Quick Hits

• OSHA’s 2024 Injury Tracking Application (ITA) cycle expanded electronic reporting, providing richer case-level detail for large establishments in high-hazard industries, enhancing OSHA’s ability to target inspections and enforcement.
• Healthcare, transportation/warehousing, manufacturing, and retail trade continued to report the highest volumes of recordable cases, with construction also showing high rates of severe outcomes.
• OSHA’s enforcement focus remains on recordkeeping compliance, with targeted inspections in high-hazard sectors based on detailed ITA data.

Developments and Trend Lines in the 2024 Data—and Why They Matter

OSHA’s expanded electronic reporting rule requires certain establishments with one hundred or more employees in designated high‑hazard industries to submit case-level information from Forms 300 and 301, in addition to Form 300A summaries (employers with 20-249 employees in certain high-hazard industries must also submit that data electronically). Practically, that means the 2024 public posting includes broader, more detailed insights into “what happened,” “to whom,” and “how severe,” not just topline totals. For safety leaders, this shift turns the ITA into a more actionable, hazard-specific dataset—and for OSHA, a more precise targeting engine for inspections, outreach, and recordkeeping enforcement.

Several realities remain unchanged. ITA submissions cover only establishments meeting industry/size triggers; NAICS coding and some inputs are self-determined and self-reported; and both under- and over-reporting are possible.

Industries With the Most Reported Incidents

The sectoral picture presented in the 2024 data appears remarkably stable. Four industries continued to report the highest volumes of recordable cases in the public ITA data: health care and social assistance, transportation and warehousing, manufacturing, and retail trade.

Construction remained a top hazard sector, with fewer total recordables than the four above but disproportionately high rates of severe outcomes, such as falls and struck-by/caught-in events.

Wholesale trade, public administration, and accommodation/food services also contributed sizable case totals, consistent with recent years.

The table below summarizes directional change rather than raw counts.

Severity and Case-Type Patterns

A large minority of cases involved days away or job transfer/restriction, with double-digit median days not uncommon in transportation/warehousing and healthcare. The occupations most frequently represented—laborers/freight/material movers, stockers/order fillers, registered nurses and nursing assistants, truck drivers, and couriers/messengers—closely match the sectors with the highest totals. Sector-specific patterns continued as well: respiratory and exposure-related conditions feature in healthcare; hearing loss and energy-control hazards recurred in manufacturing; falls and struck‑by/caught‑in hazards dominated in construction; and powered industrial truck (PIT)/material handling risks remained prevalent across wholesale and warehousing.

2024 vs. Prior Years

Three signals stand out when comparing 2024 to the most recent publication cycles. First, sector ranking is stable: the same four sectors dominate reported totals, suggesting a durable concentration of recordable cases and a durable enforcement focus. Second, total Form 300A‑reported cases across the covered population remain directionally aligned with the prior year. Third, the new case-level submissions bring richer granularity—narratives, occupation codes, case types, and outcomes—without materially shifting the sectoral leaderboard.

Enforcement Themes Linked to 2024 Data

Several enforcement currents align closely with the 2024 reporting profile. OSHA continues to emphasize recordkeeping compliance and is targeting nonsubmitters using ITA data to identify establishments for programmed inspections in high-hazard sectors. Most‑cited standards mirror high-volume hazards: fall protection and related training dominate in construction; hazard communication and respiratory protection feature prominently in manufacturing and healthcare; and lockout/tagout, powered industrial trucks, scaffolding, machine guarding, ladders, and eye/face protection remain common across logistics, construction, and manufacturing. The publication of partial Form 300/301 case-detail data gives the agency new hooks—occupational codes, injury narratives, and specific exposures—to refine outreach and inspection targeting.

Practical Takeaways for Employers

Healthcare, transportation/warehousing, manufacturing, and retail can expect continued attention from OSHA’s data-driven targeting and outreach. Employers in these sectors may want to prioritize controls that align with their case mix—patient and material handling and broader ergonomics programs; PIT and vehicle operations; energy control and machine guarding; chemical and respiratory protection; and slip, trip, and fall prevention.

Construction employers can anticipate an enforcement spotlight on fall protection, scaffolding, ladders, and struck-by/caught-in hazards, with heightened attention to field-level verification of controls and supervision quality.

Across all covered establishments, tight recordkeeping is a compliance imperative. Employers may want to ensure that their reports include accurate NAICS coding, verify headcount thresholds, and reflect timely, complete ITA data—including privacy-compliant Form 300/301 case details where required. The data employers submit is increasingly the data OSHA uses to identify unaddressed risk.

The Bottom Line

The 2024 ITA publication doesn’t rewrite the injury map—but it does sharpen it, both for OSHA and for those that might access the data, including labor unions, personal injury lawyers, and various interest groups. The same sectors are driving the largest volumes, the same hazard families are producing the most severe outcomes as in 2023, and OSHA’s most-cited standards continue to reflect those realities.

What has changed is the granularity available to both regulators and employers. Employers that use this detail to target the right controls, verify them in the field, and keep submissions accurate and timely will be aligned with where enforcement is headed—and, more importantly, where risk truly resides.

Ogletree Deakins’ Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and provide updates on the Workplace Safety and Health blog as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The demand for hybrid and remote work arrangements remains strong among employees.
• Paying remote workers less than in-person workers for performing the same work could increase the risk of discrimination claims.
• Reducing pay for exempt employees who work remotely could jeopardize their exempt status in certain situations.

Five years after the COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed a wave of telework, this type of arrangement remains very popular among many workers. Some job seekers are even willing to accept a lower salary for a fully remote or hybrid job, as it can save them time and money on commuting expenses (such as gas, parking, and vehicle maintenance). According to research from Robert Half in 2025, about half of job seekers indicate that their top preference is hybrid work, while a quarter favor fully remote positions, and 19 percent prefer in-office jobs. These preferences may vary depending on factors like location, job type, and industry. 

The same research from Robert Half reveals that at least 88 percent of employers offer hybrid work to some employees, while 25 percent provide hybrid options to all employees. Furthermore, the study found that 24 percent of new job postings in the third quarter of 2025 were hybrid, and 12 percent were fully remote.

Legal Considerations

Telework policies that tie lower pay to remote work may disproportionately affect women, caregivers, and employees with disabilities, potentially raising the risk of equal pay and disparate impact lawsuits. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits pay discrimination based on gender, race, and other protected characteristics. The federal Equal Pay Act requires employers to pay men and women equal wages for jobs that are substantially equal in skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 established that the 180-day time limit for filing a charge of pay discrimination starts from the last paycheck affected by the discrimination, not the first.

At the same time, employers must comply with state laws on equal pay. Remote work expands the jurisdictional footprint, thereby implicating divergent state thresholds, expense reimbursement rules, and pay transparency requirements.

Courts and regulators increasingly expect individualized assessments of job functions, consistent application of policies, and rigorous documentation of legitimate business reasons for paying certain workers less than others in similar jobs. Without data-driven and legally sound analysis, employers could unintentionally adopt telework policies that are difficult to defend in court.

Meanwhile, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, most exempt employees must be paid a set salary and are not eligible for overtime pay or minimum wage protections. Reducing pay for exempt employees who work remotely could undermine federal or state salary thresholds or alter their job duties enough to jeopardize their exempt status if not carefully reviewed.

Next Steps

Employers may want to analyze how their current telework policies are impacting labor costs, recruiting, retention, and overhead expenses, such as office space rental.

In addition, an attorney-client privileged analysis of telework practices can help a company:

• Monitor legal risks associated with disparities in telework-related pay practices and identify legitimate factors contributing to pay differences, such as geography, seniority, and performance.
• Validate that geographic differentials and performance metrics are consistently applied and job-related.
• Confirm that job descriptions and essential job functions accurately reflect the need for in-person attendance or the feasibility of remote work.
• Assess multistate exposure to wage and hour rules based on where remote employees perform work.
• Evaluate how remote and hybrid arrangements affect supervisory headcount, budget authority, independent discretion, and professional responsibilities.

Employers should consider regularly evaluating their pay practices to ensure compliance with state and federal laws requiring equal pay for substantially similar work.

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor developments in this area and provide updates on the Pay Equity, Return to Work,  Wage and Hour, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as new information becomes available.

T. Scott Kelly is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Birmingham office.

Charles E. McDonald, III, is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Greenville office.

This article was co-authored by Leah J. Shepherd, who is a writer in Ogletree Deakins’ Washington, D.C., office.

Follow and Subscribe

LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The California Court of Appeal affirmed that the statutory deadline for appealing a Labor Commissioner decision is mandatory and jurisdictional, with no exceptions for late filings due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, except in cases of fraud.
• The court rejected the application of equitable tolling for filing deadlines in Labor Commissioner appeals, even in cases of electronic filing errors, emphasizing that strict adherence to time limits ensures prompt wage payment and discourages frivolous appeals.
• Employers must comply with both the notice of appeal and undertaking requirements within the statutory deadline to preserve their right to judicial review, as a failure to do so deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Background

The case arose from a wage claim filed by a former employee, resulting in a Labor Commissioner’s award of $74,419.82 against the employer for unpaid overtime and other violations. The Labor Commissioner’s decision was served by mail, triggering a fifteen-day deadline for the employer to file an appeal to the superior court under Labor Code section 98.2. The employer attempted to file the notice of appeal and a motion for waiver of the undertaking requirement on the last day of the deadline, but the electronic filing was rejected by the court clerk. The documents were subsequently filed in person the following day, rendering the appeal one day late.

The trial court found the appeal untimely and denied the employer’s motion for waiver of the undertaking requirement, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

Key Holdings

Jurisdictional deadline for appeals. The Court of Appeal affirmed that the statutory deadline for appealing a Labor Commissioner decision is both mandatory and jurisdictional. The court cited long-standing precedent holding that late filings may not be excused on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, with the sole exception being fraud, which was not alleged in this case.

No equitable tolling. The employer argued that the deadline should be subject to equitable tolling, due to a third-party filing error, and cited California Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, which provides for tolling in certain instances of electronic filing rejections. The court rejected this argument, finding that the statute applies only to complaints and cross-complaints, not to notices of appeal from Labor Commissioner decisions or motions to waive undertaking requirements. The court further noted that the statutory scheme and controlling case law require strict adherence to the time limits to promote prompt payment of wages and discourage frivolous appeals.

Undertaking requirement. The decision reiterates that when an employer pursues an appeal, “it must first post an undertaking in the amount of the challenged award” or seek a waiver within the same statutory deadline as the appeal. Failure to comply with either requirement within the prescribed period deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Attorney conduct and publication. The court declined to impose sanctions for a frivolous appeal but published the decision to clarify the law and remind attorneys of their obligation to candidly address the controlling legal authority and properly develop their arguments.

Key Takeaways

This decision serves as a reminder to employers and counsel of the importance of meeting statutory deadlines in Labor Commissioner appeals, as well as the limited grounds for excusing untimely filings.

There are several instructive points to appreciate from this case:

• The deadline for appealing a Labor Commissioner decision to the superior court is strictly enforced and jurisdictional; late filings will not be excused except in cases of fraud.
• Equitable tolling does not apply to the statutory deadline for filing appeals or motions to waive undertaking requirements in Labor Commissioner proceedings, even where electronic filing errors might have occurred.
• Employers must ensure timely compliance with both the notice of appeal and undertaking requirements to preserve their right to judicial review.
• The decision reinforces the importance of prompt wage payment and the legislative intent of discouraging delay and frivolous appeals in wage claim proceedings.

Ogletree Deakins’ California offices and Wage and Hour Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the California and Wage and Hour blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Pennsylvania has enacted a law requiring K-12 schools, charter schools, and career and technical schools to promptly notify parents, guardians, and school personnel when there is an incident involving possession of a weapon on school property.
• Weapons covered by this law may include guns, knives, and other potentially dangerous instruments.
• The new law is set to take effect on January 6, 2026.

Senate Bill No. 246 requires public and private K-12 schools, including charter schools and career and technical schools, to send a notification within twenty-four hours by a communication method “likely to reach” parents, guardians, and school employees. The notification can include information that identifies a student involved in the incident only under limited circumstances.

The law applies to incidents where the possession of a weapon violates state law or school policies, including events that occur on school grounds, those directly related to school-sponsored activities (even if held off school premises), and on school transportation. Senate Bill No. 246 refers to other laws that define a weapon to include a “knife, cutting instrument, cutting tool, nun-chuck stick, firearm, shotgun, rifle and any other tool, instrument or implement capable of inflicting serious bodily injury.”

The new law does not apply to colleges and universities. However, institutions of higher education in Pennsylvania can establish their own policies regarding weapon possession.

The federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 prohibits the possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of K-12 public or private schools. However, in 1996, Congress amended the law to limit its application to cases where the firearm has “moved in or otherwise affected interstate or foreign commerce.”

In recent years, there have been numerous school shootings across the country, including an incident in Virginia where a six-year-old elementary student shot his teacher. The teacher was awarded a $10 million jury verdict in a case against the school’s former assistant principal, who allegedly failed to respond to multiple warnings that the student had a gun. 

Next Steps

K-12 schools in Pennsylvania may wish to revisit their protocols for notifying staff and parents in the event someone has a weapon on school property, and train staff on the new state law regarding notifications. To ensure that the information reaches the intended recipients, notifications can be sent in various formats, including text messages, emails, and through the school system’s online portal. It is essential to maintain accurate and up-to-date contact information for employees, parents, and guardians.

Many K-12 schools, colleges, and universities already have workplace violence prevention plans that encompass staff training, physical security measures, and systems for easily reporting threats. Similarly, numerous K-12 schools, colleges, and universities have established written policies that prohibit weapons, including guns, on school property. These restrictions typically apply to employees, students, parents, and volunteers.  

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor developments in this area and will provide updates on the Higher Education, Pennsylvania, Workplace Safety and Health, and Workplace Violence Prevention blogs as new information becomes available.

Maria Greco Danaher is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakin’s Pittsburgh office.

Bethany S. Wagner is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Pittsburgh office.

This article was co-authored by Leah J. Shepherd, who is a writer in Ogletree Deakins’ Washington, D.C., office.

Follow and Subscribe

LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

The OSHA Form 301 Incident Report captures the who, what, where, when, and how for each recordable case. Employers typically assemble the required information from supervisor reports, employee statements, timekeeping records, medical work‑status notes, workers’ compensation first reports of injury, equipment logs, and job descriptions.

Quick Hits

• The OSHA Form 301 Incident Report requires detailed documentation of each recordable case, including the sequence and mechanism of injury or illness, and must be updated if the case outcome changes.
• Employers must maintain the OSHA Form 300 Log with unique case numbers, detailed descriptions, and accurate day counts, ensuring privacy for sensitive cases and maintaining separate logs for each establishment.
• The OSHA Form 300A Annual Summary must be reviewed, certified by a company executive, posted from February 1 through April 30, and retained for five years, with electronic submission requirements varying by employer size and industry.

Narrative Description

Employers may want to ensure that the narrative objectively describes the sequence and mechanism of injury or illness without speculating about fault, such as noting that the employee slipped on a wet floor in the packaging area after mopping, fell onto the left wrist, and was diagnosed with a non‑displaced distal radius fracture at an urgent care clinic. Employers may also want to identify the treating provider and facility when known and classify the case according to the most severe outcome known at the time, updating if later developments, such as surgery or extended restrictions, change the outcome category or day counts. Where a workers’ compensation first report captures all required fields, it may serve as an equivalent to Form 301 if completed using OSHA’s instructions.

OSHA Form 300

The OSHA Form 300 memorializes each recordable case and relates to the corresponding 301. Each Form 300 should have a unique case number, and include the employee’s name unless it is a privacy concern case, specify the employee’s job title and department, and the date of the incident. The brief case description should mirror the objective tone of the 301 narrative and identify the location, event, and nature of the injury or illness. Employers may want to note that OSHA periodically cites employers for entries that are too vague.

Employers check only the most severe outcome column known at the time—death; days away; job transfer or restriction; or other recordable case—and enter day counts beginning the day after the incident, using calendar days and capping totals at 180 per case. If a provider recommends days away and the employee works anyway, the Log reflects the recommended days; if an employee stays out longer than medically indicated, the Log reflects only the recommended period. For multi‑establishment employers, each establishment keeps its own Log, and cases are recorded on the Log for the establishment where the employee normally works, with special attention to traveling or temporary assignments. The caveat to this guidance is that geographically close operations can be included on a single Log.

Privacy concern cases require heightened care on the Log. Employers must omit the employee’s name and enter “privacy case” in the name field, ensure the case description conveys cause and severity without disclosing identity, and maintain a separate confidential list that ties case numbers to employee names. Employers must also maintain a sharps injury log if required under the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030, which can be satisfied by the OSHA Form 300, provided that the type and brand of device are recorded and records are maintained in a way that segregates sharps cases.

OSHA Form 300A Annual Summary

The OSHA Form 300A Annual Summary aggregates totals and must be reviewed, certified, posted, and, in many instances, electronically submitted. Employers may want to verify each Log entry is complete and accurate, total each column, and calculate the average number of employees and the total hours worked for the year using payroll and HRIS data. A company executive—an owner, a corporate officer, the highest‑ranking official at the establishment, or that official’s direct supervisor—must certify the 300A. Employers must post the certified 300A in a conspicuous location from February 1 through April 30, and they must retain all three forms for five years. During that retention period, the Log must be updated if case outcomes change; the 301 and 300A do not require updating after year‑end.

Electronic submission obligations encompass three regimes that are size‑ and industry‑specific and must be checked annually. Employers with 250 or more employees that are required to keep records must submit 300A data annually by March 2. Employers with 20 to 249 employees in designated industries must also submit 300A data annually by March 2. Beginning with 2023 data due March 2, 2024, and continuing thereafter, certain establishments in designated high‑hazard industries with one hundred or more employees must submit case‑level data from Forms 300 and 301 annually in addition to the 300A. OSHA’s coverage is set by NAICS‑based lists and may be updated over time. As a practical matter, employers may want to confirm their establishments’ NAICS codes and status each January, especially after acquisitions, divestitures, or significant changes in operations.

Employers strengthen reliability and defensibility by building a disciplined internal process around the seven‑day recording window and periodic reconciliations. A practical approach includes a standard intake checklist, immediate retrieval of provider work‑status notes, monthly reconciliation of recommended restrictions and days away with the Log, and a January close process that resolves ambiguous cases before 300A certification. Employers may want to document rationales for work‑relatedness and new‑case determinations, particularly for home‑office injuries, preexisting conditions, and exception scenarios, and retain the basis for resolving conflicting medical opinions.

Key Takeaways

Recordkeeping and reporting are related but distinct obligations. A case may require rapid reporting to OSHA even before all facts are known, and reporting never replaces the duty to evaluate recordability and update the Log and 301.

Part III of this series explains what triggers reporting, how the clock runs, how to report, and where state‑plan rules may differ.

Ogletree Deakins’ Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group will continue this series with a final installment and will provide updates on the Workplace Safety and Health blog as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• California and New York are implementing stringent measures to curb “stay or pay” contracts.
• A Florida appellate court ruled the state’s open carry ban unconstitutional, allowing open carry throughout the state.
• Maryland issued final regulations for its mini-WARN Act, which includes provisions for remote employees.
• New pay transparency laws in New Jersey, California, Delaware, and Washington require employers to disclose pay and benefits information in job postings, with violations resulting in warnings and civil penalties.

Stay-or-Pay Contracts in Flux

Significant changes in employment law are on the horizon, particularly concerning “stay or pay” contracts, and retailers must stay alert. These agreements require employees to reimburse their employers for benefits like sign-on bonuses or educational and training expenses if they leave the job within a specified period. Such contracts are increasingly facing scrutiny.

Spearheading this movement are California and New York, which have introduced stringent measures to curb the use of such contracts. California’s newly enacted law (Assembly Bill 692), effective January 1, 2026, is one of the strictest bans on employment-related debt, aiming to prevent employers from using repayment agreements that can deter workers from changing jobs. New York has also proposed a similar law (Bill A564C), which is currently awaiting the governor’s signature. These state-level initiatives emerge as federal regulators, including the Federal Trade Commission and National Labor Relations Board, have retreated from efforts to regulate these contracts nationwide under the new administration.

What implications does this hold for retailers? Many retailers depend on high‑volume hiring and frequently use sign‑on bonuses, onboarding training, and certification programs to prepare associates for the floor. Repayment provisions that once helped to reduce early attrition may be restricted or even unenforceable in key markets. 

Florida’s New Open Carry Law

On September 10, 2025, a Florida appellate court ruled that the state’s open carry ban is unconstitutional. This ban made it unlawful for individuals to openly carry firearms or electric weapons, with some limited exceptions. The recent ruling effectively allows open carry throughout Florida, even though it technically only applies to the counties within the First District Court of Appeals. Following the ruling, the Florida Attorney General advised that open carry should be considered lawful statewide, and the Florida Sheriffs Association instructed deputies not to enforce the prior ban, except in specific prohibited areas such as government buildings, schools, and places where conduct is inconsistent with permitted open carry.

This decision does not prevent private employers from prohibiting open carry in the workplace, nor does it change existing laws that permit employees to store secured firearms in their vehicles. Retailers can still control the presence of weapons in the workplace and prohibit weapons on their properties, with violations potentially resulting in charges of armed trespass. However, the decision may complicate the enforcement of these policies due to increased media attention, political contention, potential reluctance from front-line employees, and public pressure through social media.

In response, retailers should consider several strategic actions when implementing or reaffirming policies related to firearms. These include clearly notifying employees and the public about the policies, particularly any prohibitions on carrying firearms, and ensuring these notifications are prominently displayed. It is also important to outline expectations and provide comprehensive training to employees, especially those on the front lines, to help them understand how to enforce these policies safely and effectively.

Maryland Enacts New Mini-WARN Act

Maryland recently issued final regulations for its mini-WARN Act, which requires employers with at least fifty employees provide sixty days’ written notice before making significant reductions in operations. These reductions are defined as either relocating a part of the operation or shutting down part of a workplace that affects at least 25 percent of the workforce or fifteen employees, whichever is greater.

Initially, the notice provisions were voluntary, but they became mandatory in 2020, with enforcement delayed until the final regulations were issued. These regulations, now in effect, closely align with federal WARN Act requirements and include specific provisions for remote and telework employees. However, unlike the federal WARN Act, Maryland does not recognize an exception for unforeseeable business circumstances.

Employers must notify all affected employees, unions, the State Dislocated Worker Unit, and the chief elected official of the political subdivision where the workplace is located, with penalties for non-compliance. Before any reduction in force, retailers operating in Maryland should consult with legal counsel to determine whether they meet the necessary thresholds, including considerations for remote employees assigned to Maryland locations.

EEOC Is Back in Business

With the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) quorum restored, employers can expect more high-profile investigations, broad data requests, and litigation targeting hiring, promotion, compensation, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programming, and accommodations.

Recent developments at the EEOC, aligned with the administration’s policy priorities, suggest an acceleration of cases targeting DEI programs focused on race and sex, along with a renewed prioritization of religious rights in the workplace. While commissioner charges (including leaked charges) increased during the period when the EEOC lacked a quorum and could not officially act, employers can anticipate an uptick in high-profile investigations, public prelitigation demands with broad data requests, and systemic lawsuits.

In October 2025, the U.S. Senate confirmed Brittany Bull Panuccio as commissioner of the EEOC, restoring a quorum of three commissioners. In November, President Donald Trump named Andrea R. Lucas as chair of the EEOC.

As the newly configured EEOC advances the president’s America First agenda, employers may want to reevaluate their DEI programming to ensure that initiatives are grounded in individualized, job-related criteria. Employers should consider reviewing their policies that address gender identity, access to facilities, and pronoun usage to ensure compliance with current federal, state, and local law. Furthermore, employers may want to reassess selection procedures, testing methods, and artificial intelligence tools for validation and defensibility, as well as audit accommodation and leave policies in alignment with potential revisions to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Employers may also want to prepare for increased attention to claims alleging religious discrimination, majority discrimination, or national origin discrimination and ensure that documentation and training support nondiscriminatory decision-making.

A Flurry of New Pay Transparency Laws

Employers looking to hire workers in New Jersey will need to comply with the state’s new pay transparency requirements. The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development issued proposed regulations under the New Jersey pay transparency law on September 15, 2025, which provide some (though not complete) clarity about the law’s pay and benefit disclosure requirements. The law, which went into effect on June 1, 2025, has two broad requirements (along with several exceptions): (1) an employer must disclose pay and benefits information in postings for “new jobs and transfer opportunities,” and (2) an employer must give notice of “promotional opportunities” to current employees in the affected department.

In October, California’s governor signed legislation (Senate Bill 642) that sets the statute of limitations for civil actions alleging violations of the state’s pay transparency requirements at three years, with a six-year “look-back” period to obtain relief for existing violations. In addition, the new law defines the “pay scale” that employers must disclose in job postings as a “good faith estimate” and expands the definition of “wages” to include all forms of compensation, including stocks and stock options.

On September 26, 2025, Delaware’s governor signed into law legislation (House Substitute No. 2 for House Bill No. 105) requiring employers in Delaware to include wage or salary ranges and information on benefits offered in job postings, making it the latest state to enact a pay transparency law. Employers found to have violated this law will receive a “written warning” for a first offense and could face civil penalties ranging from $500 to $10,000 for each subsequent violation.

The Washington State Supreme Court recently ruled that job applicants can sue for violations of the state’s pay transparency law without needing to prove they applied for the job in good faith or were otherwise “bona fide” applicants. In Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, the plaintiffs brought a class action against a retailer that did not disclose pay information in job postings. In a 6-3 majority decision, the state’s high court held that an individual does not have to show that they are a “bona fide” or “good faith” job applicant. Instead, the court found that a job applicant is any individual who “submits a formal application or request for a job,” regardless of the applicant’s subjective intent to obtain employment.

Employers in these states may wish to carefully review their existing and future job postings to ensure compliance with state pay transparency laws.

Staying up to date with evolving employment laws is essential for retailers to ensure compliance. As regulations continue to change—particularly in areas such as “stay-or-pay” contracts, firearm policies, and mini-WARN laws, retailers must remain vigilant and proactive. By understanding and adhering to these legal requirements, retailers can mitigate risks, avoid penalties, and maintain a positive reputation with both employees and customers.

Ogletree Deakins’ Retail Industry Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Retail blog as additional information becomes available.

The Ogletree Deakins Client Portal tracks developments and provides real-time updates on pay transparency. Full law summaries are available for Premium-level subscribers. Snapshots and Updates are available for all registered client-users. For more information on the Client Portal or a Client Portal subscription, please reach out to clientportal@ogletree.com.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The EEOC, the DOL, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are coordinating efforts related to national origin discrimination and anti-American bias.
• As part of Project Firewall, the DOL and EEOC plan to share data, align enforcement tools, and facilitate referrals addressing discriminatory hiring and potential H‑1B program abuses.
• Given this coordination, employers may see and potentially should anticipate inquiries or involvement from more than one agency investigating alleged national origin discrimination or anti-American bias.

The new formal partnership builds on the EEOC’s recent technical assistance and educational updates, which emphasize that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects all workers—including American workers—from national origin discrimination.

That one-page guidance from the EEOC states that potential business rationales, such as labor costs, customer preferences, or stereotypes, do not justify discriminatory practices. Additionally, the EEOC’s one-pager and updated national origin resources flag several high‑risk areas: visa‑status preferences in job ads (e.g., “H‑1B only” or “H‑1B preferred”); disparate treatment in application and promotion processes that make it harder for U.S. workers to advance; and retaliation or harassment tied to national origin. Notably, the EEOC’s recent materials previewed a multiagency enforcement posture—now reinforced by the DOL’s Project Firewall announcement.

Project Firewall operationalizes that multiagency approach by facilitating information sharing “as permitted by law,” clarifying employer obligations, and aligning enforcement pathways so that potential Title VII violations can proceed in tandem with DOL actions addressing H‑1B misuse and related program compliance. The partnership also involves the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), signaling a whole-of-government focus on practices that may prefer foreign workers or visa holders over qualified Americans.

Next Steps

In light of the federal enforcement agency coordination, employers may wish to assess how their recruiting and hiring practices reference or rely on visa status, particularly where postings or screening criteria could be perceived as favoring nonimmigrant visa holders. Employers might also consider reviewing their practices against the themes noted in recent EEOC technical assistance and determining whether conducting attorney-client privileged audits of selection, promotion, and pay practices can help ensure practices are neutral, job-related, and applied consistently. Training appropriate stakeholders on Title VII’s protections as they relate to national origin, as well as creating and maintaining contemporaneous documentation of merit-based and legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, can assist in responding to agency questions that may arise.

Ogletree Deakins’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Government Contracting and Reporting, Immigration, Pay Equity, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Groups will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Employment Law, Government Contracting and Reporting, Immigration, Pay Equity, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

This article and more information on how the Trump administration’s actions impact employers can be found on Ogletree Deakins’ Administration Resource Hub.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The European Union’s “Equal Treatment Framework Directive” (Directive 2000/78/EC) also protects employees, who are not themselves disabled, from discrimination by association on grounds of disability, such as parents who care for a child with a disability and are disadvantaged as a result.
• In such cases, employers must provide reasonable accommodation, such as adjustments to working hours or to the workplace, insofar as doing so would not cause a disproportionate burden.

The Case—From Working Time Adjustment to the Referred Question

The CJEU’s judgment (September 11, 2025, Case C‑38/24) arose from a case in Italy. An employee worked shifts as a supervisor in a subway station. At home, she cared for her minor son with a severe disability, who had to attend a treatment program at fixed times in the afternoon. To ensure her child’s treatment, she asked her employer to allow her to work permanently at fixed morning hours and, in addition, to be assigned to a fixed place of work. The employer granted her request for a fixed workplace but refused to limit her working hours permanently to the mornings. The employee considered this discriminatory and sued. After divergent decisions by the Italian labor courts, the Italian Court of Cassation referred a question to the CJEU to resolve a central issue not yet fully addressed in the case law of the European courts: Does an employee without a disability fall under the anti-discrimination protection provided by EU law, when caring for a child with a disability?

The Judgment—Anti-Discrimination Protects the Parents

The CJEU clarified that the prohibition of indirect discrimination on grounds of disability also protects parents who are disadvantaged due to caring for a child with a disability. This is based on Directive 2000/78/EC, which must be interpreted broadly in light of various EU and international instruments, including the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Directive 2000/78/EC establishes a general framework for combating all forms of discrimination in employment and occupation, including on grounds of disability. According to the CJEU, the directive’s practical effectiveness would be undermined if it protected only against direct discrimination of persons with disabilities. Discrimination “by association” against caregiving parents—such as through rigid shift schedules—therefore also falls within the scope of the directive. Only in this way can it be ensured that parents of children with disabilities are treated equally in employment and are not disadvantaged because of their children’s situation.

Is There a Right to Adjusted Working Hours?

The CJEU’s decision does not create a blanket right to the exact working hours requested. That determination must now be made by the Italian courts on the facts of the case. However, the CJEU held that employers are obligated to provide “reasonable accommodation” with respect to the work environment for caregivers of children with disabilities. The CJEU did not exhaustively enumerate what constitutes reasonable accommodation but defined it generally as all adjustments to a person’s work environment that enable full and effective participation in professional life on an equal basis with other workers. Employers are not, however, required to adopt measures that would impose a disproportionate burden. Proportionality must be comprehensively assessed by the employer on a case-by-case basis.

Key Takeaways

The Italian courts must now decide the dispute in line with the CJEU’s guidance. The judgment is also relevant for German labor law, as CJEU rulings are binding. Employers may want to review existing policies governing working conditions for parents of children with disabilities.

The judgment also raises new legal questions, e.g., whether employers already owe similar obligations at the recruitment stage regarding parents of children with disabilities. The CJEU also left unanswered who qualifies as a “caregiver,” and whether, for example, life partners are included. There are strong reasons to favor a broad interpretation that encompasses all family caregivers.

In short, the CJEU remains consistent in strengthening employees’ rights against discrimination and in expanding employers’ duties. Employers that carefully assess how to support employees with disabled family members through adjusted working conditions will reduce legal risk and promote the reconciliation of work and family life.

Ogletree Deakins’ Berlin and Munich offices will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Cross-Border and Germany blogs as additional information becomes available.

Lena Beyer is an associate in Ogletree Deakins’ Berlin office.

Teodora E. Ghinoiu, a law clerk in Ogletree Deakins’ Berlin office, contributed to this article.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On November 18, 2025, the California Court of Appeal affirmed penalties against Anton’s Services for misclassifying workers and failing to comply with prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements on public works projects.
• The court’s decision highlights the strict enforcement of California’s Prevailing Wage Law, emphasizing the necessity of correct worker classification and adherence to apprenticeship statutes.
• The ruling clarifies that judicial review of administrative wage and penalty assessments is limited to the administrative record and governed by the substantial evidence standard.

Background

The case arose from two public works projects in San Diego County for road improvement and slope restoration. Anton’s Services was retained as a subcontractor on the slope restoration project, and its scope of work included “clearing and grubbing” the slope. The contractor was cited by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) for misclassifying workers under the “Tree Maintenance” classification rather than the higher-paid “Laborer (Engineering Construction)” classification, failing to pay prevailing wages, and not complying with statutory apprenticeship requirements. The DLSE issued civil wage and penalty assessments for both projects, which the contractor challenged through administrative and judicial proceedings.

Key Holdings

Worker Misclassification and Prevailing Wage Obligations. The court upheld the administrative finding that the contractor misclassified workers on both projects. The work performed—primarily clearing and grubbing as preparatory construction activity—was found to be incidental to construction and thus subject to the “Laborer” classification, not “Tree Maintenance.” The court rejected arguments that certain tree-related work was outside the scope of construction or that a change order altered the classification analysis. The decision emphasizes that work incidental to a public works construction project must be classified and compensated in accordance with the applicable prevailing wage determination, regardless of the contractor’s licensing or invoicing practices.

Penalties and Liquidated Damages. The court affirmed the imposition of penalties under Labor Code section 1775 for failure to pay prevailing wages, finding no evidence of a good-faith mistake or prompt correction by the contractor. The court also upheld the assessment of liquidated damages under section 1742.1, clarifying that wages remain “unpaid” for purposes of liquidated damages until actually paid to workers or deposited with the Department of Industrial Relations, even if funds are withheld by the prime contractor and transmitted to the awarding body. The court declined to create an exception to the statutory scheme based on the withholding of funds under section 1727, emphasizing the Legislature’s clear intent and the plain language of the statutes.

Apprenticeship Requirements. The decision affirms findings that the contractor failed to (a) submit contract award information to an applicable apprenticeship program before commencing work, (b) employ the required ratio of apprentices to journeypersons, and (c) request dispatch of apprentices from appropriate committees. The court rejected arguments that self-training or prior approval excused compliance, and noted the existence of an irrebuttable presumption of knowledge of apprenticeship requirements where the contractor had prior violations or was notified by contract documents. Penalties for “knowing” violations were upheld under Labor Code section 1777.7.

Scope and Standard of Judicial Review. The court reiterated that judicial review of administrative wage and penalty assessments is limited to the administrative record and governed by the substantial evidence standard. Arguments relying on extra-record evidence or unsupported by the record were deemed forfeited.

Key Takeaways

Contractors on California public works projects must ensure proper worker classification and payment of prevailing wages for all work incidental to construction, regardless of how work is described or invoiced.

Strict compliance with apprenticeship requirements—including notice, employment ratios, and dispatch requests—is mandatory, and prior violations or contractual notice may establish knowledge for penalty purposes.

Liquidated damages for unpaid wages will be imposed unless the contractor pays workers or deposits the full assessment with the Department of Industrial Relations within sixty days, regardless of any withholding by the prime contractor.

Judicial review of administrative wage and penalty assessments is highly deferential, limited to the administrative record, and will not consider new evidence or arguments not raised below.

The Anton’s Services decision underscores the importance of diligent compliance with prevailing wage and apprenticeship laws on public works projects and the significant consequences for misclassification and related violations.

Ogletree Deakins’ California offices and Wage and Hour Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the California, Construction, and Wage and Hour blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On November 19, 2025, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a PAGA action in Brown v. Dave & Buster’s of California, Inc., holding that a prior settlement barred the plaintiff’s claims under the doctrine of claim preclusion.
• The court found that the settlement in a 2019 action, which covered the same alleged Labor Code violations, constituted a final judgment on the merits and involved the same parties or those in privity.
• The court emphasized that substantial compliance with PAGA’s pre-filing notice requirements is sufficient, and minor technical defects do not defeat claim preclusion.

Background

Lauren Brown, a former employee of Dave & Buster’s of California, Inc., filed a representative PAGA action in June 2019, alleging violations of various Labor Code provisions, including failure to provide meal and rest periods, vacation pay, wage statements, and off-the-clock work. Dave and Buster’s had previously faced multiple PAGA actions from other employees, including an earlier-filed case that ultimately resulted in a global settlement (Andrade v. Dave & Buster’s Management Corp., Inc.) covering the same alleged violations and the same employer entities.

The trial court found Brown’s case to be “substantially identical” to the earlier action and stayed proceedings to avoid conflicting rulings. Following approval of the Andrade settlement, which included a release of claims for all aggrieved employees and covered the same Labor Code violations, Dave and Buster’s moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the settlement barred Brown’s claims under the doctrine of claim preclusion.

Key Holdings

Claim Preclusion Applies to PAGA Claims Released in Prior Settlement. The appellate court affirmed that claim preclusion barred Brown’s PAGA claims. The Andrade settlement constituted a final judgment on the merits, involved the same parties or those in privity, and encompassed the same causes of action. The court emphasized that PAGA’s statutory scheme is designed to promote judicial economy by requiring all claims based on the same alleged violations to be resolved in a single action.

Substantial Compliance With PAGA’s Pre-Filing Notice Requirement. Brown argued that the prior settlement should not bar her claims because the earlier plaintiff (Jessica Andrade) failed to strictly comply with PAGA’s sixty-five-day waiting period for amended claims before filing her operative complaint. The court rejected this argument, finding that Andrade’s notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) substantially complied with statutory requirements and fulfilled the purpose of affording the agency an opportunity to investigate.

No Standing for Post-Settlement Violations. The court also rejected Brown’s argument that she had standing to pursue claims for violations occurring after the date of the prior settlement, noting that her employment had ended years before and that PAGA standing does not extend to violations occurring after the plaintiff’s employment.

Judicial Approval and Agency Acceptance. The court observed that the LWDA was notified of the settlement and did not oppose it, and that the trial court’s approval of the settlement was valid and binding. The Supreme Court of California has rejected efforts by subsequent PAGA plaintiffs to object to settlements reached by other aggrieved employees acting on the state’s behalf.

Key Takeaways

PAGA settlements that release claims for all aggrieved employees and are judicially approved will bar subsequent representative actions based on the same alleged Labor Code violations.

Substantial compliance with PAGA’s pre-filing notice requirements is sufficient; minor technical defects, such as filing an amended complaint before the expiration of the sixty-five-day waiting period, do not defeat claim preclusion.

PAGA plaintiffs lack standing to pursue claims for violations occurring after their employment ends or after a prior settlement has been approved.

Judicial review will defer to the administrative record and the terms of the prior settlement, and subsequent plaintiffs cannot relitigate released claims or object to approved settlements.

The Brown decision underscores the importance of comprehensive settlement agreements in PAGA actions and the significant preclusive effect such settlements have on future representative claims arising from the same alleged violations. Employers facing multiple PAGA actions may want to ensure that settlements are properly noticed, encompass all relevant claims, and are judicially approved to achieve finality and avoid duplicative litigation.

Ogletree Deakins’ California offices, California Class Action and PAGA Practice Group, and Wage and Hour Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the California, Class Action, Hospitality, and Wage and Hour blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts