Tennessee

Discussion

Tennessee: Local Governments Prohibited from Enacting Employment Ordinances

Effective March 16, 2026, SB 0674 prohibits local governments from enacting employment-related ordinances that exceed or conflict with state or federal law. Specifically, local governments are prohibited from: (1) authorizing or mandating that employers establish a leave policy that deviates from state requirements; (2) requiring that employers provide health insurance benefits to employees, except as required by federal law; (3) prohibiting an employer from requesting any information on an application for employment or during the hiring process, except as provided by state or federal law; or (4) adopting or enforcing policies that regulate or impose requirements upon an employer pertaining to hours worked, scheduling, or employee output. The prohibition does not apply to ordinances affecting a local government’s own employees, meaning local governments retain the ability to set employment terms for their own workforce. For private employers operating in Tennessee, this law provides greater certainty that local ordinances cannot impose employment obligations beyond those established by state or federal law.

 

Tennessee: Expanded Employment Eligibility Verification Requirements

Effective January 1, 2027, HB 1194 amends the Tennessee Lawful Employment Act to expand the definition of “private employer” to include any person required by federal law to report remuneration paid to at least one employee (i.e., any employer subject to federal payroll tax reporting requirements). This change extends the Act’s employment eligibility verification requirements to employers with one to five employees who were previously exempt. Under the Act, covered private employers must either request and maintain copies of identity and work authorization documents for employees and non-employee contract workers, or enroll in the federal E-Verify program prior to hiring. E-Verify remains mandatory for employers with more than 35 full-time equivalent employees for all employees hired on or after January 1, 2023. The amendment also clarifies penalty provisions, requiring business license suspension for first and second violations until remedied, and permanent business license revocation for a third or subsequent violation. All Tennessee employers, particularly those with fewer than six employees who were previously exempt, should review their onboarding and employment eligibility verification practices for compliance ahead of the January 1, 2027 effective date.

 


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

Utah

Discussion

Utah: New Restrictions on Employer-Required Medical Examinations

As of May 6, 2026, HB 130 prohibits employers from taking the following actions with respect to required medical examinations:

 

  • Charging a fee for a medical examination;
  • Requiring the person to obtain a medical examination unless the employer pays all costs charged by the health care provider;
  • Requiring an employee to receive a medical exam that the employer requires outside of the employee’s shift without pay;
  • Requiring an employee to use leave to receive a medical exam that the employer requires; or
  • Requiring a person to pay out-of-pocket for a required medical examination, even if the employer later reimburses them.

 

Utah employers that require medical examinations as part of their hiring or employment practices should review their current procedures for compliance with these new restrictions.

 

 

Utah: Workplace Violence Requirements for Hospitals

Effective November 1, 2026, HB 380 will require hospitals to: (1) establish a workplace violence incident reporting system; (2) record all reported incidents of workplace violence; (3) adopt a policy that prohibits discrimination or retaliation against an employee for reporting or participating in an investigation; (4) analyze collected data; (5) maintain workplace violence incidents records for at least two years; and (6) report data collected to the chief medical officer and the chief nursing officer on a quarterly basis. Additionally, a workplace violence incident reporting system must: (a) collect certain information regarding a workplace violence incident; (b) be clearly communicated to all employees, including on hire; (c) include guidelines on reporting incidents of workplace violence; and (d) be used to make improvements in preventing workplace violence. Finally, hospitals must report the number of workplace violence incidents annually to the Utah Department of Health and Human Services.

 


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

Virginia

Virginia: Legislative Updates

APPLIES TO

As Indicated

EFFECTIVE

As Indicated

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • The state’s existing minimum wage is codified with a multiyear schedule for further increases.
  • The state’s noncompete statute is amended to void noncompete agreements for employees who are laid off without severance or other monetary compensation.
  • The VHRA is expanded to include employers with five or more employees, and to provide an extended two-year filing window for alleged discriminatory practices.
  • Health insurers must provide coverage for “medically necessary” treatments for menopause and perimenopause symptoms.
  • Several bills remain pending for consideration of the Governor’s recommendations, including bills related to noncompete restrictions for healthcare workers, a state paid family and medical leave program paid sick leave for employees of private employers, a salary history ban and wage transparency law, employment-related protections for menopause and perimenopause, and an overtime expansion to include “domestic workers.”

Discussion

Virginia’s 2026 General Assembly concluded with the passage of several bills impacting employment-related subjects. While a number of the bills remain pending for consideration of the Governor’s recommendations, a few have been enacted into law that employers should prepare for. Key updates are summarized below.

 

Minimum Wage. HB 1 and SB 1 codify the current state hourly minimum wage of $12.77 per hour and establish a multiyear schedule for further increases. The minimum wage will increase to $13.75 per hour effective January 1, 2027, and to $15.00 per hour effective January 1, 2028, with annual inflation-based adjustments thereafter based on the Consumer Price Index.

 

Noncompete Agreements. Effective July 1, 2026, SB 170 amends the state’s existing noncompete statute to limit the enforceability of restrictive covenants for certain terminated employees. Specifically, the bill invalidates noncompete agreements for employees who are laid off without severance benefits or other monetary payments. This restriction does not apply where the employee is terminated for cause. Importantly, the severance benefits or monetary payments must be disclosed to the employee at the time the restrictive covenant is executed. These restrictions apply prospectively to agreements entered into, amended, or renewed on or after the law’s effective date.

 

Additionally, SB 170 broadens the scope of relief available beyond low-wage employees, allowing any employee to bring a civil action against an employer who attempts to enforce a noncompete agreement in violation of the law. If the court finds a violation of the statute, employees may be entitled to injunctive relief, liquidated damages, lost compensation, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and other potential damages.

 

Amendments to VHRA. Effective July 1, 2026, SB 637 expands who qualifies as an “employer” under the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA). Currently, the VHRA applies to employers with 15 or more employees, but SB 637 lowers that threshold to apply to employers with five or more employees. Additionally, SB 637 modifies the current 300-day limitation for filing a written complaint of discriminatory practices with the Virginia Office of Civil Rights. Individuals will now have up to two years from the date of the alleged practice to file a written complaint.

 

Health Insurance Coverage for Menopause and Perimenopause. SB 790 requires health insurers to provide coverage for “medically necessary” treatments for menopause and perimenopause symptoms, such as hot flashes, bone density loss, and sleep disruptions. This mandate applies to policies issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2027.

 

Several additional employment-related bills passed by the Virginia legislature were returned by the Governor with recommendations rather than signed as passed. While these bills are expected to ultimately be enacted with the Governor’s recommendations, employers should continue to monitor future developments. These pending bills concern noncompete restrictions for healthcare workers (SB 128), a state paid family and medical leave program (HB 1207), paid sick leave for employees of private employers (SB 199), a salary history ban and wage transparency law (HB 636), employment-related protections for menopause and perimenopause (SB 258), and an overtime expansion to include “domestic workers” (SB 28).

 

Action Items

  1. Prepare to update compensation practices in accordance with scheduled minimum wage increases, as applicable.
  2. Review restrictive covenants with legal counsel.
  3. Employers with five or more employees should review employment policies and practices for compliance with the VHRA.
  4. Consult with legal counsel on potential claims for discriminatory practices and the extended two-year filing window.
  5. Review health plan documents with benefits provider for compliance with menopause and perimenopause coverage requirements.
  6. Monitor future updates on pending bills.
  7. Have appropriate personnel trained on the 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

Washington

Washington: Legislative Updates

APPLIES TO

As Indicated

EFFECTIVE

As Indicated

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Employers are prohibited from requesting, requiring, or coercing employees to have a microchip implanted for any reason.
  • Washington’s PFML premium allocation between medical and family leave is revised in response to updated IRS guidance.
  • A new “trigger” law establishes a state-level collective bargaining framework for private-sector employees who would lose NLRA coverage under certain circumstances.
  • Civil penalties for willful wage violations are uncapped, and a single employee wage complaint may now trigger a broader company-wide investigation.
  • Employers must provide written notice to all workers within five business days of receiving a federal Notice of Inspection of Forms I-9, with significant penalties for noncompliance.
  • Under the Healthy Starts Act, employers may not require medical certification for certain pregnancy-related accommodations, and personal information of employees who file pregnancy accommodation complaints is considered confidential.
  • Effective June 30, 2027, all noncompete agreements, regardless of when signed, will be void and unenforceable, with limited exceptions.
  • Comprehensive labor protections will apply to domestic workers, including minimum wage, overtime, and written agreement requirements.
  • Employers must notify workers injured on the job that they have the rights to choose a medical provider of their choice when seeking workers’ compensation.

Discussion

The Washington legislature concluded its 2026 session with the passage of several significant labor and employment-related measures affecting employer obligations across a wide range of subject areas. Below is a summary of the key laws that Washington employers should be aware of.

 

Definition of Employer. Effective March 17, 2026, SB 6106 amends Washington’s mini-WARN law to remove “any Indian tribe” from the definition of “employer.”

 

Employee Privacy. Effective June 11, 2026, HB 2303 prohibits employers from requesting, requiring, or coercing employees to have a microchip implanted for any reason. The term “microchip” excludes devices attached to the skin via an adhesive strip or a bracelet, as well as devices implanted in an individual for a health condition. The law allows employees affected by employer violations to bring a civil action and obtain injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

 

PFML Contributions. Effective June 11, 2026, HB 2345 revises how Washington Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) premiums are allocated between medical leave and family leave in response to updated IRS guidance. The law does not change the total PFML premium amount. Instead, it adjusts the split between medical and family leave premiums to help employers avoid additional federal tax liabilities, since employer contributions for paid family leave are not subject to federal employment taxes. Under the revised structure, employers may deduct the full employee share of the medical leave premium, while the deductible amount for the family leave premium is calculated based on a formula accounting for both the total family leave premium and a portion of the medical leave premium. The Washington Employment Security Department (ESD) is expected to issue implementation guidance later this year, with any adjusted premium rates anticipated to take effect January 1 of the following calendar year consistent with the program’s normal annual recalculation schedule.

 

Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees Not Covered by the NLRA. Effective June 11, 2026, HB 2471 will act as a new “trigger” law, establishing a state-level framework governing collective bargaining rights for employees, employers, trades, or industries that would lose coverage under the federal NLRA. The law is triggered if federal law ceases to preempt state regulation, or if the NLRB determines that it lacks jurisdiction, declines to exercise jurisdiction, or is otherwise deprived of jurisdiction over the relevant employees or industries. The new law extends the right to organize, bargain collectively, and seek representation to private-sector employees not otherwise covered, and outlines procedures for union certification, bargaining, dispute resolution, arbitration, and strikes. The law also grants concurrent jurisdiction to the state’s Public Employment Relations Commission and Washington State Superior Courts for enforcement and oversight of these processes.

 

Penalties for Wage Payment Laws. Effective June 11, 2026, HB 2479 significantly expands the Department of Labor & Industries’ (L&I) authority to investigate and penalize wage violations. Most notably, the law eliminates the previous $20,000 cap on civil penalties for willful wage violations, replacing it with a $1,500 minimum penalty per affected employee with no upper limit. The law also lowers the practical threshold for establishing willfulness by treating repeated complaint resolutions as evidence of willful conduct. Additionally, L&I is now authorized to expand investigations beyond the original complaint whenever it identifies common questions of law or fact, meaning a single employee wage claim could trigger a broader, company-wide investigation without the need for additional complaints.

 

Wage Complaint Investigation Procedures. Effective June 11, 2026, SB 6058 shifts L&I’s wage complaint investigations from mandatory to discretionary, allowing the agency to prioritize complaints based on factors such as the severity of the violation, the number of employees affected, the harm to the affected employee, and the probability of retaliation. The law also clarifies that the statute of limitations for an employee’s civil wage action is tolled from the date the complaint is filed with L&I, rather than from when an investigation begins, providing employees with a longer window to pursue civil claims. Additionally, L&I must waive civil penalties for willful violations if the employer is not a repeat violator and has paid all wages and interest owed within 10 business days of receiving a citation.

 

Immigration-Related Terminology. Effective June 11, 2026, HB 2632 replaces the term “alien” with “noncitizen” in several Washington statutes, and requires all state and local statutes and other official documents enacted after July 1, 2026, to use the term “noncitizen” instead of “alien” when referring to an individual who is not a citizen or national of the United States. There are limited exceptions where the term “alien” may be required to comply with federal law or funding requirements.

 

Potential UI Overpayment for Striking Workers. Effective June 11, 2026, through December 31, 2035, SB 6134 requires the ESD to notify striking workers at the time they apply for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits that they may be subject to an overpayment assessment if they later receive retroactive wages from their employer as part of a strike resolution. While the law primarily imposes obligations on ESD rather than employers directly, employers engaged in or anticipating labor disputes should be aware that striking employees in Washington may be eligible for UI benefits during a strike.

 

Employer Reporting. Effective June 11, 2026, SB 5874 modifies the penalties for reporting errors regarding unemployment compensation. The bill also amends the requirements for reporting employee information, including Socal Security numbers and standard occupational classifications.

 

UI Eligibility for Employees Who Volunteer for Layoffs. Effective for claims filed on or after June 14, 2026, HB 2264 clarifies that employees who volunteer to be included in an employer-initiated layoff or reduction in force are eligible for UI benefits and are deemed to have been separated from employment through no fault of their own, provided certain conditions are met. Notably, the law does not apply to situations where an employer modifies benefits or encourages early retirement or early separation outside of the formal layoff announcement process required under the law.

 

Immigrant Worker Protections. Effective October 1, 2026, HB 2105 establishes Washington’s Immigrant Worker Protection Act and requires employers to provide written notice to all workers and their authorized representatives, if any, within five business days of receiving a federal Notice of Inspection of Employment Eligibility Verification Forms I-9. Employers must also provide written notice to affected workers within five business days of receiving the results of any such inspection, including a description of any identified deficiencies, applicable correction timeframes, and notice of the worker’s right to representation during any corrective meetings. By September 1, 2026, the State Attorney General must develop and make available a model notice and a required poster that employers must post in a conspicuous location by the law’s effective date. Violations may be enforced by the State Attorney General, who may seek statutory damages of $500 per worker per violation, and workers may also bring private civil actions seeking the greater of actual damages or statutory damages equivalent to 40 times the state hourly minimum wage per violation.

 

Pregnancy Accommodations. Effective January 1, 2027, SB 6014 amends the state’s existing pregnancy accommodation requirements under the Healthy Starts Act and the Public Records Act. The law clarifies that under the Healthy Starts Act, employers may not require certification for certain pregnancy-related accommodations relating to providing more frequent, longer, or flexible restroom breaks; modifying a no-food or drink policy; providing seating or allowing employees to sit more frequently if the employee’s job requires the employee to stand; and limits on lifting over 17 pounds. The amendment also clarifies that under Washington’s Public Records Act, identifying personal information of employees and applicants who file complaints, request assistance, or participate in investigations under the pregnancy accommodation statute is confidential and exempt from public inspection, subject to limited exceptions.

 

Health Care Benefits for HIV Treatment. For all health plans issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, SB 6183 requires health carriers to cover all FDA-approved HIV antiviral drugs without prior authorization, step therapy, or any other utilization management protocols, with limited exception.

 

Noncompete Agreements. Effective June 30, 2027, HB 1155 will render all noncompete agreements void and unenforceable, regardless of when they were signed, effectively banning noncompete agreements for employees and independent contractors in Washington. The new ban extends to higher-salaried individuals who were previously permitted to be bound by such agreements under Washington’s existing restrictive covenant statute. The new law broadly defines prohibited noncompete covenants to include any written or oral agreement restraining an employee or independent contractor from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business, and expressly extends that definition to forfeiture and repayment provisions tied to competitive activity.

 

Under the new law, certain agreements remain permitted but must be narrowly construed to be enforceable. Confidentiality agreements are excluded from the definition of prohibited noncompete agreements, though the statute does not define the term and requires narrow construction of all exceptions. Non-solicitation agreements are also permitted in two limited forms: (1) agreements prohibiting the active solicitation of current employees upon termination of employment, and (2) agreements prohibiting solicitation of current or prospective customers with whom the employer developed a direct relationship through the employee’s work, provided the restriction expires no later than 18 months following termination. Additionally, educational expense repayment provisions are permitted if they expire within 18 months of the employee’s start date, limit repayment to the pro rata portion of the remaining period, and release the employee from any repayment obligation if separation is based on “good cause” as defined under Washington’s unemployment benefits statutes.

 

Notably, by October 1, 2027, employers must make reasonable efforts to provide written notice to all current and former employees and independent contractors with a noncompete covenant still within its effective period, informing them that the covenant is void and unenforceable.

 

Labor Protections for Domestic Workers. Effective July 1, 2027, HB 2355 establishes comprehensive labor protections for “domestic workers,” including nannies, childcare providers, home care workers, housekeepers, cooks, gardeners, and household managers. The law applies to individuals who work four or more hours in any month in a private residence for a hiring entity, whether compensated as employees or independent contractors. The law requires hiring entities to pay covered domestic workers minimum wage and overtime, provide written agreements disclosing job terms and workers’ rights using model disclosure statements to be developed by the state, and provide advance written notice before termination or pay severance in lieu of notice. The law also restricts or limits the use of nondisclosure, nondisparagement, arbitration, and noncompete agreements entered into with domestic workers. Certain workers are exempt, including those performing casual labor, irregular babysitting, pet sitting, dog walking, or house sitting, as well as certain home care agency employees and family members of the hiring entity. Violations may be enforced by L&I or through private civil actions, with recovery of civil penalties and attorneys’ fees available to aggrieved workers.

 

Workers’ Compensation. Effective January 1, 2028, SB 5847 requires employers to notify workers injured on the job that they have the rights to choose a medical provider of their choice when seeking workers’ compensation.

 

Action Items

  1. Review and update employment policies and procedures for compliance with prohibitions against microchip implantation.
  2. Review PFML payroll practices and prepare for future adjustments.
  3. Consult with legal counsel to evaluate potential liability under the new collective bargaining trigger law.
  4. Review wage compensation practices and internal complaint procedures.
  5. Develop internal procedures for notifying workers of a federal Form I-9 inspection notice, and post the required Attorney General poster by October 1, 2026.
  6. Review pregnancy accommodation policies and certification practices for compliance with updated requirements.
  7. Review health insurance plan documents with benefits provider for compliance with expanded HIV treatment coverage requirements.
  8. Consult with legal counsel on any existing noncompete agreements.
  9. Review onboarding and compensation practices of domestic workers, if applicable.
  10. Prepare to update workers’ compensation notification procedures.
  11. Have appropriate personnel trained on the 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

West Virginia

Discussion

West Virginia: Gig Companies Can Contribute to Portable Benefits Accounts

Effective March 14, 2026, HB 4009 allows app-based delivery and rideshare companies to contribute to portable benefits accounts without jeopardizing the classification of their workers as independent contractors rather than employees. Once a contractor opens a portable benefits account, the app-based company may voluntarily contribute funds to cover health insurance, retirement benefits, life insurance, and income replacement insurance. Contributions may be withheld from a contractor’s compensation and deposited into the account, provided that: (1) the arrangement is expressly agreed to in writing; (2) required notice is provided; (3) participation is voluntary and opt-in; and (4) the contractor may opt out at any time.

 


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

Wyoming

Discussion

Wyoming: Minimum Age Lowered for Concealed Carry Permits

Effective July 1, 2026, Wyoming’s HB 96 lowers the minimum age to obtain a concealed carry permit from 21 to 18. Wyoming already permits most residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit, and state law expressly allows employees with proper licenses to store firearms in their vehicles while on employer property. Notwithstanding, private employers retain the right to restrict firearms inside their facilities and on their premises more broadly.

 


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

DOL Updates

DOL Proposes New-Ish Independent Contractor Rule

APPLIES TO

All Employers

EFFECTIVE

TBD

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • The Department of Labor has proposed a rule that would shift independent contractor analysis away from the current multi-factor, totality of the circumstances approach, instead applying a framework that puts the most emphasis on the worker’s control and entrepreneurial opportunity.
  • If finalized as proposed, the standard would be used not only for FLSA wage and hour classification, but also for FMLA and MSAWPA, expanding potential misclassification exposure to include leave and related protections.

Discussion

On February 26, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a new proposed rule redefining how workers are classified as employees or independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSAWPA). If adopted, this rule would replace the current six-factor totality of the circumstances test with a framework that is similar to the DOL’s 2021 rule.

 

The 2021 rule prioritized two core factors: (1) the degree of control the worker has over the performance of their work, and (2) the extent to which the worker has genuine entrepreneurial opportunity. Under this approach, individuals who set their own schedules, select their own clients, market their own services, and make business decisions that influence profit or loss are more likely to be considered independent contractors. Alternatively, workers who are subject to significant direction, lack meaningful business independence, or can only increase earnings by working more hours are more likely to be treated as employees.

 

Although the proposed rule preserves several familiar secondary factors, such as specialized skill, permanence of the relationship, and whether the work is integrated into the employer’s operations, these considerations would generally play a lesser role when the two primary factors point clearly toward either employee or contractor status.

 

Importantly, the DOL has indicated that the proposed standard would apply not only to worker classification under the FLSA, but also the FMLA and MSAWPA, creating consistency across these federal laws that rely on similar definitions of the term “employee.” Practically, this means that misclassification risks could extend beyond wage and hour issues, and into employee leave entitlement and reinstatement obligations.

 

The proposed rule is subject to a comment period that began on February 27, 2026, and will remain open until April 28, 2026. Until the rule is finalized, employers should continue following existing case law and the current totality of the circumstances framework when evaluating whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.

 

Action Items

  1. Review independent contractor classifications and agreements with legal counsel.
  2. Continue to monitor future developments.

 

 

DOL Clarifies Status of Federal Contractor Minimum Wage

On February 9, 2026, the DOL published a notice in the Federal Register clarifying the status of federal contractor minimum wage requirements following conflicting executive actions. By way of background, President Obama’s Executive Order 13658 (2014) originally established the federal contractor minimum wage, which was later increased by President Biden’s Executive Order 14026 (2021). President Trump revoked the Biden‑era EO in March 2025 but left open whether the Obama‑era EO remained in effect. The DOL has now clarified that EO 13658 continues to apply only to contracts awarded between January 1, 2015, and January 29, 2022, that have not been renewed or extended since, implicitly concluding that it no longer applies to contracts awarded or renewed after January 29, 2022. The agency also announced updated wage rates under EO 13658: $13.65 per hour for covered workers and $9.55 for tipped workers, effective May 11, 2026.

 

DOL Launches AI Literacy Framework for Training Workers

On February 13, 2026, the DOL announced its AI Literacy Framework, outlining the baseline skills workers should have to use AI responsibly and effectively in the workplace. While the framework does not create new legal obligations, it reflects the federal government’s ongoing focus on preparing workers for an AI‑driven economy, following the Trump Administration’s July 2025 AI Action Plan. The DOL emphasizes that every worker, regardless of industry, should have foundational AI literacy skills. The framework identifies five core competencies that employees should develop: understanding basic AI principles; recognizing practical AI use cases; learning how to direct and prompt AI tools effectively; evaluating AI outputs with human judgment; and using AI responsibly with respect to data protection and workplace policies. In addition, DOL outlines seven employer training principles, encouraging organizations to focus on hands‑on learning, job‑specific context, human‑AI complementarity, removing digital literacy barriers, ongoing skill development, leadership readiness, and flexible, update‑ready training programs. Although the guidance is non‑binding, it signals DOL’s expectations for how employers should integrate AI literacy into workforce development.

 

DOL Launches Modern Open Data Portal for Labor Data

On February 18, 2026, the DOL announced its new open data portal designed to increase transparency and improve access to federal labor information. The portal replaces the agency’s older data page, which was officially shut down on February 23, 2026. According to the DOL, the new platform provides more efficient access to workforce‑related datasets and aligns with the agency’s broader January 2026 rollout of new compliance‑assistance tools aimed at supporting employer compliance. The updated portal expands beyond the five‑agency enforcement datasets previously available and now includes broader data such as weekly national unemployment insurance claims, federal contractor veteran employment data, and county‑level childcare price information.


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

NLRB Updates

2020 Joint Employer Rule is Officially Reinstated

APPLIES TO

All Employers Subject to the NLRA

EFFECTIVE

FEB 27, 2026

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • The 2020 NLRB joint employer rule is reinstated.
  • The NLRB will look at direct control over worker terms and conditions of employment to determine joint employer status.

Discussion

With each administration change at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), its joint employer rule has fluctuated between the requirement for direct or indirect control over employees’ terms and conditions of employment. The previous 2020 Rule moved away from the broader test that included indirect control as a potential determination of joint employer status, and instead focused on a narrower direct control test. The subsequent 2023 Rule reinstated a version of the broader test that looked at indirect control, but was subsequently vacated on March 8, 2024 by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas as being overly broad. Even though the 2023 rule never officially was enforced due to legal challenges, which meant that the 2020 rule remained in effect, the NLRB has now issued a final rule officially reinstating the 2020 rule.

 

Specifically, joint employer status is determined when two employers “share or codetermine the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment.” Employers must exercise “substantial direct and immediate control” over one or more essential terms or conditions of their employment, including wages, benefits, hours of work, hiring, discharge, discipline, supervision, and direction. “[C]ontrol is not ‘substantial’ if only exercised on a sporadic, isolated, or de minimis basis.”

 

Additionally, evidence of indirect control or a contractual right to control but never exercised is “probative of joint employer status,” but only to the “extent it supplements and reinforces evidence of the entity’s possession or exercise of direct and immediate control.”

 

Finally, each relationship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis based on their particular circumstances. The burden of proof is on the party claiming joint employer status. While this reinstated rule doesn’t necessarily change current enforcement, employers should still have their joint employer relationships reviewed by legal counsel for potential liability.

 

Action Items

  1. Have joint employer relationships reviewed by legal counsel.

 

 

Updated NLRB Case-Handling Guidelines

On February 27, 2026, the NLRB General Counsel issued Memo GC 26-03 outlining updated procedures for handling cases. The memo confirms that all prior guidance from former Acting General Counsel Cowen remains in place, including earlier rescissions and the decision not to revisit certain past Board cases. As part of the update, the Office is currently reviewing open cases and removing any allegations or arguments that no longer apply. The memo also directs regional offices to approve settlements when both parties agree on lawful terms. Stronger remedies, like notice readings, apology letters, or nationwide notices, should only be used in serious or repeat‑violation cases, not as a standard practice. In addition, regions are told to stop prioritizing cases that rely only on the existence of a questionable workplace rule, unless there is evidence that the rule was enforced or that it harmed employees. If an employer agrees to fix the rule, the case should be settled or dismissed. Finally, the memo provides more detailed expectations for how regions should gather evidence going forward.

 


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

Discussion

DHS and DOL Announce Limited Increase to H-2B Visas Issued in 2026

On January 30, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOL announced a temporary final rule increasing the cap on H-2B nonimmigrant visas for fiscal year 2026. The purpose of the temporary increase was to assist businesses that are “suffering irreparable harm or will suffer impending irreparable harm without the ability to employ all the H-2B workers requested in their petition.” To qualify, employers were required to complete a self-attestation form confirming their urgent need. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced on February 6, 2026 that the increased cap allocation had already been reached.

 

EEOC Issued Guidance on ADA and Telework Accommodation Requests

On February 11, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued FAQs from the Federal Sector about Telework Accommodations for Disabilities, using the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and federal case law to explain how federal agencies should handle telework requests from employees with disabilities. Generally, agencies must consider telework as an accommodation when it is needed (1) to participate in the application process; (2) to perform the essential functions of their positions; and (3) to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by employees without disabilities. This means that telework for convenience is not a required accommodation. Each case must be evaluated individually and employees are protected from retaliation for requesting accommodations. Although directed at federal agencies, this guidance provides additional insight into application of the ADA to telework accommodation requests.

 

FTC Officially Removes Non-Compete Rule from Federal Register

On February 12, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a final action in the Federal Register to remove the Non-Compete Clause Rule (16 CFR Part 910) from the Code of Federal Regulations. While this action is largely procedural, it formally closes out the FTC’s rulemaking pursuits of a nationwide noncompete ban and aligns the federal regulatory text with the litigation outcomes that blocked the rule in 2024 and 2025. This formal removal reflects the FTC’s broader shift toward individual, case-by-case enforcement, instead of a categorical nationwide ban.

 

 


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

Fourth Circuit: Piece-Rate Worker Not Entitled to Additional Hourly Wages

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in MD, NC, SC, VA, and WV

EFFECTIVE

JAN 13, 2026

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • The Fourth Circuit held that a plaintiff who was properly designated as a piece-rate employee under the FLSA was not entitled to hourly wages and overtime, regardless of online job postings and handbook provisions that addressed hourly pay.
  • The court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims shows employers the importance of consistently documenting the manner in which wages are to be calculated and paid for purposes of overtime.

Discussion

In Figueroa v. Butterball, LLC, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a plaintiff was properly designated as a piece-rate employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and was not entitled to hourly wages and overtime regardless of online job postings and handbook provisions that addressed hourly pay.

 

Here, the plaintiff was a night-shift turkey loader responsible for catching and loading turkeys onto trucks as well as fueling, sanitizing, and washing the trucks before the next loading process. All turkey loaders kept track of their hours by using a punch clock which Butterball used to calculate overtime pay. Pay stubs were issued that included line items for “OT Hours,” “LoadTrip,” and “AttendHr.” “OT Hours” and “LoadTrip” hours showed 0.00 since the employee was a piece-rate employee. “AttendHr” showed the total hours worked but also showed the amount paid under that line item as 0.00. The plaintiff alleged that Butterball failed to pay him and other turkey loaders hourly wages and overtime pay in violation of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) and the FLSA.

 

In reaching its ruling, the court dismissed the state overtime claims under the NCWHA because the law expressly exempts individuals covered by the FLSA from its overtime protections. In addressing the FLSA claims for overtime pay under hourly wage classification, the court found that Butterball explicitly told the plaintiff that he would be paid through a piece-rate compensation system with overtime – not an hourly wage system. He was not owed any additional overtime pay under the piece-rate compensation system. Additionally, the plaintiff was informed of the piece-rate compensation through the line items on the pay stub. The plaintiff also signed an offer letter that explicitly stated Butterball would pay him based on a load rate of $10.80. The plaintiff’s manager and other turkey loaders also testified that it was clear they would be paid under a piece-rate compensation system.

 

The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that he relied on Butterball’s online job postings and the handbook as evidence of hourly pay. The court stated that a job posting and a general handbook do not override that fact that he signed an offer that stated he would be paid piece-rate and accepted paystubs that displayed “LoadTrip.” The court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims demonstrates the importance of consistently documenting the manner in which wages are to be calculated and paid for purposes of overtime.

 

Action Items

  1. Review offer letters for accurate communication of wage and overtime calculations, if applicable.
  2. Review timekeeping procedures for piece-rate and hourly workers.
  3. Review paystubs for required piece-rate and hourly wage calculations.
  4. Have appropriate personnel trained on applicable wage and hour

 

 Fourth Circuit: Employee Must Be a “Qualified Individual” for ADA Protections

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in MD, NC, SC, VA, and WV

EFFECTIVE

 JAN 14, 2026

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • The Fourth Circuit ruled that an individual must meet the requirements of a “qualified individual” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to receive its protections.

Discussion

In Haggins v. Wilson Air Center, LLC, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an individual must meet the requirements of a “qualified individual” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to receive its protections.

 

In this case, an employee who was diagnosed with breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic was allowed to work remotely while business slowed down. Once business resumed to normal levels, the defendant employer requested that she come into the office on a hybrid schedule while also taking precautions to limit the spread of disease in the office. However, the employee only came into the office for two partial days in a three-month period and failed to communicate when she would be working from home, in the office, or working at all. Due to repeatedly missing work without notice, the employer discharged her for job abandonment. The employee filed claims for discrimination, failure to make reasonable accommodations, and retaliation under the ADA.

 

In reaching its ruling, the court concluded that the employee did not meet the definition of a “qualified individual” under the ADA. Qualified individuals must be able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation. In this case, the employee could not show up to work to perform the position’s essential functions or timely notify the employer when she would be out of the office.

 

The court found that the employer had exceeded its obligations to accommodate the employee. They allowed her to work full-time while business was down at her full salary. Once business picked up, they requested she return part-time to the office as her schedule permitted and took precautions to limit the spread of disease. In addition, the employer excused the employee’s failure to communicate when and where she would be working. They accepted doctor’s notes with inconsistent dates, allowed her to communicate her in-office schedule each week, explained the specific parts of her duties that needed to be done in person and could not be fulfilled by other employees, and allowed her to work with a mask on and with her office door fully closed. The employee continued to miss work and failed to notify anyone when she would be out sick or working from home.

 

This case highlights the benefits of documenting the employer’s process in communicating with and working with the employee to find suitable reasonable accommodations. This includes properly identifying the essential functions of the job and documenting performance both with and without a reasonable accommodation.

 

Action Items

  1. Review accommodation process for qualified employees.
  2. Have appropriate personnel trained on accommodation requirements.

 

Fourth Circuit: DEI Executive Order Injunctions Are Removed

APPLIES TO

 All Employers

EFFECTIVE

FEB 6, 2026

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • The Fourth Circuit lifted a preliminary injunction, which had previously barred the Termination, Enforcement Threat, and Certification Provisions of Executive Orders 14151 and 14173.

Discussion

In National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction that had previously blocked parts of certain Executive Orders prohibiting illegal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and activity.

 

Previously, on February 21, 2025, a Maryland Federal District Court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of certain provisions of Executive Order 14151 (J20) titled “Ending Radical Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” and Executive Order 14173 (J21) titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The main components of the orders that were challenged involved the Termination Provision of J20 (i.e., all executive agencies were directed to terminate “equity related grants or contracts”); Enforcement Threat Provision of J21 (i.e., deter illegal DEI practices by targeting large corporations, organizations, and educational institutions); and Certification Provision of J21 (i.e., requirement of federal contractors to certify that they are not engaging in “illegal” DEI practices). The district court criticized the Executive Orders as being too vague for enforcement. However, the Fourth Circuit stayed that injunction during the appeal soon thereafter.

 

Now, the Fourth Circuit has ultimately found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the  “Enforcement Threat Provision,” because it merely required an internal government report and did not directly harm or threaten imminent harm to the plaintiffs. Although the court said that plaintiffs did have standing to challenge the “Termination Provision” and the “Certification Provision” because they created real and imminent funding risks, along with a chilling effect on DEI‑related speech and activities, the court ultimately concluded that the plaintiffs were nonetheless unlikely to succeed on their constitutional claims. Specifically, the court said that the Termination Provision was not unconstitutionally vague because it functioned as an internal funding directive, and that the Certification Provision did not violate the First Amendment because it required only compliance with existing antidiscrimination laws. As a result, the court vacated the preliminary injunction and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

 

It is important to note that this ruling addressed what the Executive Orders said on their face, rather than actual application to specific enforcement situations. Legal challenges are likely to continue. Employers should continue to evaluate DEI programs for ongoing compliance with federal, state, and local laws.

 

Action Items

  1. Review DEI programs for compliance with anti-discrimination laws.

 

Fifth Circuit: Plaintiffs Need Evidence of Pretext in Discrimination Claims

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in LA, MS, and TX

EFFECTIVE

    JAN 12, 2026

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • The Fifth Circuit ruled for the employer after finding the plaintiff failed to show that the employer’s stated, nondiscriminatory hiring reasons were a pretext for age discrimination or retaliation under the ADEA and Title VII.
  • Because the employer provided a legitimate business rationale for its hiring decision, and the plaintiff offered no evidence undermining that explanation, the court upheld summary judgment in the employer’s favor.

Discussion

In Awe v. Harris Health System, the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer after concluding that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence that the employer’s hiring decision was a pretext for discrimination or retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Here, the plaintiff, a former chaplain, had previously raised concerns about being underpaid along with other minority chaplains. After leaving the organization, he reapplied for a chaplain position but was not selected and subsequently alleged age discrimination and retaliation.

 

The court held that the plaintiff could not establish age discrimination because the hiring record showed that, while two selected candidates were younger, one was older than the plaintiff, undercutting any inference of age bias. Although the plaintiff argued that hiring an older individual was a tactic to shield against an ADEA claim, the court found no evidence supporting that theory. The retaliation claim was similarly deficient because the plaintiff failed to show he was engaged in protected activities. Although he raised claims about being underpaid when he was employed, he did complain that the underpayment was related to his age, meaning he had not engaged in protected activity.

 

The employer was also able to provide a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for hiring the three individuals in place of the defendant – they had a preference for internal candidates. Because the plaintiff offered no evidence showing that this explanation was false or otherwise a pretext for an unlawful motive, the court affirmed summary judgment.

 

Action Items

  1. Review hiring selection processes for neutral, job-related criteria.
  2. Have appropriate personnel trained on anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation requirements.

 

Sixth Circuit: EFAA Bars Arbitration of Entire Case When Valid Sexual Harassment Claim is Alleged

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in KY, MI, OH, TN

EFFECTIVE

  FEB 25, 2026

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  •  The Sixth Circuit ruled that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) bars arbitration of an entire case, not just the harassment claim, when a plaintiff alleges a qualifying sexual harassment dispute.
  • Because Congress used the term “case,” the court ruled that all claims filed in the same action, including unrelated ADA claims, must remain in court if the sexual harassment claim is plausible.

Discussion

In Bruce v. Adams and Reese, LLP, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) prevents employers from compelling arbitration of any claims in a lawsuit that contains a valid sexual harassment allegation.

 

Here, the complaint alleged persistent sexual comments and conduct by a supervisor, including repeated remarks about the employee’s appearance, derogatory language, and explicit sexual fantasies discussed in work settings. The court concluded that the alleged behavior was frequent, humiliating, and disruptive enough to plausibly constitute a hostile work environment. Because the claim met the federal plausibility standard, the claim qualified as a “sexual harassment dispute” under the EFAA.

 

Next, the court interpreted the EFAA’s scope, finding that the EFAA invalidates arbitration agreements entered into before a sexual harassment claim arises, both for the sexual‑harassment claim and for the entire “case” when the case is connected to that sexual harassment dispute. Congress used the word “case,” not “claim,” which the court read as evidence that all claims filed together—here, including the employee’s ADA disability‑accommodation claims—must remain in court.

 

Because the employee alleged a qualifying sexual‑harassment dispute, the arbitration agreement was unenforceable for the whole lawsuit. The court therefore denied the employer’s motion to compel arbitration and allowed all claims to proceed in court.

 

Action Items

  1. Review arbitration agreements with legal counsel for compliance.

 

U.S. District Court Declines to Lift Stay of Termination of TPS Designation for Haiti

On February 12, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia declined to remove a stay preventing the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti. Haiti’s TPS designation and related benefits were to terminate on February 3, 2026, due to a DHS determination that Haiti no longer met the conditions for TPS designation. With the stay continuing to remain in place while the initial legal challenges to the termination continues, USCIS issued limited guidance on the validity of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) issued under TPS designation for Haiti. EADs with an original expiration date of February 3, 2026, August 3, 2025, August 3, 2024, June 30, 2024, February 3, 2023, December 31, 2022, October 4, 2021, January 4, 2021, January 2, 2020, July 22, 2019, January 22, 2018, or July 22, 2017, have been granted automatic extension per court order. Employers should continue to monitor the USCIS website for updates to the status of Haiti’s TPS designation.


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