California: Illegible Arbitration Agreements Aren’t Substantively Unfair but Their Terms May Be
|
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in CA
|
EFFECTIVE
FEB 2, 2026 |
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
|
Quick Look
- A contract’s format generally is irrelevant to the fairness of the contract’s terms, but courts must still closely scrutinize the terms of difficult-to-read contracts for unfairness or one-sidedness.
- Small font size may still indicate procedural unconscionability because it contributes to the element of surprise.
|
Discussion
In Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc., the California Supreme Court said that a contract’s format, alone, generally is irrelevant to the fairness of the contract’s terms, but courts must also closely scrutinize the terms of difficult-to-read contracts for unfairness or one-sidedness. However, small font size may still indicate procedural unconscionability because it contributes to the element of surprise.
Here, a signed document titled “Applicant Statement and Agreement” contained an arbitration provision of all disputes in the employment context and was printed in a very small font and its text was so blurry and broken up that it was nearly unreadable. The arbitration provision was a lengthy, densely printed paragraph consisting of complex sentences filled with legal jargon and statutory references. Additionally, the employee was given five minutes to complete the paperwork and was not provided with a copy.
For an agreement to be substantively unconscionable, the “fine print” terms must be both hidden and unfavorable to the non-drafting party. This does not mean that a contractual term is substantively unconscionable merely because it was printed in a small font. “An otherwise fair and mutual term is not made substantively unconscionable by printing it in a manner that makes it difficult to read…” Rather, courts must focus on the actual terms of the agreement.
Notwithstanding the substance of an agreement, there is also a procedural element that concerns “the circumstances of contract negotiation and formation,” particularly “oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining power.” Small font size may be indicative of the element of surprise. Notably, both procedural and substantive elements must be present to conclude a term is unconscionable, but these required elements need not be present to the same degree. Employers should take care in how and in what condition arbitration agreements are presented to workers.
Action Items
- Have arbitration agreements reviewed by legal counsel.
- Ensure arbitration agreements are presented in a fair manner.
California: Violation of Background Check Law Does Not Require Actual Harm
On February 4, 2026, in Parsonage v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., the California Court of Appeal said that a violation of California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) is enough to warrant statutory damages; no actual harm is required. In this case, the required disclosure failed to list the actual agency used to conduct the background investigation and did not provide a check box to request a copy of the report. Although the employee was hired without any adverse employment action, the court found that the statute entitled her to the greater of actual damages or $10,000, regardless of whether any harm actually occurred.
California: Cal/OSHA Analog to Worker Walkaround Rule
Cal/OSHA has proposed a state-level version of the federal OSHA “worker walkaround rule,” that would allow non‑employee third parties to accompany inspectors during workplace safety inspections if deemed reasonably necessary, signaling a potential shift in who may participate in and influence inspections. The draft regulation would permit an additional employee representative, who could be an employee, union representative, or third party, to join inspections, while giving Cal/OSHA inspectors new discretion to limit employers to a single representative. Inspectors would also gain authority to decide when third‑party involvement is justified under a “good cause” standard and to restrict or remove employer or employee representatives whose conduct is viewed as interfering with the inspection. A public hearing is set for April 1, 2026, and written comments are due by that date.
Los Angeles County, CA: Upcoming Increase to Minimum Wage
Los Angeles County has announced that the minimum wage in unincorporated areas will increase from $17.81 to $18.47 per hour effective July 1, 2026. This 3.7% adjustment is required under the County’s Minimum Wage Ordinance and is based on the November 2025 Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI‑W) for the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The updated rate reflects the County’s annual inflation‑based calculation and applies to all employers operating within unincorporated Los Angeles County.
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: Illegible Arbitration Agreements Aren’t Substantively Unfair but Their Terms May Be
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in CA
EFFECTIVE
FEB 2, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
In Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc., the California Supreme Court said that a contract’s format, alone, generally is irrelevant to the fairness of the contract’s terms, but courts must also closely scrutinize the terms of difficult-to-read contracts for unfairness or one-sidedness. However, small font size may still indicate procedural unconscionability because it contributes to the element of surprise.
Here, a signed document titled “Applicant Statement and Agreement” contained an arbitration provision of all disputes in the employment context and was printed in a very small font and its text was so blurry and broken up that it was nearly unreadable. The arbitration provision was a lengthy, densely printed paragraph consisting of complex sentences filled with legal jargon and statutory references. Additionally, the employee was given five minutes to complete the paperwork and was not provided with a copy.
For an agreement to be substantively unconscionable, the “fine print” terms must be both hidden and unfavorable to the non-drafting party. This does not mean that a contractual term is substantively unconscionable merely because it was printed in a small font. “An otherwise fair and mutual term is not made substantively unconscionable by printing it in a manner that makes it difficult to read…” Rather, courts must focus on the actual terms of the agreement.
Notwithstanding the substance of an agreement, there is also a procedural element that concerns “the circumstances of contract negotiation and formation,” particularly “oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining power.” Small font size may be indicative of the element of surprise. Notably, both procedural and substantive elements must be present to conclude a term is unconscionable, but these required elements need not be present to the same degree. Employers should take care in how and in what condition arbitration agreements are presented to workers.
Action Items
California: Violation of Background Check Law Does Not Require Actual Harm
On February 4, 2026, in Parsonage v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., the California Court of Appeal said that a violation of California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) is enough to warrant statutory damages; no actual harm is required. In this case, the required disclosure failed to list the actual agency used to conduct the background investigation and did not provide a check box to request a copy of the report. Although the employee was hired without any adverse employment action, the court found that the statute entitled her to the greater of actual damages or $10,000, regardless of whether any harm actually occurred.
California: Cal/OSHA Analog to Worker Walkaround Rule
Cal/OSHA has proposed a state-level version of the federal OSHA “worker walkaround rule,” that would allow non‑employee third parties to accompany inspectors during workplace safety inspections if deemed reasonably necessary, signaling a potential shift in who may participate in and influence inspections. The draft regulation would permit an additional employee representative, who could be an employee, union representative, or third party, to join inspections, while giving Cal/OSHA inspectors new discretion to limit employers to a single representative. Inspectors would also gain authority to decide when third‑party involvement is justified under a “good cause” standard and to restrict or remove employer or employee representatives whose conduct is viewed as interfering with the inspection. A public hearing is set for April 1, 2026, and written comments are due by that date.
Los Angeles County, CA: Upcoming Increase to Minimum Wage
Los Angeles County has announced that the minimum wage in unincorporated areas will increase from $17.81 to $18.47 per hour effective July 1, 2026. This 3.7% adjustment is required under the County’s Minimum Wage Ordinance and is based on the November 2025 Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI‑W) for the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The updated rate reflects the County’s annual inflation‑based calculation and applies to all employers operating within unincorporated Los Angeles County.
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 COMPS Order #40 and Updates to Wage, Leave, and Youth Employment Rules
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in CO
EFFECTIVE
FEB 1, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) has adopted Colorado Overtime Minimum Pay Standards (COMPS Order) #40, amended administrative regulations implementing the Colorado Wage Act, and released an updated COMPS Order poster. These updates bring changes to employer compliance obligations across wage and hour, employee leave, and youth employment rules. Key updates are summarized below.
Definition of Employer. The updates expand the definition of “employer” to include any individual owning or controlling at least 25% of a business, unless the employer can prove that the owner has fully delegated day‑to‑day operational authority. This change potentially exposes more owners to personal liability under the Colorado Wage Act.
Tip Credits. Employers with tipped workers must also adjust payroll practices, as COMPS Order #40 now allows local governments with higher minimum wages to authorize larger tip credits, enabling employers in those jurisdictions to apply a locally‑approved credit while still ensuring workers’ direct wages plus tips meet or exceed the applicable minimum wage.
Recordkeeping for Vacation and Sick Leave. Under the updates, employers are required to track not only hours worked, wage rates, and tips, but also detailed vacation and HFWA sick‑leave accrual, usage, and available balances. Employers must be prepared to provide written or electronic leave‑balance information upon request, no more than once per month unless company policy allows more frequent updates.
Pay Rate for HFWA Leave. The revised Wage Protection Rules also create more precise standards for determining the rate of pay for leave under the Healthy Families and Workplaces Act (HFWA), with detailed rules for different forms of compensation:
Youth Employment Rules. Colorado has also adopted final rules under the Colorado Youth Employment Opportunity Act (CYEOA), which impose stricter compliance obligations on employers who hire minors. The rules further expand and detail prohibited employment for minors, including restrictions on hazardous occupations, use of power‑driven equipment, exposure to toxic substances, and employment in certain establishments such as liquor stores, operation of power-driven machinery, some manufacturing industries, marijuana dispensaries, casinos, and adult entertainment venues. Additional limitations apply to minors under 16 and under 14. The new rules also clarify the CDLE’s Division of Labor Standards and Statistics authority under the CYEOA to investigate complaints, assess penalties, and issue written determinations ordering corrective action, fines, or damages to affected minors.
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
Nebraska
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Nebraska: Updates to Minimum Wage, Youth Wage and Training Wage
Nebraska has enacted LB 258, amending the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act to modify future minimum wage increases and establish new wage rules for teen workers. Beginning mid‑July 2026, the state minimum wage will increase annually at a fixed rate of 1.75% each January 1, replacing prior cost‑of‑living adjustments. The law also creates two new wage categories for younger workers: (1) youth minimum wage for minor employees aged 14-15 ($13.50 per hour beginning July 2026, with scheduled increases of 1.5% every five years starting January 1, 2030); and (2) training wage for minor employees aged 16-20 ($13.50 per hour effective July 16, 2026, followed by 1.5% annual increases each January 1). Both the youth minimum wage and the training wage may be paid only to non‑emancipated minors.
Nebraska: Workplace Safety Committee Mandate for Private Employers is Repealed
Nebraska’s LB 397 eliminates the state requirement that private employers maintain workplace safety committees and ends the state’s workplace safety consultation program, which was previously administered through the Nebraska Department of Labor. Because Nebraska does not operate a state-level OSHA plan for private employers, enforcement for private-sector workplace safety will continue to fall under federal OSHA. Going forward, the workplace safety committee requirement applies only to public employers subject to the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act, and those committees must maintain a written injury prevention program.
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: Court Interprets State ESLL for the First Time
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in NJ
EFFECTIVE
JAN 28, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
In Cano v. County Concrete Corporation, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued the first published appellate interpretation of the state’s Earned Sick Leave Law (ESLL), which significantly expands potential exposure for employer noncompliance.
In this case, the court found that a concrete supplier’s vacation and PTO policies failed to meet the ESLL’s requirements, holding that paid leave programs must allow employees to take leave for all purposes specified in the statute, not merely vacation, holidays, or bereavement. The court also confirmed that requiring a doctor’s note for absences of fewer than three consecutive days violates the ESLL, underscoring that employers may not impose additional conditions on the use of protected leave.
The ruling further clarifies that the ESLL’s “construction industry” exemption is narrowly construed. Although County Concrete argued that it was exempt as a construction‑industry employer, the court rejected this claim, concluding that producing and delivering sand, gravel, and ready‑mix concrete constituted manufacturing, not construction of “houses, schools, or other structures.” The decision makes clear that employers relying on exemptions must evaluate their core business activities, rather than their proximity to the construction industry or the existence of a collective bargaining agreement.
The court also highlighted the consequences of failing to meet the ESLL’s notice and recordkeeping requirements. Here, the employer posted notices only at one location and in an inaccessible area, and it did not maintain records showing employees’ accrued and used sick leave. Because the ESLL presumes that an employer failed to provide required sick leave when adequate records are not maintained, the court found that these deficiencies independently supported a finding of liability and contributed to substantial damages.
For employers, this decision emphasizes that courts will enforce the ESLL strictly, closely scrutinize any claimed exemptions, and hold employers to the statute’s detailed accrual, use, notice, and recordkeeping rules.
Action Items
New Jersey: Title IX Preempts Grievance and Arbitration Procedures in CBA
On January 29, 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court held, in Rutgers v. AFSCME Local 888, that Title IX preempts grievance and arbitration procedures in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) where those procedures do not provide equal rights to both the complainant and the respondent in a Title IX matter. The court overturned an order requiring Rutgers to arbitrate the termination of an employee found responsible for Title IX violations, concluding that the CBA’s arbitration process conflicted with federal regulations requiring equal procedural protections for both parties because it was only available to the disciplined employee and the union. Although the case arose in the public‑sector context, the court emphasized that similar federal preemption concerns could apply to private universities governed by the NLRA.
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 Mexico
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Santa Fe County, NM: Adjustments to Living Wage Rates
Santa Fe County has announced new living‑wage rates that took effect on March 1, 2026, for businesses operating outside the incorporated boundaries of the City of Santa Fe, the City of Española, and the Town of Edgewood. The updated rates set the living wage at $15.40 per hour for non‑tipped employees and $4.62 per hour for tipped employees. Employers covered by the ordinance must also post the official living‑wage compliance notice in both English and Spanish next to their business license to ensure proper public disclosure and 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
New York
/in HR AlertsNew York: Amendments to Trapped at Work Act Delay Implementation and Add Clarification
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in NY
EFFECTIVE
DEC 19, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
Enacted late last year, S4070B prohibited the use of reimbursement clauses or promissory notes as a condition of employment. This includes requirements that the worker pay the employer a sum of money if the worker leaves employment before the passage of a stated period of time. The law would apply to an agreement that requires the worker to reimburse the employer for training provided to the worker.
Due to employer concerns about the scope of the law, the legislature has enacted A9452 which narrows the scope of the law and delays its implementation to December 19, 2026. The amendment narrows the application of the law to only employees rather than the broader definition of “worker.” In addition, new exceptions have been added to narrow the scope of applicability. The original exceptions included:
The amendment now adds the following additional exceptions:
Although the law will not go into effect until the end of the year, employers should begin reviewing their reimbursement clauses and promissory notes with their legal counsel to make sure their agreements are in compliance.
Action Items
New York, NY: Mandatory Notice of Employee Rights and Additional Guidance on Unpaid Sick Leave
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in New York, NY
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
Pursuant to amendments to the New York City Earned Safe and Sick Time Act which took effect on February 22, 2026, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection issued updated guidance and the Notice of Employee Rights. The amendments require employers to distribute the mandatory notice to all employees regularly working in New York City in the employee’s primary language and post the notice in the workplace. In addition, employers must grant employees 32 hours of unpaid sick leave on the first day of employment and on the first day of each calendar year. There are also new covered uses for sick leave.
The updated guidance is in the form of FAQs which answers questions raised by the proposed rules. The proposed rules are set to clarify implementation of the amendments. The most notable questions that the revised guidance addresses are:
An additional guidance document, Rules for Protected Time Off Policies, addresses how employer PTO policies can meet the requirements under the law. Employers intending to use their PTO policies to comply should review the requirements to make sure all provisions are met.
Action Items
New York: Extension of PFML Benefits to Construction Workers is Postponed
New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed S8795, requiring certain unionized construction workers to continue receiving union health plan/fund benefits while on paid family leave, as if they were still actively working. The law also delays the effective date of A4727/S50, which extends paid family leave eligibility for certain construction employees who work for multiple CBA employers. Under the amendments, A4727/S50 is not set to go into effect on January 1, 2027.
REMINDER | New York: Registration for Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program Is Open
Following its establishment in 2018 and after much delay, registration is open to eligible employers for the New York Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, according to the following phased-in schedule: (1) Employers with 30 or more employees must register by March 18, 2026; (2) Employers with 15 to 29 employees must register by May 15, 2026; and (3) Employers with 10 to 14 employees must register by July 15, 2026. Under the program, an employer is “eligible” if they have 10 or more employees, they do not offer a qualified retirement plan, and they have been in business for at least two years.
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 AlertsOhio: Marijuana Updates
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in OH
EFFECTIVE
MAR 20, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
Effective March 20, 2026, Ohio’s SB 56 brings sweeping changes to the state’s cannabis framework, expanding regulatory oversight and limiting access to unregulated intoxicating hemp products.
The law places Ohio’s adult‑use marijuana program under the Division of Cannabis Control and bans the sale of intoxicating hemp products outside licensed marijuana dispensaries, significantly tightening the state’s regulatory structure. It also creates new criminal penalties, making it illegal to possess cannabis legally purchased in another state, prohibiting all public consumption (including edibles), and requiring all cannabis carried in a vehicle to be stored unopened in the trunk or the vehicle’s rearmost compartment.
Of note for employers, the law expressly prohibits individuals from smoking, vaporizing, or combusting marijuana in a “public place” or a “place of employment,” reaffirming that employers may maintain drug‑free workplace rules and ban all forms of consumption at work. It also prohibits businesses operating public places from knowingly allowing adult‑use or homegrown marijuana consumption on their premises, which may affect hospitality, entertainment, transportation, and other consumer‑facing industries.
SB 56 also reinforces the rights of employers to discipline or terminate employees for marijuana use that violates company policy and clarifies the consequences for employees who violate them. Specifically, an employee discharged for marijuana use in violation of a workplace policy will be ineligible both to serve a waiting period for unemployment compensation and to collect benefits during the period of disqualification.
Finally, employers should note that cannabis advocacy groups in Ohio are pursuing a statewide referendum to block SB 56 from taking effect, creating some uncertainty about the law’s future. Notwithstanding, SB 56 is set to go into effect on March 20, 2026, unless and until it is formally paused or overturned.
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
Oregon
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Oregon: Additional Workplace Violence Prevention Requirements for Certain Healthcare Settings
Effective May 1, 2026, Oregon will require all home health agencies, hospice programs, and special inpatient care facilities to establish, implement, and maintain a workplace violence prevention program including patient-specific risk intake and hospital discharge coordination (to obtain any known violence history within the prior 12 months), staff notification protocols, training and quarterly safety assessments, patient identity verification steps, and safety check mechanisms (e.g., mobile app, communication devices, or regular check-ins). Covered entities must also adopt related policies, including off-site documentation options and escort procedures when safety concerns exist, and must implement an EHR/visual “flagging” system with written protocols to alert personnel to potential threats or disruptive behavior.
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
Pennsylvania
/in HR AlertsPennsylvania: CHRIA Protects Voluntarily Offered Criminal History Information
APPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in PA
EFFECTIVE
JAN 28, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has expanded the scope of Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) by holding that the law may apply even when an employer receives criminal history information directly from a job applicant rather than through a background check.
The case, Phath v. Central Transport, arose after a driver applicant disclosed during the hiring process that he had a 2008 armed‑robbery conviction. After learning of the conviction, Central Transport informed him that he would not be hired, prompting the applicant to sue under CHRIA for allegedly relying on criminal history information that did not relate to his suitability for the position and for failing to provide the required written notice.
A federal district court dismissed the suit in 2024, concluding that CHRIA did not apply because the employer obtained the information through the applicant’s voluntary disclosure rather than from a state criminal history record. On appeal, however, the Third Circuit rejected that interpretation, instead holding that CHRIA’s protections turn on the type of information received, not the source from which the employer obtained it. Because felony convictions are within the definition of “criminal history record information,” the court found that such information does not lose its protected status simply because an applicant self‑discloses it rather than the employer obtaining it through a formal background check.
The court also addressed CHRIA’s exemptions under Section 9104, which exclude certain public sources such as court records and police blotters. Importantly, the court held that those exemptions did not apply in this case because the employer did not obtain information from an exempt source, but rather from the applicant himself, a source that does not appear among the statutory exemptions. As a result, the court concluded that the applicant’s disclosure still qualified as criminal history record information for purposes of CHRIA.
The ruling confirms that information may be protected under the statute even when voluntarily disclosed by an applicant, and employers may consider felony or misdemeanor convictions only when they relate to the applicant’s suitability for the position.
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
Rhode Island
/in HR AlertsDiscussion
Rhode Island: Updated Rules for Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program
Effective February 20, 2026, Rhode Island has issued a final rule clarifying employer requirements under the state’s Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program. Specifically, the revised rule specifies the steps employers must take when notified to register or formally certify that they are exempt. It also establishes clearer procedures for employers to follow in providing required program materials to employees and confirms the timelines for distributing information to new hires. Additionally, the rule refines how employers must determine employee eligibility and coverage under the Program, ensuring consistent application of the 120‑day employment and age 18 requirements.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase