave Act
Effective July 17, 2026, A2451/S2950 significantly expands New Jersey’s Family Leave Act (NJFLA). The most notable changes are:
The law has also created some confusion regarding job protection which is awaiting additional clarification. It states that individuals receiving TDI benefits for their own medical condition are entitled to job protection. Since NJFLA does not provide for job protection, there are questions around whether this means a new job-protected medical leave entitlement is being created. Employers should monitor the state’s Department of Labor & Workforce Development (NJDOL) website for additional guidance.
Mandatory Reporting of Employee Separations
Effective December 8, 2025, in accordance with amendments to New Jersey’s Unemployment Compensation Law, all employers must report all employee separations electronically to NJDOL through the Employer Access portal. Separations include layoffs, terminations, resignations, and retirements. Reporting is required immediately after an employee is separated. Failure to provide the required reporting will result in penalties for employers.
Project Labor Agreement Required on All Public Works Projects
Effective January 20, 2026, A3970 requires public entities to include a project labor agreement in all public works projects regardless of the project cost. The requirement applies to municipalities, countries, school districts, and fire districts and other similar public entities. A project labor agreement is a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement that incorporate, by reference, the separate labor contractors of union members working on the project. Public contractors should review the requirement with their legal counsel to determine the law’s impacts.
Action Items
New Jersey: Attorney General Guidance for Discrimination Based on Language or Accent
The New Jersey Attorney General provided guidance for the treatment of discrimination based on an individual’s language or accent. Although the state’s Law Against Discrimination does not address language bias, the Attorney General’s guidance stated that such discrimination can be linked to other protected traits like religion or national origin, which is expressly prohibited by the law. That said, the guidance makes clear that language by itself is not a protected characteristic. As an example, the guidance states that a New Jersey employer who does not stop workers from harassing an employee on their accent could face a discrimination claim. Employers should update their discrimination and harassment policies accordingly.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase
New York
/in HR AlertsNew York: New Laws for 2026!
APPLIES TO
As Indicated
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
Several laws were signed by Governor Hochul at the end of last year impacting requirements for employers in 2026. In addition, clarifying guidance was issued for laws that went into effect at the beginning of the new year. The most significant updates are summarized below.
Paid Family Leave for Construction Workers
Effective December 19, 2025, S50 extends paid family leave benefits to employees who perform construction, demolition, reconstruction, excavation, rehabilitation, repairs, renovations, alterations, or improvements for multiple employers pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. Currently, employees must work for 26 consecutive weeks to be eligible for benefits paid family leave benefits and they must re-qualify if they return to work with a different employer after an agreed and specified unpaid leave of absence. They must also requalify if they are temporarily laid off.
S50 amends the law to allow construction workers to remain eligible when: (1) they return to work with the same or different covered employer after an agreed and specified unpaid leave of absence; or (2) they return to work with the same or different covered employer after a lay-off, provided they had worked at least 26 of the last 39 weeks. The purpose of the law is to address the fact that the construction industry frequently requires union workers to work for multiple employers for short periods of time or to be laid off briefly between jobs, thereby making them ineligible for paid family leave benefits.
Disparate Impact Liability Recognized
Effective December 19, 2025, S8338 recognizes disparate impact liability as a method of establishing unlawful discrimination under the state’s Human Rights Law. Plaintiffs can now bring a case arguing that a challenged practice had or predictably would have a disparate impact on a protected class under the Human Rights Law even if the practice was not motivated by discriminatory intent. A defense exists where the challenged practice: (1) job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity; and (2) the business necessity could not be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect.
Trapped at Work Act
Effective December 19, 2025, S4070B prohibits employers from using reimbursement clauses or promissory notes as a condition of employment. This includes repayment agreements for an employee who leaves their employment before a certain date, as well as reimbursement agreements for employer-provided training. There are several specific agreements which are exempt from this prohibition:
Violations of this law can result in a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000 for each violation.
Employers should note there is a pending amendment (A9452) which would further narrow the types agreements affected and provide additional clarity if it is enacted.
Guidance on Healthy Terminals Act Amendment
Amendments to the Healthy Terminals Act (Act) went into effect on January 1, 2026. Due to some confusion created by the amendments, the New York State Department of Labor issued implementation guidance and FAQs to address the most common questions.
Employers should note the guidance and FAQs are not formal rulemaking and are suggested recommendations for compliance.
Ban on Credit History Checks in Employment
Effective April 18, 2026, S3072 prohibits the use of consumer credit history checks in hiring, employment, and licensing determinations. Consumer credit history is defined as an individual’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity or payment history as indicated by a consumer credit report, credit score, or information obtained about an individual’s credit accounts, late or missed payments, charged-off debts, collections history, credit limit inquiries, bankruptcies, judgments, or liens. There are limited exceptions for employers who are required to perform such checks if required by state or federal, for positions subject to a security clearance, positions that are non-clerical where the individual has regular access to trade secrets or intelligence information (including national security information), those have a fiduciary responsibility or signatory authority over funds or agreements valued at $10,000 or more, or those whose duties allow them to modify digital security systems intended to prevent unauthorized use of the employer’s or client’s networks or databases.
Action Items
New York, NY: Minimum Wage Standards for Security Guards
New York City has enacted the Aland Etienne Safety and Security Act, establishing citywide minimum wage, paid time off, and fringe-benefit standards for private sector security guards. The law applies to any private employer with at least one registered security guard working in NYC, with certain exclusions for federal, state, and Port Authority employers. Beginning January 1, 2027, covered employers must pay hourly wages that match or exceed those required on certain NYC public building service contracts. On January 1, 2028, covered employers must also provide paid holidays, vacations, and sick leave, and on January 1, 2029, they must offer supplemental benefits like health insurance or retirement contributions that are equivalent to those required on the same public contracts.
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
Ohio
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Ohio: E-Verify Requirements for Nonresidential Construction Employers
While E-Verify is voluntary for most private employers, effective March 19, 2026, HB 246 will require Ohio nonresidential construction employers to use the system for new hires. Failure to do so may result in notification of non-compliance, penalties ranging from $250 to $25,000, and potential restrictions on bidding for or participating in future state contracts for two years. “Nonresidential construction” is defined as the building, renovation or improvement for any building, highway, bridge, utility or similar infrastructure in the state. This law does not apply to residential construction employers, manufactured or industrial builds, mobile homes or agricultural construction. Nonresidential construction that occurs outside of Ohio is also exempt from this requirement.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase
Oregon
/in HR AlertsOregon: Paid Leave Oregon Job Protection Updates
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in OR
EFFECTIVE
JAN 1, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
Effective January 1, 2026, in accordance with 2025 amendments to Paid Leave Oregon (PLO), the Oregon Employment Department (OED) issued revised regulations regarding the PLO program’s job protection benefits. The Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) is now responsible for enforcing the job protection, antidiscrimination, and antiretaliation provisions of the law.
Job protection is required for employees on PLO leave who have been employed for at least 90 consecutive calendar days. Upon return from leave, employees must be returned to their former position with the same rate of pay, benefits, location, job duties, working hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. This includes situations where a worker was hired or reassigned to temporarily work the same position as the employee on leave.
Employees are not entitled to return to their former position if the employee would have been terminated or reassigned if leave had not been taken. Job protection also does not apply where an employee provides clear notice of their intent not to return to work. If a position is eliminated, large employers with 25 or more employees must provide an available, equivalent position within a 50-mile radius of the former job site. Employers with less than 25 employees can use their discretion to restore the employee to a similar position based on business necessity. The job protection and reinstatement requirements are quite expansive, so employers should consult with legal counsel if they are not able to comply upon an employee’s return from leave.
Action Items
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