California: Executive Order Plans for AI Guardrails

APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in CA

EFFECTIVE MAY 21, 2026

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look Executive Order N-6-26 does not create any obligations for employers but indicates a broader potential strategy on how the state will seek to balance AI innovation with worker protections.

Discussion

Governor Newsom recently signed Executive Order (EO) N-6-26 to address AI’s impact within California. While acknowledging the benefits of the AI industry in the state, the EO also says that AI’s explosive growth presents real risks to workers, communities, and the broader economy. The EO seeks to find balance between the benefits of AI and protection of workers to ensure that AI is developed and used responsibly, and that its economic benefits are shared broadly. Although the EO is not binding on employers, it highlights a strategic shift in changes that may impact workers in the future.

 

A central concern driving this order is the potential for AI to displace workers across many industries. The Governor directs multiple state agencies to study how AI is already affecting California’s labor market, with special attention to which demographic groups may be hit hardest. Within 90 days, a dashboard will be launched to track AI’s impact on employment using unemployment insurance data. Within 180 days, the state will review and recommend updates to California’s Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act to make it more responsive to the fast-moving changes AI is bringing to the workforce.

 

The order also directs the state to review and strengthen its safety net programs for workers who lose their jobs due to technological change. This includes examining severance practices, expanding awareness of the Work Sharing program (which helps businesses avoid layoffs by temporarily reducing hours), and exploring service opportunities for those facing long-term unemployment. The state will also look at how other countries handle worker displacement and draw on those best practices. Additionally, agencies are directed to better connect unemployed workers to retraining and upskilling opportunities, including through community colleges and workforce development programs.

 

Recognizing that the private sector alone may not deploy AI in ways that serve the public good, the order directs the Government Operations Agency to develop recommendations for changing the incentive structures around AI development. This could include public-private partnerships, requiring AI companies to direct a portion of their revenues toward socially beneficial AI projects, or securing dedicated computing resources for public-interest AI research. The order also calls for exploring and expanding worker ownership models, such as employee-owned companies, so that productivity gains from AI can translate into wealth-building for everyday workers, not just shareholders and executives.

 

The order emphasizes the importance of preparing California’s workforce for an AI-driven economy through targeted education and training programs. Universities and community colleges are asked to expand on-the-job training, apprenticeships, and programs that connect graduates directly to employers. The state will also develop an “AI playbook” to help workers displaced by AI find new opportunities, and will work with small businesses to adopt AI tools responsibly and competitively. Higher education institutions are encouraged to ensure their programs align with growing industries so students graduate with skills that are actually in demand.

 

Finally, the order emphasizes the importance of public input. Governor Newsom launched a new round of California’s deliberative democracy platform, called Engaged California, specifically focused on AI’s economic and labor impacts, and all state agencies are directed to incorporate feedback from that process into their work. The state is also working to make it easier for Californians to navigate government services by building a single online platform that helps residents identify all the benefits and programs they may be eligible for.

 

The EO reflects a growing trend among some states to look for ways to responsibly manage AI impacts in the workplace. While the EO does not create any current changes for employers, it is a window into future changes that we may see. Although there is no immediate call to action, employers should consider ways to harness AI for employees’ benefit and minimize potential workforce disruptions through strategies like training and upskilling.

 

Action Items

1. Monitor for ongoing updates related to the recommendations in the EO.

 

California: No Discrimination Where Employer Doesn’t Know About Disability

APPLIES TO Employers with 5+ Employees in CA

EFFECTIVE MAY 21, 2026

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look An employer could not have violated the California Fair Employment & Housing Act for discrimination and failure to accommodate where the employer had no knowledge of an employee’s disability condition. When an employee does not disclose their disability but simply behaves erratically, an employer is not required to automatically infer that a disability is the cause.

Discussion

In Husband v. Target Corp., the California Court of Appeals said that an employer could not have violated the California Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA) for discrimination and failure to accommodate where the employer had no knowledge of an employee’s disability condition. An employee simply behaving erratically does not automatically point to a disability as the cause.

 

Here, a Target employee had two serious incidents after working without incident for almost two years. First, the employee arrived for his shift appearing distressed, began hitting himself in the head, claimed that inventory orders were “laughing at him,” and yelled at a coworker. The next night, he told his supervisor he thought he had “killed” his stepmother by speaking a word and asked coworkers if he had killed anyone at the store. His supervisor found the behavior deeply disturbing, sent him home, and recommended he see a doctor or mental health professional. Target ultimately fired him shortly thereafter for violating its workplace violence policy. At no point before his termination had the employee ever told Target that he had been diagnosed with Bipolar I disorder.

 

The employee subsequently sued Target under FEHA claiming disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodation. However, to be liable, the employer must actually be aware of the disability before any of its obligations kick in. The employee claimed that even though he never told Target about his bipolar disorder, Target should have figured it out based on his erratic behavior and therefore should be held liable. Under California law, an employer can be deemed to “know” about an undisclosed mental disability, but only if the observed behavior has no other reasonable explanation and a mental disability is the only reasonable interpretation of the facts.

 

The court said that while the employee’s behavior was alarming and unusual, it could also reasonably be explained by other causes, such as the influence of drugs, a reaction to medication, or severe sleep deprivation. Because there were multiple plausible explanations for his conduct, a mental disability was not the only reasonable interpretation, and Target could not be legally presumed to have known about his bipolar disorder. The employee claimed that his supervisor’s comment that he “needed help” and should see a “psych professional” proved Target knew about a mental disability, but the court disagreed, stating that one supervisor’s untrained, personal opinion does not meet the legal standard, which requires an objective assessment of the facts. The court also firmly rejected the idea that any “unusual” or “bizarre” behavior automatically puts an employer on notice of a mental disability. Importantly, the court also noted that several Target employees indicated they would have accommodated the employee’s condition had they known about it, underscoring that the outcome might have been very different had he simply disclosed his disability. This case reinforces the concept that an employer’s obligations begin when it knows or has reason to know about an employee’s disability.

 

Action Items

1. Implement processes to manage identification of disabilities and initiation of the interactive process.
2. Have appropriate personnel trained on managing disability accommodations.

 

California: Employee Arbitration Failure May Mean Dismissal of PAGA Claims

APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in CA

EFFECTIVE MAR 3, 2026

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look When an employee loses claims brought in arbitration, they preclude the employee from being a representative under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for those same claims.

Discussion

In Sorokunov v. Netapp, Inc., the California Court of Appeals said that when an employee loses on claims brought in arbitration, they preclude the employee from being a representative under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for those same claims.

 

Here, an employee filed a lawsuit claiming his employer had improperly withheld earned wages, and he also sought penalties under PAGA, which allows employees to sue on behalf of the state to enforce labor laws. The employer moved to send the employee’s individual (non-PAGA) claims to private arbitration based on a dispute resolution clause in his compensation plan. The arbitrator ultimately ruled in the employer’s favor on every individual claim. After the arbitrator ruled against the employee on his individual claims, the trial court dismissed his PAGA claim as well, finding that he lacked “standing,” meaning he no longer had the legal right to bring the case. Under PAGA, only an “aggrieved employee” (e.g., someone who personally suffered a Labor Code violation) can sue on behalf of the state. Because the arbitrator had already determined that the employee had not suffered any Labor Code violations, the court applied a legal doctrine called “issue preclusion,” which prevents the same issue from being relitigated once it has been finally decided, including for pursuing PAGA penalties based on the same alleged violations.

 

The appeals court affirmed every ruling in the employer’s favor. The arbitration agreement was valid; the employee’s individual Labor Code claims failed on the merits; and because those claims failed, he had no standing to pursue PAGA penalties. The court was careful to note, however, that its ruling was limited in scope, indicating it did not prevent California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency from independently investigating or pursuing claims against the employer, nor did it bar other employees at the company from bringing their own claims. Nonetheless, this case highlights the importance of arbitration agreements as a potential means to manage PAGA claims.

 

Action Items

1. Have arbitration agreements reviewed by legal counsel and disseminated to employees for signature.

 

 

California: Arbitration Agreement Does Not Apply to Third-Party Non-Signers

On May 5, 2026, in Toothman v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc., the California Court of Appeals said that a staffing company’s arbitration agreement with its employee did not apply to the subsequent employer, given that the third-party employer was not a party to the agreement and the agreement did not address claims by the employee to the third-party employer. In this case, when the employee left the staffing company and was subsequently hired by the placed employer, the new employer did not have the employee sign their own arbitration agreement, and so the employer unsuccessfully attempted to use the staffing company’s arbitration agreement as a shield. Employers hiring an employee originally placed or provided by a staffing company should have their own agreements, including arbitration agreements, executed by the new employee to ensure enforceability.

 

California: Updated Cal/OSHA Notice

The “Safety and Health Protection on the Job“ notice was recently updated by California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) with minor revisions to Cal/OSHA’S contact information including updated contact information for the Santa Barbara and San Francisco offices. Cal/OSHA did not change any substantive information on the poster. As a reminder, California law requires employers to display at least one Safety and Health Protection on the Job notices in a conspicuous place at each physical location where business is conducted. Employers should review and post the updated notice in compliance with Cal/OSHA’s requirements.

Los Angeles, CA: Hotel and Airport Worker Minimum Wage Change

Effective June 29, 2026, the annual Los Angeles City hotel and airport worker minimum wage rate adjustments will slow. Previously, covered workers were to receive $30 per hour by 2028; now, covered workers will reach $30 per hour in 2030. Similarly, adjustments were also made to the minimum health care benefit requirement. As of July 1, 2026, covered workers must receive $25 per hour for all time worked, and $4.25 per hour worked toward health care benefits. Covered employers should prepare to adjust wage rates and health care benefits for compliance.

---

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

Connecticut: Legislative Updates

APPLIES TO As Indicated

EFFECTIVE As Indicated

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look Connecticut’s governor signed Public Act No. 26-12, a sweeping omnibus bill making far-reaching changes to the state’s workplace laws across wages, pay transparency, workers’ compensation, disability accommodations, lactation breaks, contractor liability, and more. Most provisions take effect October 1, 2026, with others phased in through July 1, 2027.

Discussion

 

On May 11, 2026, Connecticut’s governor signed Public Act No. 26-12, An Act Concerning Workforce Development and Working Conditions in the State. The Act combines provisions from dozens of individual bills introduced during the 2026 legislative session and represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Connecticut’s workplace laws in recent years. Key provisions affecting private employers are summarized below.

 

Job Posting Disclosures. Effective October 1, 2026, all employers, regardless of size, must include the wage or wage range and a general description of benefits in all public and internal job postings. The Act revises the definition of “wage range” to mean a range the employer “sets in good faith,” aligning Connecticut with similar statutes in other jurisdictions. The requirement extends to out-of-state positions that report to a Connecticut-based supervisor, office, or worksite. Employers must also disclose pay and benefits information to current employees and to any applicant to whom a job posting has not been made available. Punitive damages are eliminated, though compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees remain available for violations.

 

Paycheck Transparency Guide. Also effective October 1, 2026, employers with 100 or more employees must create a plain-language guide explaining pay codes used for overtime and commonly used pay differentials, such as shift differentials, on-call pay, hazard pay, call-back pay, and holiday or weekend pay. The guide must include at least 10 pay codes (if applicable), be posted on the employer’s website in English, Spanish, and any other languages commonly spoken by the workforce, and identify a contact for employee questions about timekeeping and pay calculations. The guide must be updated whenever a new pay code is added. Employers must provide the website address to employees at hire and include it on each pay statement. Employers using third-party payroll services may comply by referring employees to a compliant guide published by that provider.

 

Employment Promissory Notes. Effective October 1, 2026, Connecticut’s existing prohibition on employment promissory notes, such as agreements requiring employees to repay training costs, sign-on bonuses, or relocation expenses if they leave before a specified period, is extended to all employers regardless of size. The prior law applied only to employers with 26 or more employees. Voluntary repayment agreements and certain enumerated exceptions remain permissible.

 

Minimum Wage at Cannabis Establishments. Effective October 1, 2026, employers operating cannabis establishments, dispensary facilities, or production facilities may no longer apply a tip credit toward minimum wage obligations. These employers must pay employees at least the full Connecticut minimum wage.

 

Prevailing Wage Recordkeeping. Effective October 1, 2026, employers working on prevailing wage projects must maintain daily attendance records for all workers on covered job sites, including project name and location, date, worker name and trade license number (if applicable), and arrival and departure times. Those records must be submitted weekly to the contracting agency, and are subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Disability Accommodation and ADA Notice. Effective October 1, 2026, employers must provide written notice of employees’ right to reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to new employees at the start of employment, to existing employees within 120 days (by January 29, 2027), and to any employee within 10 days of notifying the employer of a disability. Employers may satisfy this requirement by posting a notice created by the labor commissioner in a conspicuous, accessible location. The labor commissioner is authorized to issue additional regulations on the method of noticing.

 

Lactation Accommodation. Effective October 1, 2026, employers must provide reasonable break time for employees to breastfeed or express milk, not limited to the employee’s regular meal or break periods. This expands Connecticut’s existing lactation accommodation requirements, which previously required only that employers make reasonable efforts to accommodate nursing employees during scheduled breaks.

 

Workers’ Compensation for Assaulted Health Care Workers and Teachers. Effective October 1, 2026, the Act expands workers’ compensation benefits for health care providers and teachers who are unable to work as a result of a physical or negligent assault in the performance of their duties. These employees are entitled to wage replacement equal to 100% of their average weekly wage, with no cap on the benefit amount, for periods of partial or total incapacity resulting from the assault. Reasonably incurred medical expenses and lost wages due to court appearances related to the assault are also covered, and related absences may not be charged against the employee’s accrued paid time off.

 

Contractor Liability for Unpaid Wages. Effective January 1, 2027, general contractors will be jointly and severally liable for wages left unpaid by their subcontractors on construction, renovation, or rehabilitation projects in Connecticut. Before bringing a claim against a general contractor, employees must provide 30 days’ written notice, unless the employee has previously raised a violation by the same subcontractor with the general contractor. General contractors may include subcontract provisions authorizing unpaid wages to be satisfied from retainage, but such provisions do not limit employees’ right to bring a claim against the general contractor.

 

Retention of Service Contract Workers. Effective July 1, 2027, successor employers taking over certain service contracts at covered locations must retain covered service contract employees for at least 90 days, provided each employee worked at least 16 hours per week for at least 60 days during the prior 90-day period. Covered locations include higher education facilities, multifamily residential buildings with 50 or more units, commercial buildings exceeding 75,000 square feet, cultural centers, airports, train stations, shopping malls, and warehouses. Covered employees cannot be terminated during the retention period absent just cause. After the 90-day period, the successor employer must provide each retained employee with a written performance evaluation and, if satisfactory, an offer of continued employment.

 

Action Items

1. Review and update job postings to include required disclosures.
2. Begin preparing a paycheck transparency guide, as applicable, in all required languages.
3. Review existing promissory note agreements with legal counsel.
4. If operating a cannabis establishment, update payroll practices to eliminate tip credits.
5. If working on prevailing wage projects, implement daily recordkeeping and weekly reporting procedures.
6. Provide required ADA accommodation notices to existing employees by required deadline.
7. Update onboarding processes to provide new employees with required ADA accommodation notices.
8. Review and update lactation accommodation policies and practices.
9. Review workers’ compensation practices for covered employees who are victims of assault, as applicable.
10. Review subcontractor agreements with legal counsel, as applicable.
11. Review service contract terms with legal counsel, as applicable.
12. Have appropriate personnel trained on the new and updated requirements.

 

Connecticut: New Artificial Intelligence Law

APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in CT

EFFECTIVE As Indicated

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look Connecticut’s new AI law regulates the use of automated employment-related decision technology in hiring, promotion, discipline, termination, and other employment decisions. Employers using AEDT must provide real-time interaction disclosures and pre-decision notices to affected employees and applicants. Violations are enforceable by the Connecticut attorney general as unfair trade practices.

Discussion

Connecticut has enacted SB 5, a comprehensive law regulating the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions. Key provisions take effect October 1, 2026, with a pilot program for independent verification organizations launching July 1, 2027.

 

Coverage. The law applies to any system that processes personal data and produces outputs, such as predictions, scores, rankings, classifications, or recommendations, that are a “substantial factor” in making or materially influencing an employment decision, including decisions related to hiring, promotion, discipline, and termination. These systems are referred to as Automated Employment-related Decision Technology, or AEDT. Generic software tools such as spreadsheets and word processors, and tools used only incidentally or for descriptive or statistical purposes, are excluded. The definition is focused on predictive AI technologies and the potential for algorithmic bias, though it will likely be read broadly enough to include generative AI where its use could cause discriminatory harm.

 

Bias Testing. The law amends Connecticut’s existing anti-discrimination framework to expressly provide that the use of an automated system is not a defense to a discrimination claim under state law. However, evidence of bias testing, including the quality, scope, and recency of testing efforts, the results, and how findings were addressed, may be considered by courts or agencies when evaluating liability.

 

Developer vs. Deployer Obligations. The law divides compliance responsibilities between developers (those who build AEDT) and deployers (employers and other entities that use it). The primary compliance burden falls on deployers. Developers must provide deployers with sufficient information to enable compliance with the law’s requirements, where the technology is marketed or intended to materially influence employment decisions. The law does not specify what types of information developers are required to create, which may create practical challenges if deployers request information that developers have not documented.

 

Notice and Disclosure Requirements. The law imposes two distinct notice obligations on deployers. First, deployers must inform employees or applicants in plain language when they are interacting with an AEDT in real time. This disclosure is not required where it would be obvious to a reasonable person that the interaction involves an automated system. Second, before any employment decision is made using AEDT output, the deployer must provide the affected individual with a written pre-decision notice disclosing: (1) the fact that an AEDT is being used; (2) the purpose of the technology and the type of employment decision involved; (3) the trade name of the system; (4) the categories of personal data processed and how those data are assessed; (5) the sources of the personal data; and (6) contact information for the deployer. Developers may contractually assume these notice and disclosure obligations on behalf of deployers.

 

Independent Verification Organizations. Beginning July 1, 2027, the law establishes a pilot program under which the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection may approve up to five independent verification organizations to assess whether AI systems meet defined risk mitigation and safety standards. These organizations do not confer regulatory approval or create a presumption of compliance. Their assessments may be used as evidence in certain civil cases but do not provide a safe harbor or defense in enforcement actions. The program is set to sunset in 2030 and is designed as a testbed for potential future AI auditing or certification requirements.

 

Enforcement. Violations are deemed to be unfair or deceptive trade practices under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) and are enforceable exclusively by the Connecticut attorney general, meaning there is no private right of action. A temporary cure period through December 31, 2027, may be available at the attorney general’s discretion.

 

Action Items

1. Identify covered AEDT systems currently in use or under consideration for employment-related decisions.
2. Implement interaction and pre-decision disclosures and notices, as applicable.
3. Review vendor and developer agreements with legal counsel.
4. Consider bias testing protocols.
5. Review and update internal governance frameworks for AEDT use.
6. Monitor regulatory updates from the Connecticut attorney general’s office and Department of Consumer Protection.
7. Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements for AEDT use.

---

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

Georgia: Tips and Overtime Income Tax Exclusion

Effective January 1, 2026, HB 463 creates a temporary state income tax exclusion for overtime compensation and cash tips. The exclusion runs through December 31, 2028, after which it automatically repeals. Full-time, hourly employees may exclude up to $1,750 in overtime compensation from Georgia state income tax for the exclusion period. Employees in occupations that customarily and regularly receive tips may also exclude up to $1,750 in cash tips for the same period. During the exclusion period, employers must report the total qualified overtime compensation paid, total cash tips paid, and the total number of employees who received either, filed monthly or quarterly alongside their withholding tax returns. For tax year 2026 only, these reports may be filed at year-end. The Georgia Department of Revenue may issue additional regulations governing these requirements.

 

Georgia: Portable Benefits Accounts for Gig Workers

Effective May 11, 2026, HB 987 allows for the creation of a portable benefit account for independent contractors without resulting in a change of independent contractor status for classification purposes. A portable benefit account is an account that allows for the allocation of funds for portable benefit plans like health insurance, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, or retirement benefits. Any party, including app-based entities, can voluntarily contribute funds to a portable benefit account of an independent contractor pursuant to a voluntary written agreement between the parties.

---

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

Iowa: Human Trafficking Prevention Training for CDLs

Effective March 1, 2027, individuals applying for an initial Class A, B, or C commercial driver’s license in Iowa must certify to the Iowa Department of Transportation that they have completed a course of instruction on human trafficking prevention. Employers that hire commercial drivers should build this certification step into their recruiting and onboarding workflows and monitor the Iowa Department of Transportation for approved training materials. The underlying law (HF 2598) took effect July 1, 2026, although compliance obligations do not begin until March 1, 2027.

---

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

Louisiana: Workplace Violence Protections for Customer-Facing Employees

Effective August 1, 2026, the new Louisiana Behind the Counter Protection Act (HB 1238) expands workplace violence protections for employees who interact with customers at points of transaction, such as checkout counters, service desks, and drive-through windows. The law defines workplace violence broadly to include assault, battery, robbery, intimidation, verbal abuse, threats with a weapon, and any conduct that places an employee in reasonable fear of physical harm while performing their duties. The law increases criminal penalties for simple battery and simple assault committed against covered employees, with convictions now carrying potential fines of up to $2,000 and imprisonment of up to two years for battery, and fines of up to $1,000 and imprisonment of up to six months for assault. Businesses may also display signage, available through Louisiana Works, cautioning customers that workplace violence is a crime under state law. Covered employers should review workplace violence prevention policies and employee training materials for consistency with the new law’s definitions and consider whether to post the available signage.

 

Louisiana: Noncompete Agreements for Interns and Apprentices

Effective August 1, 2026, HB 315 prohibits Louisiana employers from entering into noncompete agreements with interns or apprentices, whether paid or unpaid. The prohibition covers agreements that would restrict an intern or apprentice from engaging in a business or employment similar to that of the employer, or from pursuing employment, educational, or professional opportunities after completing the internship or apprenticeship. Confidentiality, intellectual property, and data protection agreements remain permissible.

 

Louisiana: Child Labor Employment Certificates

As of May 11, 2026, HB 232 amends Louisiana’s child labor employment certificate process by transferring issuance authority from school officials to Louisiana Works, the state workforce development agency. The updated certificate form, available on the Louisiana Works website or at local field offices, requires the minor’s signature and consent date, parental or guardian consent and signature, the prospective employer’s name, and selection of applicable proof-of-age documentation. A certificate becomes valid and binding once the employer has approved the minor’s personal application, a signed employer statement outlining the intended work, hours, and wages, and one of several acceptable proof-of-age documents. Employers must retain employment certificates on file for each minor employee, keep them accessible at the worksite at all times, and maintain them for at least 14 days following termination of the minor’s employment.

---

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