San Francisco, CA: Fair Chance Act Expanded
|
APPLIES TO
Employers with 5+ Employees in San Francisco, CA |
EFFECTIVE
AUG 10, 2026 |
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
|
Quick Look
- San Francisco Fair Chance Act provides protections for out-of-state criminal convictions or arrests tied to conduct that is legal in California but criminalized elsewhere.
- Employers must confirm receipt of an applicant’s rebuttal notice within 14 days; if the applicant makes a reasonable factual showing that the proposed adverse action rests solely on a conviction that isn’t “directly related,” the employer must withdraw the adverse action.
- Penalties for violations have increased.
|
Discussion
San Francisco Ordinance No. 128-26 amended the City’s Fair Chance Ordinance, which is a “ban-the-box” law restricting the use of criminal history when making employment decisions. The ordinance’s primary focus is new protections for people with out-of-state criminal convictions or arrests tied to conduct that is legal in California but criminalized elsewhere.
The ordinance adds four new defined terms associated with the statutory protections — “Abortion-Related Healthcare Conviction,” “Drag-Related Conviction,” “Gender Affirming Care Conviction,” and “Spontaneous Abortion-Related Conviction” — covering out-of-state records connected to abortion care, drag performances, gender-affirming medical care, and pregnancy loss (including miscarriage and stillbirth). These changes were implemented in response to the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision and the numerous states that have criminalized abortion-related healthcare and restricted gender-affirming care, so that people fleeing those laws to California do not face employment discrimination in San Francisco because of resulting out-of-state records.
Substantively, the ordinance clarifies that these newly defined convictions/arrests can never be treated as a “Directly-Related Conviction” that would justify an adverse employment decision, and it explicitly authorizes the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) and Human Rights Commission (HRC) to find a violation where an employer bases an adverse action on one of these four new conviction categories, or fails to conduct the required individualized assessment. It also adds a requirement that employers confirm receipt of an applicant’s rebuttal notice within 14 days, and that if the applicant makes a reasonable factual showing that the proposed adverse action rests solely on a conviction that isn’t “directly related,” the employer must withdraw the adverse action.
Finally, the ordinance significantly raises the financial stakes for violations. Administrative penalties increase from $500/$1,000/$2,000 to $1,000/$2,000/$4,000 for first, second, and subsequent violations, respectively (assessed per affected employee, applicant, or tenant). Liquidated damages available to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil lawsuit increase from $500 to $1,000 per day per person whose rights were violated. The ordinance also makes smaller housekeeping changes, such as switching gendered pronouns (“his or her”) to gender-neutral language (“their”) throughout. The required poster was also recently updated. Employers should take care to update background screen procedures for compliance.
Action Items
- Update background screen procedures to be consistent with the new requirements.
- Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements.
- Display the updated Fair Chance Ordinance Notice Poster in a common area frequented by all employees.
San Francisco, CA: Paid Parental Leave Benefits Eligibility Expanded
As of January 1, 2027, San Francisco Ordinance No. 162-26 will reduce the minimum eligibility for employees to receive Paid Parental Leave benefits. Specifically, for employers with 100 or more employees, employees must work at least 90 days before the start of leave, reduced from 180 days, in order to receive benefits. As of January 1, 2028, this requirement will apply to employers with 20 or more employees. San Francisco Paid Parental Leave is not a leave entitlement, but a wage supplement to California Paid Family Leave benefits.
California: Minimum Wage Increase
California recently announced that the new minimum wage for 2027 will be $17.40 per hour. This increase to the state minimum wage also means that the salary test for the widely used executive, administrative and professional exemptions will increase from $70,304 annually ($1,352 per week) to $72,384 annually ($1,392 per week), because the exempt salary minimum is two times the state minimum wage. For more information about the 2027 California minimum wage increase visit the Department of Industrial Relations.
California: Cal/OSHA 2025 Annual Report
On July 23, 2026, the California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation (CHSWC) released its 2025 Annual Report, providing a comprehensive overview of the state’s workplace health and safety and workers’ compensation systems. The report highlights significant legislative and regulatory developments, presents trend data and graphics, and summarizes research on issues of interest to system stakeholders — including recommendations for administrative and legislative improvements to both systems. CHSWC is charged with conducting a continuing examination of California’s workers’ compensation system, the state’s industrial injury and occupational illness prevention programs, and comparable programs in other states. Employers should review the report for developments that may affect workplace safety obligations and workers’ compensation program compliance; the full report is available on the CHSWC website at www.dir.ca.gov.
California: No Cap on Noneconomic Damages Under FEHA
On July 30, 2026, in Glick v. City of Los Angeles, the California Court of Appeal ruled there was no cap on the amount of noneconomic (emotional distress) damages a jury can award for so-called “garden-variety emotional distress” in a discrimination claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). There, the trial court reduced a $13.1 million noneconomic damages award to $375,000. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion and reinstated the jury awards, finding that the jury’s damages awards were not excessive as a matter of law or unsupported by the evidence.
California: Right to Seek Workplace Restraining Order is Unwaivable
On July 6, 2026, in Adelanto Elementary School District v. Michael Krause, the California Court of Appeal largely affirmed a workplace violence restraining order (WVRO) against the district’s former superintendent, for intimidating conduct toward three employees, which escalated after the superintendent was terminated and subsequently ran for and won a seat on the district’s Board of Trustees, during which time his harassment continued. The court held that an employer’s statutory right to seek a WVRO to protect its employees cannot be waived, even where a separation agreement is signed, and found sufficient evidence of a future threat of harassment to support the order. A future threat of violence was not required.
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 AlertsSan Francisco, CA: Fair Chance Act Expanded
APPLIES TO
Employers with 5+ Employees in San Francisco, CA
EFFECTIVE
AUG 10, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
San Francisco Ordinance No. 128-26 amended the City’s Fair Chance Ordinance, which is a “ban-the-box” law restricting the use of criminal history when making employment decisions. The ordinance’s primary focus is new protections for people with out-of-state criminal convictions or arrests tied to conduct that is legal in California but criminalized elsewhere.
The ordinance adds four new defined terms associated with the statutory protections — “Abortion-Related Healthcare Conviction,” “Drag-Related Conviction,” “Gender Affirming Care Conviction,” and “Spontaneous Abortion-Related Conviction” — covering out-of-state records connected to abortion care, drag performances, gender-affirming medical care, and pregnancy loss (including miscarriage and stillbirth). These changes were implemented in response to the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision and the numerous states that have criminalized abortion-related healthcare and restricted gender-affirming care, so that people fleeing those laws to California do not face employment discrimination in San Francisco because of resulting out-of-state records.
Substantively, the ordinance clarifies that these newly defined convictions/arrests can never be treated as a “Directly-Related Conviction” that would justify an adverse employment decision, and it explicitly authorizes the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) and Human Rights Commission (HRC) to find a violation where an employer bases an adverse action on one of these four new conviction categories, or fails to conduct the required individualized assessment. It also adds a requirement that employers confirm receipt of an applicant’s rebuttal notice within 14 days, and that if the applicant makes a reasonable factual showing that the proposed adverse action rests solely on a conviction that isn’t “directly related,” the employer must withdraw the adverse action.
Finally, the ordinance significantly raises the financial stakes for violations. Administrative penalties increase from $500/$1,000/$2,000 to $1,000/$2,000/$4,000 for first, second, and subsequent violations, respectively (assessed per affected employee, applicant, or tenant). Liquidated damages available to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil lawsuit increase from $500 to $1,000 per day per person whose rights were violated. The ordinance also makes smaller housekeeping changes, such as switching gendered pronouns (“his or her”) to gender-neutral language (“their”) throughout. The required poster was also recently updated. Employers should take care to update background screen procedures for compliance.
Action Items
San Francisco, CA: Paid Parental Leave Benefits Eligibility Expanded
As of January 1, 2027, San Francisco Ordinance No. 162-26 will reduce the minimum eligibility for employees to receive Paid Parental Leave benefits. Specifically, for employers with 100 or more employees, employees must work at least 90 days before the start of leave, reduced from 180 days, in order to receive benefits. As of January 1, 2028, this requirement will apply to employers with 20 or more employees. San Francisco Paid Parental Leave is not a leave entitlement, but a wage supplement to California Paid Family Leave benefits.
California: Minimum Wage Increase
California recently announced that the new minimum wage for 2027 will be $17.40 per hour. This increase to the state minimum wage also means that the salary test for the widely used executive, administrative and professional exemptions will increase from $70,304 annually ($1,352 per week) to $72,384 annually ($1,392 per week), because the exempt salary minimum is two times the state minimum wage. For more information about the 2027 California minimum wage increase visit the Department of Industrial Relations.
California: Cal/OSHA 2025 Annual Report
On July 23, 2026, the California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation (CHSWC) released its 2025 Annual Report, providing a comprehensive overview of the state’s workplace health and safety and workers’ compensation systems. The report highlights significant legislative and regulatory developments, presents trend data and graphics, and summarizes research on issues of interest to system stakeholders — including recommendations for administrative and legislative improvements to both systems. CHSWC is charged with conducting a continuing examination of California’s workers’ compensation system, the state’s industrial injury and occupational illness prevention programs, and comparable programs in other states. Employers should review the report for developments that may affect workplace safety obligations and workers’ compensation program compliance; the full report is available on the CHSWC website at www.dir.ca.gov.
California: No Cap on Noneconomic Damages Under FEHA
On July 30, 2026, in Glick v. City of Los Angeles, the California Court of Appeal ruled there was no cap on the amount of noneconomic (emotional distress) damages a jury can award for so-called “garden-variety emotional distress” in a discrimination claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). There, the trial court reduced a $13.1 million noneconomic damages award to $375,000. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion and reinstated the jury awards, finding that the jury’s damages awards were not excessive as a matter of law or unsupported by the evidence.
California: Right to Seek Workplace Restraining Order is Unwaivable
On July 6, 2026, in Adelanto Elementary School District v. Michael Krause, the California Court of Appeal largely affirmed a workplace violence restraining order (WVRO) against the district’s former superintendent, for intimidating conduct toward three employees, which escalated after the superintendent was terminated and subsequently ran for and won a seat on the district’s Board of Trustees, during which time his harassment continued. The court held that an employer’s statutory right to seek a WVRO to protect its employees cannot be waived, even where a separation agreement is signed, and found sufficient evidence of a future threat of harassment to support the order. A future threat of violence was not required.
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
Colorado
/in HR AlertsColorado: New Proposed Rule Implementing Revised AI Law
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in CO
EFFECTIVE
JAN 1, 2027
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
On August 11, 2026, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office filed proposed rules to implement two new state AI laws: the Automated Decision-Making Technology in Consequential Decisions Act (ADMT Act) and the Chatbot Safety Act. Both laws were signed by Colorado’s Governor in May 2026 and are set to take effect January 1, 2027. The proposed rules are now subject to public comment and may change before the laws’ effective date. Key aspects of the proposal are summarized below.
Adverse Decision Outcome. The ADMT Act requires “deployers,” including employers, to tell employees and job applicants when they use ADMT to make a “consequential decision,” such as hiring, promotion, or termination. If the tool contributes to an “adverse outcome,” affected employees and applicants gain new rights, including the ability to request more information, correct inaccurate data, and ask for human review of the decision. Under the proposed rules, when an AI tool contributes to an adverse outcome, employers would need to explain the specific purpose of the tool, the role it played in the decision, and the role of any human reviewer. Employers would also need to explain the main reasons for the outcome clearly and specifically, avoiding vague or generic language. Notably, the proposed rules make clear that an employer cannot comply if it is unable to explain how the tool actually influenced the decision or how it used the person’s data. This means employers should understand, in practical terms, how any AI tool they use actually works and weighs information, not just what the vendor’s marketing materials describe.
Responding to Requests for ADMT Information. If an employee or applicant asks for more detail, the proposed rules require employers to describe the categories of information the tool considered (for example, credit score, health information, or criminal history) and identify each original source of that data by name, including any data broker, background check provider, or other third party. If the data passed through a data aggregator, the employer would need to trace it back to the original source.
Submitting Post-Adverse Outcome Rights Requests. The ADMT law requires that deployers provide an explanation of ADMT consumer rights and how to exercise them. The proposed rules specify that an outcome disclosure must include a clearly labeled link that leads directly to the request mechanism, as well as a mailing address or toll-free number. Employers would be required to offer two or more designated methods for submitting requests, taking into account how they typically interact with employees and job applicants. Those requests would need to be monitored by someone able to act on them, available at any time (not just business hours), and processed with as few steps as possible for the requester.
Requesting Personal Data and Making Corrections. The proposed rules provide employees and applicants the right to see the specific information used in a decision, including not just raw data but also any score, ranking, or recommendation generated by the tool. If they believe the information is incorrect, employers would need to correct it in their systems and, where possible, pause the adverse outcome until the correction is resolved. While employers would be entitled to request supporting documentation for a correction request, employers would need to give the employee or job applicant requesting the correction “a meaningful understanding of why the documentation is necessary.”
Independent Human Review. The proposed rules seek to clarify what counts as the “meaningful human review” that employees and applicants can request after an adverse outcome. Employers would need to confirm receipt of a review request within 10 days and complete the review within 45 days. The review would need to be conducted by someone independent of the original decision-maker, with subject-matter knowledge appropriate to the situation, and with real authority to approve, change, or reverse the decision. The rules also set out a multi-factor test for when human review is “commercially reasonable,” and would presume review is required when an adverse outcome results in a severe, hard-to-reverse loss, such as job loss, placing the burden on the employer to show why review was not feasible.
What Does This Mean for Employers? Because these rules are still in draft form, employers do not yet have a final compliance checklist to follow. However, the proposal signals a detailed and technical set of obligations for any Colorado employer using AI tools to help with hiring, promotion, termination, or similar decisions. Employers should not wait until the rules are finalized to start preparing, since building the necessary processes, training reviewers, and understanding exactly how existing AI tools function will likely take time.
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
Connecticut
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Connecticut: State Minimum Wage Increase
Effective January 1, 2027, the minimum wage in Connecticut will increase to $17.48 per hour. The adjustment is based on the rate of inflation, as measured by the percentage change in the U.S. Department of Labor Employment Cost Index for wages and salaries for all civilian workers from June 30, 2025, through June 30, 2026, rounded to the nearest cent.
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
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Delaware: Employer Tax Credit for Paid Organ and Bone Marrow Donation Leave
On September 1, 2026, the Delaware Department of Finance announced that the state’s organ and bone marrow donation tax credit, originally enacted in 2022, is in effect, retroactive to January 1, 2026. Under the law, an employer that provides an employee with paid time off for organ or bone marrow donation, beyond any traditional paid time off, may claim a tax credit equal to 25% of the employee’s gross wages paid during the missed work, for up to 30 days of missed work per donation. The credit had remained dormant since 2022 pending a required notice from the Department of Finance. Delaware employers offering this type of leave should review their payroll and leave records for calendar year 2026 to determine whether they qualify for the credit and should note that qualifying wages do not include amounts paid as traditional paid time off, worker’s compensation benefits, or certain other categorized payments.
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: No Duty to Accommodate Off-Duty Medical Marijuana Use
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in FL
EFFECTIVE
JUL 29, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
In Hillsborough County v. Giambrone, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal ruled that public employers are not legally required to accommodate off-duty medical marijuana use. Here, Angelo Giambrone, a firefighter paramedic, worked for Hillsborough County Fire Rescue when he was selected for a random urine drug test which ultimately showed positive for marijuana. Based on the positive test, the County placed him on unpaid administrative leave. Giambrone then filed a civil action against the County for failure to accommodate and wrongful termination based on the County’s refusal to accept the medical marijuana card as justification for the positive result, and additional claims. A trial court found in favor of Giambrone and ruled that the County must “provide an accommodation to employees who present a valid State of Florida Medical Marijuana Card after testing positive for marijuana” so long as there is “no evidence” of on-duty use, possession, or working “under the influence.” The County appealed.
In reaching its ruling, the court found that medical marijuana was a nonprescription medication under both the County’s drug-free workplace policy and the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in place with the County. As such, medical marijuana under the policy and the CBA was a specifically excluded substance beyond those that are criminally prohibited. Medical marijuana also requires dispensing through licensed dispensaries and is not available for general public use under Florida law. The court also found that nothing in Florida’s medical marijuana law required employers to accommodate on-site use in a place of employment. Although the law did not address off-duty use, that did not mean it granted an employee rights against employers for off-duty use.
Employers should note that the ruling was based both on the employer’s specific policy and the CBA. For similar situations, employers with drug-free workplace policies and CBA’s should review their definitions of prescription and nonprescription medication for alignment with this case to consistently enforce their policies. It remains to be seen whether the case will be appealed to the Florida Supreme Court. Until then, employers should consult with their legal counsel regarding any duty to accommodate employees with medical marijuana cards.
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
Georgia
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Georgia: Electronic Filing of Quarterly Unemployment Tax and Wage Reports
Effective August 9, 2026, all Georgia employers must electronically file quarterly unemployment tax and wage reports, on Form DOL-4, by the last day of the next month following the end of the calendar quarter, unless the employer is expressly authorized by the Department of Labor to file using a different method. Previously, only employers with 25 or more employees were required to file electronically.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase
Illinois
/in HR AlertsIllinois: Legislative Updates
APPLIES TO
As Indicated
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed several bills this summer affecting employer obligations across a range of topics. Key aspects of each are summarized below.
AUG 7, 2026 | Workers’ Compensation Burial Expense Benefit Increased. HB 5228 increases the burial expense benefit available under Illinois workers’ compensation coverage from $8,000 to $10,000.
JAN 1, 2027 | Driver’s License Requirements in Job Postings. HB 4758 amends the Illinois Job Opportunities for Qualified Applicants Act (commonly known as the state’s “Ban the Box” law) to restrict covered employers from stating in a job posting that applicants must have a valid driver’s license, unless driving is an essential function of the job and a business necessity. If a posting does include a driver’s license requirement, it must also briefly explain why the license is necessary for the position. Employers that violate the law are subject to penalties imposed by the Illinois Department of Labor. Notably, the law is narrower than a similar 2024 California law, which applies more broadly to job advertisements, applications, and other materials and turns on whether an employer “reasonably anticipates” driving to be an essential function. Illinois’s law is limited specifically to job postings.
JAN 1, 2027 | Menopause-Related Conditions Added to the Illinois Human Rights Act. HB 5284 amends the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) to expand the statutory definition of “pregnancy” to include menopause-related conditions, extending existing pregnancy-related protections to employees experiencing perimenopause, menopause, and associated conditions such as vasomotor symptoms, sleep disruption, cognitive or mood changes, and osteoporosis-related changes. The law applies to Illinois employers with one or more employees.
Under the expanded law, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees based on menopause-related conditions and must provide reasonable accommodations, following the same framework already used for pregnancy-related accommodations. This can include measures such as frequent or longer breaks, seating, temporary transfer to a less strenuous position, modified schedules, or job restructuring. The amendments also add flexible scheduling, modified work hours, and temperature or climate-adjusted workspaces to the list of suggested accommodations. Separately, the law also amends the Illinois Insurance Code to impose new coverage requirements for menopause and perimenopause-related care, effective January 1, 2028.
JAN 1, 2027 | Expanded Investigatory Authority for the Workplace Rights Bureau. HB 4725 significantly expands the investigatory powers of the Workplace Rights Bureau within the Illinois Attorney General’s Office. The Bureau may now issue subpoenas for documents, require written answers under oath to interrogatories, inspect an employer’s premises, and interview employees. If an employer refuses to permit an inspection, the Attorney General may seek an administrative inspection warrant upon reasonable cause on belief an immediate investigation is necessary.
JAN 1, 2027 | Genetic Information Privacy Act Expanded to Cover Biomarkers. SB 2886 amends the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA) to extend its protections to biomarker testing information, in addition to existing genetic information protections. As amended, the law prohibits employers from: (1) requesting, requiring or purchasing biomarker information as a condition of employment or application; (2) discriminating against an employee or applicant on the basis of biomarkers or biomarker testing; and (3) using biomarkers or biomarker testing in a workplace wellness program unless certain consent, confidentiality, and written authorization requirements are met.
JAN 1, 2027 | Volunteer Emergency Worker Protections Expanded. HB 1353 amends Illinois’ Volunteer Emergency Worker Job Protection Act in three key ways. First, it extends job protection to time spent in required training for volunteer emergency work, not just time responding to an emergency. Second, it prohibits employers from penalizing, not just terminating, employees who are late or absent because of an emergency response or required training. Third, it prohibits employers from requiring volunteer emergency workers to use vacation or other compensatory time to respond to an emergency or attend required training.
JAN 1, 2027 | Health Care Violence Prevention Act Amended. SB 2713 amends the Health Care Violence Prevention Act (HCVPA) to require that a covered health care provider’s workplace violence prevention program include an internal system for employees to report incidents of “type 2” violence to the provider. The amendments also prohibit health care providers from maintaining any policy that limits the type of workplace violence a health care worker may report to law enforcement or the Illinois Department of Public Health.
The law also phases in new recordkeeping and reporting requirements. By November 30, 2027, the Department of Public Health must publish a template or form for logging type 2 violent incidents occurring in the emergency department, and health care providers must begin using it within three months after publication. Each logged incident must include details such as the nature of the incident and any environmental risk factors, the date, time, and job titles of involved employees, the identity of the perpetrator if known, the nature and extent of any injuries, and how the incident was addressed. Beginning May 31, 2028, and annually thereafter, health care providers must submit a deidentified aggregate summary report to the Department covering the prior calendar year, including the total number of type 2 incidents, associated recordable injuries, and a summary of the provider’s violence prevention activities. The Department will notify any provider that misses the deadline, giving it 30 days to submit the report, and may impose fines of up to $500 per day for continued noncompliance.
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
Indiana
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Indiana: New Law Aligns State with OBBB Deductions
Effective July 1, 2026, SB 243 creates new state income tax deductions for “qualified tips” and “qualified overtime compensation,” mirroring the federal deductions established under the federal One, Big, Beautiful Bill (OBBB). The deductions apply retroactively to the 2026 tax year only (tax years beginning after December 31, 2025, and ending before January 1, 2027) and allow individual taxpayers to deduct from Indiana adjusted gross income the same tip and overtime amounts already deducted at the federal level. While this is primarily an individual income tax benefit rather than a new employer obligation, employers should ensure tips and overtime compensation are accurately reported on employees’ W-2s or other information returns, since accurate federal reporting is what allows employees to claim both the federal and state deductions.
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 AlertsMaryland: Updated Resources for FAMLI Program
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in MD
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
Maryland’s Department of Labor (MDOL) released new resources to help employers and their workers understand the upcoming FAMLI program. FAMLI provides workers with up to twelve weeks of paid leave for qualifying family and medical reasons. Contributions funding the program begin January 1, 2027 with benefits beginning January 3, 2028. The new resources address employer registration, private insurance plan options, and quarterly wage and hour reporting.
The employer registration portal is now open. Employers with at least one employee working in Maryland need to register with FAMLI. Initial registration must be completed by an authorized officer who needs to provide an email address and phone number as well as a Social Security Number and a valid form of identification. Third party agents like payroll providers, PEOs, CPAs, and HR or benefits administrators can also register on behalf of their clients. Such agents will need to have their clients sign a power of attorney to manage FAMLI tasks on their behalf.
MDOL has also published information for employers to use a private plan instead of the state plan. Private plans must provide the same level of benefits and services as the state plan or better and must be approved by the FAMLI Division. Private plans can be commercial insurance plans or self-insured. Employers with fewer than 50 employees can apply for a self-insured plan if they already have their own FAMLI-compliant plan in place by July 31, 2026. Employers who intend to apply for a private plan and want to be exempt from contributions must submit a Declaration of Intent (DOI) between September 1-November 15, 2026. Private plan applications will be available in summer 2027 and will be due October 1, 2027.
All employers must electronically submit Quarterly Wage and Hour Reports (QWHRs) to the FAMLI Division – including those with private plans. FAMLI uses the information provided in these reports as the basis for determining employee eligibility and benefit amounts based on the number of hours they work. Contributions must be paid on or before the quarterly due date to avoid penalties and interest. Employers should continue to monitor the FAMLI Division website for additional updates.
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
Massachusetts
/in HR AlertsMassachusetts: Employers Must Provide Employees with Notice of I-9 Inspections
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in MA
EFFECTIVE
AUG 5, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
Massachusetts employers must now provide employees with written notice within 48 hours after receiving an ICE Notice of Inspection for Forms I-9 or other employment records. HB 5620, or the PROTECT Act, does not describe the contents of the notice, the method of delivery of the notice, or retention requirements. It remains to be seen whether Massachusetts will issue a model notice or additional guidance like California and Illinois who each have similar laws. The law does have a narrow exception for the notice requirement in cases where notification may not be permitted. Failure to comply may result in penalties of $200 – $500 per violation.
Despite the lack of a formal guidance on the contents or the delivery of the notice, employers should provide the minimum information provided by the statute, select a delivery method that ensures each worker will receive the notice, and document its compliance with the requirements of the law which includes retaining a copy of the notice. Until there is additional guidance, employers may also wish to work with their legal counsel to determine the appropriate contents, communication methods, and other considerations that are appropriate for their particular workforce.
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