Discussion

Chester County, PA: New Human Relations Ordinance

Effective December 23, 2025, Chester County, Pennsylvania Ordinance 2025-03 implemented anti-discrimination protections applicable to employers with four or more employees. The Ordinance prohibits discrimination against any employee or independent contractor based on any protected class, including limiting inquiries about protected characteristics in the application and employment contexts. “Protected class” refers to an individual’s “actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin or citizenship status, ancestry, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions), gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, familial status, physical or mental disability, source of income, age, veteran status, use of guide or support animals and/or mechanical aids, or domestic or sexual violence victim status.”

 

The Ordinance also prohibits employers from asking on an employment application or until after an initial interview whether the applicant has ever been convicted of a crime, unless otherwise required by law. An employer may include in its job requirements that an applicant have a clean driving record or be able to pass a child abuse clearance check. Background screenings also may not take place until after an initial interview and must be narrowly tailored to the job sought and what is otherwise required by law. An employer also cannot ask a job applicant what their salary is or was from any current or previous employment. Finally, a Human Relations Commission was established to receive and investigate employment complaints. In light of this major legal overhaul in Chester County, employers should review and update their policies and procedures for compliance.

---

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase

Discussion

Washington: ESD Publishes New PFML Template Notices

As of January 1, 2026, HB 1213 expanded worker protections under Washington’s Paid Family and Medical Leave program and introduced new administrative requirements for employers. Among these changes, HB 1213 added new employer notice obligations, and the Washington Employment Security Department (ESD) has now published template notices that employers may use to satisfy these requirements. First, if an employee’s leave exceeds two full workweeks of continuous leave (or 14 days of combined intermittent leave), employers must provide at least five business days’ written notice of (1) the employee’s first scheduled workday back, and (2) the estimated expiration of the employee’s job-restoration period. The ESD has published a template Job Protection Rights notice that employers may use to meet these requirements. Second, employers subject to federal FMLA terms are now allowed, but not required, to apply employee time taken under FMLA towards current and future periods of allotted leave under the state’s PFML program.  In order to do this, employers will need to provide employees requesting leave with written notice (1) within five business days of the employee’s request for leave, and (2) on a monthly basis thereafter. The ESD has similarly published a template FMLA Impact on Paid Leave Job Protection notice that employers can use to meet these requirements. Employers should note that these template notices may need to be tailored to meet the employe’s specific circumstances.

 

---

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

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