Quick Hits

• California employees who are victims of qualifying acts of violence or whose family members are victims of qualifying acts of violence may take unpaid time off for related reasons.
• The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) published a notice that employers must provide to employees that emphasizes that employees have a right to ask for a reasonable accommodation to “make sure [they] are safe at work.”

Assembly Bill (AB) 2499, which Governor Gavin Newsom signed in September 2024, expressly required the CRD to publish such a notice by July 1, 2025.

The notice and guidance explain that California law allows employees to take time off for certain reasons relating to their or their family members’ experience with qualifying acts of violence, as California law defines them. These reasons include taking time off to attend administrative and court proceedings or to care for a family member recovering from injuries caused by violence.

Employers have similar responsibilities in addressing qualifying acts of violence-related workplace accommodation requests that they do when employees request disability-related reasonable accommodations. Examples of such accommodations include changing an employee’s work phone number, letting the employee carry a phone at work, and modifying the employee’s work schedule.

Employers must engage in the interactive process with employees and must consider whether the employee or family member is facing immediate danger. The guidance also explains that employers must consider whether the accommodation would make the workplace unsafe for other employees or would cause undue hardship for the employer.

The CRD notice and guidance also emphasize that employers must keep covered leave requests and documentation relating to experiencing a qualifying act of violence confidential except when the employer must respond to a court order or subpoena or when the employer must disclose information in order to protect an employee’s safety at work. The employer must provide notice to the employee before disclosing the employee’s or the employee’s family member’s information.

Next Steps

California employers may wish to consider incorporating reasonable accommodation processes into their workplace violence policies, reasonable accommodation policies, or both. Employers also may wish to consider training Human Resources and/or managers about the CRD’s new notice and FAQ guidance.

Ogletree Deakins’ Leaves of Absence/Reasonable Accommodation Practice Group, Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group, and Workplace Violence Prevention Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the California, Leaves of Absence, Workplace Safety and Health, and Workplace Violence Prevention blogs as additional information becomes available.

On July 25, 2025, Ogletree Deakins will host a webinar providing an in-depth discussion of the requirements for California employers regarding their responsibilities for leaves and accommodations related to workplace violence and threats. Stay tuned to our webinars page for more information.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The U.S. Department of Labor’s promise to modernize and use technology solutions to aid in performing its mission may be tested as a result of past and future headcount reductions at OSHA.
• OSHA has seen and will likely continue to see headcount reductions, which may limit its ability to perform some of its core functions, such as inspections and rulemaking.
• Congress may need to act to preserve the agency’s core functions.

The Supreme Court’s stay lifted a district court’s injunction that had preliminarily enjoined the implementation of Executive Order No. 14210. Accordingly, in the wake of the Court’s ruling, federal agencies may, at least for now, move forward with significant workforce reductions and structural changes as directed by Executive Order No. 14210. The order’s stated goal is to transform the federal government, but its implementation could have far-reaching effects on OSHA’s operations.

The executive order requires agencies to prepare for and potentially implement substantial reductions in force (RIFs). Evidence presented in the district court proceeding indicated that some federal agencies were considering reducing their workforce headcounts by more than 50 percent. If OSHA is subject to similar RIFs, the agency could lose a significant number of compliance officers and technical experts by the end of the year, directly impacting its operational capacity.

OSHA is currently engaged in major rulemaking efforts, including the proposed Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Standard, the elimination or modification of standards applicable to twenty-six different areas currently regulated by OSHA, and the proposed updating or revision of the Fire Brigades Standard (which would be renamed the Emergency Response Standard).

Large-scale staff reductions or organizational restructuring could disrupt these initiatives by limiting the agency’s ability to conduct research, analyze public comments, and finalize new standards. The loss of institutional knowledge, combined with reductions at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, may delay or derail critical workplace safety regulations.

A diminished workforce would likely impair OSHA’s ability to conduct workplace inspections, investigate complaints, and enforce safety and health standards. OSHA’s FY 2026 budget justification predicted a reduction in inspections by nearly 10,000, as compared to FY 2023, when nearly 36,500 inspections were performed.

The district court had noted that such changes could prevent agencies from fulfilling their statutory mandates. For OSHA, this could result in fewer inspections, slower response times, and reduced oversight of employer compliance.

The dissent authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that Congress, not the president, establishes agencies and their functions. If the executive order leads to the elimination or consolidation of OSHA’s core functions without congressional approval, it could undermine the agency’s statutory mandate to ensure safe and healthful working conditions, potentially curtailing or eliminating programs mandated by Congress.

The stay introduces significant uncertainty for OSHA’s leadership and staff, with ongoing litigation leaving the future direction of the agency in question. This instability may affect morale, recruitment, and retention, further weakening OSHA’s effectiveness.

OSHA entered 2025 with a headcount already below budgeted levels, large numbers of compliance officers with little to no experience, and a number of managers in roles without substantial management training or experience, a state of affairs that had already led to a significant degree of uncertainty for employers facing inspections and citations. Further headcount reductions, particularly among management employees of OSHA, will continue that trend.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the tension between executive authority and congressional oversight. If the executive order is ultimately upheld on the merits, Congress may seek to reassert its authority over agency structure and funding through new legislation or appropriations restrictions, potentially resulting in further changes to OSHA’s organization or statutory authority.

Congressional action may also be compelled by the litigation filed across the country challenging the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and its authority to hear cases arising from citations issued to employers. In the cases where employers have been successful in securing injunctive relief, OSHA has struggled to handle them without a body that can hear those claims.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the executive order to proceed pending appeal poses significant risks to OSHA’s ability to fulfill its mission. In the near term, OSHA faces the prospect of further staff reductions, disruption of regulatory and enforcement activities, and increased uncertainty regarding its statutory mandate. The ultimate impact will depend on the outcome of ongoing litigation and any subsequent congressional or executive actions. Employers and stakeholders may want to closely monitor developments, as OSHA’s capacity to protect worker health and safety may be significantly affected in the coming months.

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Governmental Affairs, Government Contracting and Reporting, Reductions in Force, Workforce Analytics and Compliance, and Workplace Safety and Health 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’ New Administration Resource Hub.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Mandatory In-Person Interviews: As of June 10, 2025, all nonimmigrant visa applicants under fourteen years of age in China must attend an in-person interview at the U.S. Embassy or a U.S. Consulate General, accompanied by at least one parent (both parents recommended).
• Required Original Documents: Applicants must bring original documents to the interview, including the minor’s birth certificate, household registration book (if applicable), both parents’ passports (current and former), and the parents’ marriage certificate (if applicable).
• Transition for Pre-Scheduled Appointments: Applicants who scheduled their appointments before June 10, 2025, may still use the interview waiver process, but they might be required to attend an in-person interview.

Effective June 10, 2025, all nonimmigrant visa applicants under fourteen years of age must schedule and attend an in-person interview at the U.S. Embassy or a U.S. Consulate General in China. This marks a departure from the previous interview waiver process, which allowed certain applicants to bypass the interview stage.

To ensure the safety and proper representation of minor applicants, at least one parent must accompany the child to the interview. However, it is highly recommended that both parents attend the interview. This presence is crucial for verifying the minor applicant’s identity and relationship.

Applicants must bring the originals (not copies) of the following documents to the interview:

• Minor’s Birth Certificate: This document is essential for verifying the age and identity of the applicant.
• Household Registration Book (Hukou 戶口): If applicable, this document provides additional verification of the applicant’s residence and family details.
• Both Parents’ Passports (Current and Former): These documents are necessary to establish the identity and nationality of the parents.
• Parents’ Marriage Certificate: If applicable, this document helps verify the legality of the relationship between the parents.

Nonimmigrant visa applicants under fourteen years of age who already had scheduled appointments before June 10, 2025, to submit their visa application materials through the interview waiver process may continue to use this process. However, it is important to note that in some cases, these applicants may still be required to appear for an in-person visa interview at the U.S. Embassy or a U.S. Consulate General.

The updated policy aims to enhance the security and integrity of the visa application process. By requiring in-person interviews and the presence of parents, the U.S. Embassy and Consulates can better verify the information provided and ensure that all applicants meet the necessary criteria for a nonimmigrant visa.

Next Steps

To ensure a smooth interview process, applicants and their parents may want to consider taking several important steps, including:

• scheduling an interview by booking the appointment well in advance to avoid any delays;
• gathering all the necessary original documents and ensuring they are in order; and
• preparing for the interview by being ready to answer questions about the purpose of the visit, travel plans, and any other relevant information.

These steps can help applicants experience a more efficient and successful visa application process.

Ogletree Deakins’ Immigration Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will publish updates on the Immigration blog as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• SHB 1308 takes effect on July 27, 2025, amending state laws RCW 49.12.240 and RCW 49.12.250 and superseding prior L&I guidance and WAC rules regarding personnel file access.

• Washington State previously allowed employees to request certain personnel records from their employers. The new amendment extends the deadline for employers to respond to personnel file requests to 21 calendar days, which is longer than the “reasonable period” standard that was previously interpreted by L&I as 10 business days.

• SHB 1308 introduces a private cause of action, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees remedies against employers that do not comply.

Key Provisions of SHB 1308

Effective Date and Supersession of Prior Guidance

The new law becomes effective on July 27, 2025, and supersedes state regulation WAC 296-126-050 as well as previous L&I guidance, which was often interpreted as requiring broader access and faster response times. The new law narrows the definition of “personnel file” and clarifies the types of records to which employees are entitled.

Definition of Personnel File

The new law amends RCW 49.12.240 and defines “personnel file” to include:

“(a) All job application records;

(b) All performance evaluations;

(c) All nonactive or closed disciplinary records;

(d) All leave and reasonable accommodation records;

(e) All payroll records; and

(f) All employment agreements.”

The law does not require employers to create records they do not already maintain, nor does it establish a retention schedule.

Expanded and Clarified Deadlines

Under prior L&I guidance, employers were expected to provide access to personnel files “within a reasonable period of time,” interpreted by L&I as 10 business days. SHB 1308 amends RCW 49.12.250 to require employers to provide a copy of personnel files within “21 calendar days after the employee, former employee, or their designee” requests the file. This is a firm statutory deadline, though it provides more time for compliance than previous guidance.

Written Statement of Discharge

The new law additionally creates a statutory requirement for employers to provide a discharge statement upon request. Specifically, if a former employee—defined as an employee “separated from the employer within three years of the person’s request”— submits a written request, the employer must provide a signed, written statement that includes: (1) “the effective date of discharge;” (2) “whether the employer had a reason for the discharge;” and (3) if a reason existed, the reasons for the discharge. This written statement must also be provided within 21 calendar days of receiving a written request.

Annual Inspection and Correction Rights

SHB 1308 leaves largely unchanged prior obligations regarding annual employee inspections of their own files. Employees still have the right to inspect their personnel files at least once every year. Upon receiving such a request, employers are required to provide a copy of the personnel file at no cost to the employee within 21 calendar days. Employees may also request, once per year, that the employer remove information from the file that the employee believes is irrelevant or erroneous. If the employer declines to remove the information, the employee may submit a written rebuttal or correction, which the employer must include in the personnel file. Former employees retain these rights for up to two years after their separation from employment.

Privacy Protections

The law does not override existing state or federal privacy statutes regarding nondisclosure of certain information. Employers are required to observe all applicable privacy laws when responding to personnel file requests.

Private Cause of Action

Employees and former employees may now enforce the statute in superior court. Before filing suit, they must provide a notice of intent to sue—though the notice may be provided simultaneously with the initial request for personnel records.

Statutory Damages

The law establishes a tiered system of statutory damages for noncompliance:

• $250 if the file or required statement is not provided within 21 days of the request;

• $500 if not provided within 28 days of the request;

• $1,000 if provided later than 35 days; and

• $500 for any other violations.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Prevailing employees are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, increasing potential liability for employers from the previous version of the law. The statute also states that employees are entitled to equitable relief. Though the nature of that relief is undefined by the statute, it seems likely that a court could compel an employer to produce requested files.

Next Steps for Employers

In anticipation of the July 27 effective date, employers may want to review and update their personnel file policies, train their HR staff, and ensure continued compliance with privacy protections. Specifically, employers should consider taking the following steps to prepare for when SHB 1308 goes into effect:

• Inform HR departments and managers about the new law, its deadlines, and the revised definition of personnel files.

• Review and update personnel file policies and procedures to reflect the new statutory requirements and deadlines.

• Continue to observe all applicable state and federal privacy laws when responding to requests.

Ogletree Deakins’ Seattle office will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Washington blog as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• President Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” into law on July 4, 2025, which includes provisions for no taxes on tips and overtime effective through December 31, 2028.
• Employees who customarily and regularly receive tips can deduct up to $25,000 in tips from their income subject to federal income tax starting January 1, 2025, while businesses must report these tips on Form W-2 for employees and on Form 1099 for nonemployees.
• The act also allows workers to deduct up to $12,500 in overtime pay from their income subject to federal income tax, with businesses required to report qualified overtime compensation on Form W-2 for employees and on Form 1099 for nonemployees.

No Tax on Tips

Before the act, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) defined all cash and non-cash tips received by an employee as income and subject to federal income taxes. All tips received by an employee in any calendar month were subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes and must be reported to the employer. Consistent with the IRS and federal wage and hour laws, the act defines “qualified tips” as amounts voluntarily paid by patrons and includes any tips obtained through a tip share.

Effective the tax year starting January 1, 2025, employees who “customarily and regularly receive tips on or before December 31, 2024, as provided by the Secretary” (the act mandates the secretary of the treasury (or the secretary’s delegate) to publish a list of occupations which “customarily and regularly received tips on or before December 31, 2024”) will be able to deduct up to $25,000 in tips from their income subject to federal income tax. This amount is reduced by $100 for each $1,000 by which the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income exceeds $150,000 ($300,000 in the case of a joint return). This income tax deduction is available to nonitemizers, which means that it can be claimed in addition to the standard deduction for individual income tax filers. This deduction has no effect on Social Security and Medicare taxes.

What employers need to know

Employers will need to report the total amount of cash and non-cash tips reported by an employee and the occupation of the employee on the employee’s Form W-2. Likewise, businesses and other payors that issue Forms 1099 to tipped contractors will have to separately report designated tips and the recipient’s occupation on the Form 1099. The act instructs the IRS to update the applicable income tax withholding procedures and tax forms to reflect this new deduction and required occupation listing.

The IRS has not yet provided guidance in light of the new law.

Some employers with tipped employees take advantage of the tip credit and are eligible to claim the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tip credit. The credit permits employers to reduce taxable business income by the amount employers pay for the employer share of the Social Security and Medicare taxes (FICA tax) on certain employee tips. The employer share of the FICA tax is currently 7.65 percent. The act amends the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), which defines certain tips as eligible for the employer FICA tip credit. Currently, Section 45B(b)(2) of the IRC states that, for the purpose of calculating the employer FICA tip credit, only tips received by employees in connection with providing, delivering, or serving food or beverages for consumption are taken into account if tipping is customary in that establishment. The act expands Section 45B to include beauty service businesses (barbering, hair care, nail care, esthetics, and spa treatments) where tipping is customary. The act does not otherwise affect employers’ ability to take advantage of the FICA tip credit.

No Tax on Overtime

Section 70202 of the act also creates a tax deduction for “qualified overtime compensation.” Qualified overtime compensation is defined as “overtime compensation paid to an individual required under section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 [FLSA] that is in excess of the regular rate.” Workers can deduct $12,500 ($25,000 in the case of a joint return) in overtime pay from their income subject to federal income tax. The deduction does not apply to overtime premiums required under state laws or collective bargaining agreements. This deduction also has no effect on Social Security and Medicare taxes.

What employers need to know

Similar to the tip deduction, this deduction is also available in addition to the standard deduction. Employers will need to report the total amount of qualified overtime compensation on their employees’ Forms W-2. Businesses will need to report the amount of qualified overtime compensation for nonemployees on their applicable Forms 1099, notwithstanding the fact that under the act qualified overtime compensation means “overtime compensation paid to an individual required under section 7 of the FLSA that is in excess of the regular rate at which such individual is employed.” The act requires the IRS to update the applicable income tax withholding procedures and tax forms to reflect this new deduction. Of note, the act also provides that businesses may approximate an amount designated as qualified overtime compensation by any reasonable method specified by the secretary of the treasury (which has yet to be issued as of today) for the 2025 tax year.

The IRS has not yet provided guidance in light of the new law.

Ogletree Deakins’ Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Practice Group, Hospitality Industry Group, and Wage and Hour Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation, Hospitality, and Wage and Hour 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’ New Administration Resource Hub.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s order that had blocked President Trump’s executive order directing large-scale reductions in force across federal agencies.
• The ruling temporarily allows the Trump administration to continue its efforts to reorganize the federal workforce under the Department of Government Efficiency initiative while merits-based legal challenges to the planned reductions are pending.

The justices stayed a May 22, 2025, preliminary injunction issued by a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that had blocked enforcement of President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) 14210 (a directive ordering federal agencies to initiate large-scale reductions in force) and a joint memorandum by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management with instructions on implementing the EO.

“Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied— we grant the application,” the justices stated in an unsigned order. “We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum.”

The ruling comes in a legal challenge filed by a group of labor unions, nonprofit organizations, and local governments in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, a case alleging that President Trump’s RIFs are an unconstitutional exercise of presidential authority and a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. On May 30, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the Trump administration’s request to stay the preliminary injunction, and on June 2, 2025, the administration asked the Supreme Court for a stay.

The Supreme Court stated that the stay would remain in effect “pending” the appeal to the Ninth Circuit and “disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought.” The stay will terminate automatically if certiorari is denied or when the Supreme Court issues a final judgment.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a short concurrence in which she noted that EO 14210 directed the RIF plans to be “consistent with applicable law.” She stated that since the plans themselves were not yet before the Court, the Court had “no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law.” Justice Sotomayor joined in the Court’s stay because it left the determination of the RIF plans’ lawfulness to the district court “to consider … in the first instance.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the grant of the application for stay and criticized the Court for “greenlighting” the president’s actions on an emergency-stay basis. She wrote that the preliminary injunction was a “temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo.”

EO 14210, signed on February 11, 2025, outlines President Trump’s “‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative,” which aims to “eliminat[e] waste, bloat, and insularity” in the federal government. Specifically, the EO directs agencies to “promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), consistent with applicable law, and to separate from Federal service temporary employees and reemployed annuitants working in areas that will likely be subject to the RIFs.”

Next Steps

The ruling allows the Trump administration to proceed with its plans to reduce and reorganize the federal workforce for the time being. However, the lawfulness of specific agency RIF plans remains at issue.

For more information, please join us for our upcoming webinar, “The Latest OFCCP News: Proposed Rule Changes as Potential Agency Exit Looms,” which will take place on Wednesday, July 9, 2025, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (EDT). The speakers, Lauren B. Hicks, T. Scott Kelly, and Christopher J. Near, will review the latest changes and what they mean for covered contractors, as well as best practices for continued compliance efforts. Register here.

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Governmental Affairs, Government Contracting and Reporting, Reductions in Force, Workforce Analytics and Compliance, and Workplace Safety and Health 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’ New Administration Resource Hub.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Following the completion of USCIS’s H-1B cap registration selection on March 31, 2025, employers were able to file cap-subject H-1B petitions on behalf of selected beneficiaries from April 1, 2025, through June 30, 2025.
• On June 30, 2025, a high number of technical issues were reported when users attempted to file Forms G-28 and I-129 through USCIS’s online platform.
• During the evening of June 30, 2025, USCIS announced the filing deadline would be extended to 7:30 p.m. (EDT) on July 1, 2025, later clarifying during the afternoon of July 1 that the extension would apply only to cases filed online.

Following USCIS’s selections in the FY 2026 H-1B cap registration lottery, employers were able to file H-1B cap petitions with USCIS on behalf of selected beneficiaries from April 1st through June 30th. Similar to last year, employers could file H-1B cap petitions by shipping paper-based petitions to USCIS or file only through USCIS’ online platform. On the last day of the filing window, June 30, 2025, users reported a high number of technical issues when attempting to file Forms G-28 and I-129 of their H-1B cap-subject petitions. On the evening of June 30, USCIS announced it would extend the deadline until 7:30 p.m. (EDT) on July 1 for online filings only.

Timely filed and receipted petitions will be adjudicated by USCIS. The agency is expected to adjudicate, within fifteen business days, petitions filed with requests for premium processing service. Employment based on an approved FY 2026 H-1B cap-subject petition cannot begin earlier than October 1, 2025. Beneficiaries of H-1B cap-subject petitions who are interested in international travel may want to confirm their travel will not have an impact on the H-1B petition or other aspects of their status or employment authorization. Additionally, individuals will likely want to carefully review travel and documentation requirements and consider any risks. If planning to apply for an H-1B visa while abroad, applicants can expect additional scrutiny and potentially longer processing times.

Next Steps

USCIS has not yet announced whether it will conduct a second selection lottery for the FY 2026 H-1B cap season, as the agency must first determine whether a sufficient number of H-1B cap-subject petitions were filed to meet the annual quota of 85,000 H-1B visas.

If USCIS announces an additional selection round, employers will have at least ninety days to file an H-1B petition with USCIS on behalf of the selected beneficiary. USCIS typically determines whether an additional selection is necessary in late July and will publish an announcement. For example, during the FY 2025 H-1B cap season, USCIS announced on July 30, 2024, that a second selection round would occur to meet the numerical quota.

Ogletree Deakins’ Immigration Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will publish updates on the Immigration blog as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On July 1, 2025, OSHA issued NPRMs affecting twenty-six current standards, with some impacting narrow categories of employers and others affecting broader cross-sections.
• OSHA proposes the removal of the requirement that people using N95, P100, and similar filtering facepiece respirators and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) be subject to medical clearance before use.

• The DOL proposes to rescind outdated regulations for coordinating enforcement activities among agencies regarding migrant farmworkers, aiming to improve efficiency and modernize practices.
• Comments on the NPRMs are due by September 2, 2025.

OSHA’s Withdrawal of Proposed MSD Column on OSHA 300 Log

OSHA has formally withdrawn its proposal to add a musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) column to the OSHA 300 Log. This decision:

• leaves all employer obligations for injury and illness recordkeeping unchanged;
• does not alter the criteria or definitions for recording injuries and illnesses;
• is based on findings that an MSD column would not significantly improve national injury statistics, enforcement, or establishment-level data;
• concludes that existing data collection methods are sufficient and that the proposed column would not provide meaningful additional information; and
• imposes no new requirements or costs on employers.

Proposed Amendments to Medical Evaluation Requirements in Respiratory Protection Standard

OSHA is proposing to remove the requirement for medical evaluations for employees required to use:

• filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), such as N95s, P100s, and the like; and
• loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs).

The key points are as follows:

• the proposal is based on a lack of evidence that such evaluations prevent material health impairment for these respirator types;
• all other elements of the Respiratory Protection Standard (hazard assessment, fit testing, training, maintenance) remain in effect;
• medical evaluations for other respirator types (e.g., tight-fitting or supplied-air respirators) remain unchanged; and
• the change is expected to reduce regulatory burden and generate significant cost savings for employers.

Proposed Revisions to Lead Standards’ Respirator Requirements

OSHA proposes to revise respirator-related provisions in its lead standards to:

• allow employers greater flexibility in selecting respirators, aligning with the general Respiratory Protection standard (29 C.F.R. 1910.134);
• remove unnecessarily prescriptive requirements, such as mandatory use of full facepiece respirators or high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, where other equally protective options exist;
• permit the use of half mask respirators and updated filtration options, provided they meet current National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) certification standards;
• reduce compliance burdens and costs, with estimated annual savings of up to $23 million if half mask respirators are widely adopted; and
• maintain worker safety while streamlining and modernizing regulatory requirements.

Proposed Revisions to Asbestos Standards Respirator Requirements

OSHA is proposing similar updates to its asbestos standards, including:

• allowing employers to select respirators based on assigned protection factors (APFs) rather than prescriptive device types;
• removing requirements for specific respirator types and HEPA filters, in favor of referencing current NIOSH certification and APF tables;
• permitting the use of a broader range of respirators, including loose-fitting PAPRs, which may reduce the need for fit testing and lower costs;
• maintaining prohibitions on filtering facepiece respirators for asbestos unless evidence supports their adequacy; and
• anticipating cost savings, especially from reduced fit testing requirements, and seeking public comment on the proposed changes and their impact on worker safety.

OSHA’s Final Rule Revoking Construction Advisory Regulations

OSHA has revoked 29 C.F.R. 1911.10 and 29 C.F.R. 1912.3, the effect of which:

• removes procedural requirements that previously required consultation with the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) for construction standards rulemaking;
• reduces the size of ACCSH from fifteen to nine members, aligning with statutory requirements;
• streamlines the rulemaking process for construction standards, reducing administrative burdens and delays; and
• ensures that ACCSH can still advise the secretary but without impeding the agency’s regulatory agenda.

The revocation of the construction advisory regulations is also part of the Trump administration’s broader deregulatory initiative to increase efficiency and reduce unnecessary government procedures.

The DOL’s Proposal to Rescind Coordinated Enforcement Regulations for Migrant Farmworkers

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) proposes to rescind outdated regulations (29 C.F.R. Part 42) that governed the coordination of enforcement activities among the Wage and Hour Division, OSHA, and the Employment and Training Administration regarding migrant farmworkers. The DOL’s rationale is that:

• the regulations are obsolete due to organizational changes and the repeal of referenced statutes;
• they impose unnecessary and duplicative internal procedures that limit agency flexibility;
• their removal is expected to improve efficiency and allow for more effective, modern coordination of enforcement efforts; and
• the DOL will continue to coordinate enforcement and outreach for migrant farmworker protections through updated, flexible practices.

Overall Themes and Impact

Across these actions and proposals, OSHA and the DOL are:

• reducing unnecessary regulatory and procedural burdens;
• aligning standards with current scientific evidence, technological advances, and modern workplace practices;
• streamlining rulemaking and enforcement processes; and
• maintaining essential worker protections while improving regulatory efficiency and flexibility.

Comments on the proposed changes are due no later than September 2, 2025.

Ogletree Deakins’ Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and provide updates on the Construction and Workplace Safety and Health blogs as the rulemaking process progresses.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On July 1, 2025, OSHA proposed a rule to exclude inherently risky activities integral to certain professional and performance-based occupations from General Duty Clause enforcement.
• The proposed rule aims to prevent OSHA from citing employers for hazards that are inseparable from the core nature of activities in sectors like live entertainment, professional sports, and high-risk recreation.
• OSHA is seeking public comments on the proposed rule, which is expected to save approximately $514,000 annually by reducing General Duty Clause citations and will not impose new costs or significant economic impacts.

The General Duty Clause requires employers to provide a workplace “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.” Historically, OSHA has used this provision to address hazards not covered by specific standards. The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a citation in one case where it was applied to this sort of activity. Then a member of the D.C. Circuit, Judge Brett Kavanaugh dissented, arguing that the General Duty Clause should not extend to hazards inherent in professional, athletic, or entertainment activities.

In light of the Kavanaugh dissent and subsequent Supreme Court of the United States decisions emphasizing the “major questions doctrine”—which requires clear congressional authorization for agency action on issues of significant economic and political consequence—OSHA has reconsidered its enforcement approach. The agency now preliminarily concurs that the General Duty Clause should not be interpreted to require the elimination of hazards intrinsic to the essential function of certain occupations.

Key Provisions of the Proposed Rule

• The proposed rule would codify that the General Duty Clause does not authorize OSHA to cite employers for hazards arising from inherently risky activities that are integral to the essential function of a professional or performance-based occupation, where the hazard cannot be eliminated without fundamentally altering the activity.
• Sectors potentially affected include live entertainment and performing arts, animal handling and performance, professional and extreme sports, motorsports and high-risk recreation, tactical and combat simulation training, and hazard-based media and journalism activities.
• Employers would still be required to make reasonable efforts to control such hazards through means that do not alter the nature of the activity (e.g., engineering controls, administrative controls, personal protective equipment).

OSHA is seeking public comment on the scope, definitions, and application of the proposed rule, including examples of inherently risky activities, affected industries, and the adequacy of the proposed regulatory text.

OSHA estimates that the proposed rule would affect a small subset of employees and employers in the arts, entertainment, sports, animal care, recreation, and related sectors. The agency preliminarily concludes that the rule would impose no new costs and may result in annual cost savings of approximately $514,000, primarily by reducing the potential for General Duty Clause citations in these contexts. The rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and it would not impose new information or recordkeeping requirements.

The proposed rule has been reviewed under various executive orders and statutes, including the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, and executive orders on federalism, civil justice reform, and unfunded mandates. OSHA has determined that the rule does not have significant federalism implications, would not impose unfunded mandates, and would not require changes to OSHA-approved state plans.

OSHA is soliciting public comments on the proposed rule, including its scope, definitions, and economic analysis. Comments must be received no later than September 2, 2025. The agency is particularly interested in data and examples regarding inherently risky activities, affected industries, and the potential impact of the rule.

The proposed rule, if finalized, would provide greater clarity and limit OSHA’s enforcement authority under the General Duty Clause in these contexts.

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.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal district courts lack the authority to issue nationwide injunctions blocking federal policies, impacting how immigration-related executive orders are litigated.
• The decision, which arose from challenges to President Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, which restricts birthright citizenship to children born to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, emphasized that injunctive relief must be limited to the actual parties before the court.
• While the ruling did not address the constitutionality of the executive order itself, it significantly alters the landscape of immigration litigation by requiring plaintiffs seeking broad relief to pursue class action procedures rather than universal injunctions.

Background

The Supreme Court’s ruling arises from challenges to President Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, which narrowed the scope of birthright citizenship. The order specifically bars children born in the United States from acquiring automatic citizenship if neither parent was a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. Children born to nonimmigrant visa holders, including but not limited to participants in the Visa Waiver Program, F-1 students, and B-1, B-2, H-1B, H-4, L-1, L-2, E-1, E-2, E-3, TN, and O-1 visa holders, would not be granted birthright citizenship under this Executive Order.

The plaintiffs, including individuals, organizations, and state governments, alleged that the order violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and federal nationality laws. Multiple federal district courts issued sweeping injunctions preventing the government from enforcing the policy nationwide. The government appealed, contending that the universal injunctions exceeded the traditional equitable authority of the courts, and in a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court agreed. Drawing on principles of equity rooted in the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court emphasized that remedies granted by federal courts must align with those “traditionally accorded by courts of equity” at the time of the nation’s founding. The Court concluded that while universal injunctions may address systemic issues efficiently, such policy considerations cannot override the statutory limitations on judicial power. Although the Court’s ruling focused on the remedy, not the constitutionality of the Executive Order on birthright citizenship, it represents a substantial change in how recent immigration policy changes may be challenged in court.

Analysis and Impact

The Court did not rule on whether the executive order’s challenge to the interpretation of birthright citizenship violated the Citizenship Clause or the Nationality Act. Further, the decision defers to the lower courts as to whether to narrow their injunctions on this issue. However, this ruling has significant implications for ongoing and future immigration litigation, particularly cases involving constitutional challenges to executive immigration actions. The Court emphasized that plaintiffs seeking broad relief for groups of similarly situated individuals must do so through class action procedures, rather than through universal injunctions. For families directly affected by the executive order’s birthright citizenship restrictions, this means that only those who are parties to the litigation may receive injunctive relief. Others would need to file separate suits or seek to be included in a certified class action to halt enforcement.

Ultimately, the underlying issue restricting birthright citizenship by the executive order remains unresolved, and the federal courts must continue to address the constitutional merits of that issue in future proceedings.

Ogletree Deakins’ Immigration Practice Group will monitor developments with respect to these and other policy changes and will provide updates on the Immigration blog 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’ New Administration Resource Hub.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts