Discussion

Third Circuit: Pension Fund Delay in Seeking Withdrawal Liability Bars Recovery

On March 3, 2026, in RTI Restoration Techs., Inc. v. International Painters & Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund, the Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for two companies that challenged a union pension fund’s effort to collect withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA), eight years after the original contributing employer went out of business. The court held that the fund’s failure to notify the companies of their withdrawal liability “as soon as practicable,” as required under the MPPAA, was a defense that could be raised in federal court rather than exclusively through arbitration. The companies’ only connection to the original employer was through a shared officer, who had served at various times as a business partner, employee, and part-owner of the companies. Employers with any historical or indirect connections to multiemployer pension funds should consult with ERISA counsel to evaluate potential withdrawal liability exposure, particularly where successor or affiliate relationships may exist.

Fourth Circuit: General Control Does Not Create Joint Employment

On March 3, 2026, in Hoffman v. Inova Health Care Services, the Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Title VII, ADA, and Virginia Human Rights Act claims brought by nurse anesthetists employed by a medical group against the hospital system at which they practiced, finding that the hospital system was not their joint employer. Applying the nine-factor Butler test for joint employment, the court found the plaintiffs failed to satisfy any of the factors, noting in particular that a hospital’s general authority over the administration of medical services is not a reliable indicator of an employer-employee relationship. The court similarly found that the hospital’s provision of equipment and facilities, and its delivery of compliance-related training on matters such as harassment and patient privacy, were standard practice in a hospital setting and not indicators of joint employment. Employers should note that the standards applicable to joint employer relationships may be further clarified once the DOL finalizes its proposed joint employer rule.

Tenth Circuit: Similarly Situated Requires More than Same Supervisor

On March 2, 2026, in Sousa v. Chipotle Services, LLC, the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer in an age discrimination case where the plaintiff, a restaurant area manager terminated for pest and cleanliness issues at locations he oversaw, argued that younger employees supervised by the same decision-maker were not terminated for similar problems at their restaurants. The court held that a plaintiff asserting disparate treatment must produce sufficient evidence that the proposed comparators were similarly situated, not merely that they shared the same supervisor. In this case, the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the conditions at younger employees’ restaurants were comparable to those at his own. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the prior termination of another older employee for similar reasons constituted additional evidence of age discrimination, again finding insufficient evidence of comparable circumstances. This ruling emphasizes the importance of treating all employees consistently and documenting performance-related issues, especially when they are the basis for a termination decision.

Eleventh Circuit: Differing Disciplinary Histories Defeat Comparator Argument

On March 19, 2026, in Johnson v. Miami-Dade County, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer in a race discrimination and retaliation case brought by a Black police officer who was terminated following five disciplinary actions over a two-and-a-half-year period. Applying the similarly situated standard established in Lewis v. City of Union City, the court found that the plaintiff’s proposed comparators had materially different disciplinary records and therefore did not qualify as similarly situated employees in all material respects, which defeated the discrimination claim. The court also rejected the retaliation claim, finding that the shortest interval between the plaintiff’s EEOC complaint filings and subsequent disciplinary actions, approximately two months, was insufficient on its own to establish a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. This case reinforces the importance of maintaining consistent and well-documented disciplinary procedures, as courts will scrutinize whether employees facing adverse actions are treated comparably to others with similar disciplinary histories.

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

Discussion

Colorado: AI Anti-Discrimination Law Blocked Pending Further Review

In 2024, Colorado passed a first-of-its-kind AI anti-discrimination law, which was set to take effect on June 30, 2026. On April 27, 2026, a federal court issued a restraining order to temporarily block enforcement of the law, following a lawsuit filed by xAI and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that challenged Colorado’s law on First Amendment, Commerce Clause, and Equal Protection grounds. Although the court did not weigh in on the substantive arguments asserted by xAI or the DOJ, the court’s order protects employers from investigations or penalties for any alleged violations until the court issues a final ruling on whether the law should be permanently enjoined. The court has directed the plaintiffs to file a more comprehensive motion to block the law within 28 days after the legislature passes amended legislation or the state Attorney General issues final implementing regulations. This development comes as part of ongoing scrutiny of the law, including a previous proposal to substantially rewrite the law and push the effective date back to January 1, 2027. Colorado employers currently have no immediate compliance obligations under the law, but should monitor the legislative session and court proceedings closely, as the law’s ultimate scope, requirements, and effective date remain in flux.

Colorado: Changes to Overtime Rules for Agricultural Workers

As of January 1, 2027, SB 121 requires all covered agricultural workers to be paid overtime for hours worked over 56 in a week. This represents a change from prior thresholds, under which overtime began after 48 hours for most farm work and 56 hours only during peak seasonal periods. Only employees who are engaged in the range production of livestock, decision-making managers, or family members of owners are exempt from this requirement. Employers that fail to comply may be subject to a 10% penalty increase, plus additional penalties of up to $40,000 for willful violations.

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

Discussion

Waterloo, IA: New Distracted Driving Ordinance

Effective March 16, 2026, Ordinance No. 5830 adds a new section to Waterloo’s Traffic Code prohibiting the use of electronic devices while operating a motor vehicle unless the vehicle is fully stopped and off the traveled portion of the roadway, or is positioned as far from the center of the roadway as practicable if it cannot be fully removed from the roadway. Devices that are physically or electronically integrated into the vehicle, such as a built-in GPS or navigation system, are excluded, provided the destination is entered before the vehicle is in motion. Employers with employees who drive as part of their job duties should review distracted driving policies and training materials for compliance with the new ordinance’s 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

Indiana: Updates to Employment Eligibility Verification, Unemployment Insurance, and Youth Workers Rules

Discussion

The Indiana legislature passed several bills impacting employer obligations. Key details are summarized below.

Employment Eligibility Verification. Effective July 1, 2026, SB 76 makes it unlawful for an employer to knowingly or intentionally recruit, hire, or continue to employ an unauthorized alien. The law allows the state’s Attorney General to bring an enforcement action against an employer if probable cause exists that the employer has violated the law’s recruitment and hiring restrictions. The law also prohibits an employer from discharging or discriminating against an employee because the employee communicated or cooperated with the attorney general in connection with an investigation.

Unemployment Insurance. Two bills impact Indiana employers’ unemployment insurance reporting obligations beginning July 1, 2026:

• SB 162 will require Indiana employers to notify the Department of Workforce Development if an employee separates from employment for any of the following reasons: voluntarily left the employment without good cause; discharged for just cause; discharged for gross misconduct in connection with the employee’s work; left due to the employee’s physical condition; left to accept other employment; or left to enter self-employment.
• SB 214 amends the state’s unemployment insurance tax law to clarify how certain payments are treated as taxable wages subject to contributions, including meals and lodging provided as additional remuneration, wages in lieu of notice, back pay awards, commissions, certain bonuses, and reported tips over $20. The amendments confirm that other payments, such as employee discounts, certain travel reimbursements, and unreported tips, are not subject to contribution. The amendments also significantly expand the information required on quarterly contribution reports, adding new per-employee data fields including start date, physical worksite zip code, full-time or part-time status, weekly payroll presence, and applicable Standard Occupational Classification code, in addition to existing wage and identification information. Employers should be aware that late or missing quarterly reports may result in DWD-estimated assessments plus a $25 penalty per report, and that the DWD may require electronic payment of contributions and, in certain circumstances, accelerate contribution due dates with at least 30 days’ notice.

Youth Workers. Effective July 1, 2026, HB 1302 discontinues the state-run Youth Employment System (YES) and ends employer reporting of teen workers (aged 14 to 17). The Indiana Department of Labor will no longer maintain the YES database or require employer registration or updates for minor workers.

Action Items

1. Review recruitment, hiring, and employment eligibility verification practices for compliance.
2. Review and update employee separation notification procedures.
3. Review payroll systems and consult with payroll provider regarding compliance with reporting for new per-employee data fields.
4. Review youth worker reporting practices, as applicable.
5. Have appropriate personnel trained on the updated 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