Congress Faces Government Funding Deadline While Winter Storm Looms. The November 2025 legislative deal that ended the record-breaking forty-three–day federal government shutdown expires one week from today—January 30, 2026. The good news is that lawmakers are not signaling much of a desire for another shutdown (at least not yet). Since returning to Washington, D.C., for the second session of the 119th Congress, both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives have worked to pass annual spending bills, setting the stage for the hopeful completion of the annual funding exercise next week. (The funding package is not expected to address enhanced healthcare insurance premium subsidies, one of the underlying disputes that led to the 2025 shutdown.)

Of course, nothing on Capitol Hill is ever easy. Politics can always derail efforts at the last minute. Further, it will likely be up to the Senate—which is on recess this week—to cast the final votes on the funding measures next week. But returning to Washington, D.C., next week could prove treacherous for many senators in light of potentially significant winter weather that is expected to impact large portions of the country.

Finally, these bills extend funding through the normal federal government fiscal calendar. This means that funding for fiscal year 2027 will need to be approved before October 1, 2026. Though many of us have “government funding fatigue,” legislative work on fiscal year (FY) 2027 will begin sooner than you may think.

FY 2026 Funding Impacts on Labor and Employment Agencies. Potential passage of the funding package will mark the first time that Republicans in the 119th Congress get their hands around the federal government’s purse strings. Indeed, all government funding in 2025 was established by the previous Congress (and administration) and extended through multiple continuing resolutions in 2025.

But even with Republican majorities in the U.S. Congress, cuts to funding levels for labor and employment agencies are not as significant as one might think. To the contrary, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) will actually receive an increase of $65 million for a total of $13.7 billion. As far as government dollars go, this is a nominal increase, but an increase nonetheless, especially given the fact that the White House budget had proposed a $4.5 billion cut to the DOL. That said, many subagencies within DOL will receive flat funding or cuts to their funding. Key subagencies will receive the following appropriations:

• Wage and Hour Division: $260 million (FY 2025 enacted, $260 million)
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): $629 million (FY 2025 enacted, $632 million)
• Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA): $191 million (FY 2025 enacted, $191 million)
• Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP): $101 million (FY 2025, $111 million). The White House’s budget, as well as the House Republicans’ underlying bill, eliminated OFCCP entirely. Other DOL subagencies that were targeted for elimination but will now receive funding include the Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) (funded at $116 million) and the Women’s Bureau ($23 million).

Finally, the legislation appropriates approximately $294 million for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), about $5 million less than currently enacted. The Board lost about 10 percent of its workforce in 2025 due to retirement and deferred resignations. The legislation also includes a “legacy rider” (language that has been included in the bill since the Buzz can remember) that prohibits the NLRB from “issu[ing] any new administrative directive or regulation that would provide employees any means of voting through any electronic means in an election to determine a representative for the purposes of collective bargaining.”

EEOC Rescinds 2024 Harassment Guidance. By a vote of 2–1, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rescinded its “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace,” which was finalized in 2024. Republican Commissioner Brittany Bull Panuccio and Chair Andrea Lucas, also a Republican, emphasized that the rescission of the harassment guidance does not diminish employees’ or applicants’ rights under federal law—that workplace harassment is unlawful with or without the guidance. They further emphasized that the Commission continues to bring harassment-based charges against employers and maintained that the guidance is essentially a substantive rule that exceeds the Commission’s authority under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On the other hand, Democratic Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal—who voted against rescinding the guidance—argued that the guidance provides helpful information to employees and employers and urged the Commission to solicit public input and take a more targeted approach to amending the guidance. Nonnie L. Shivers, T. Scott Kelly, and Zachary V. Zagger have the details.

Speaker Johnson Addresses Parliament. This week, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) became the first Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives to address the UK Parliament. Invited by Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the UK House of Commons, Speaker Johnson’s address celebrated the 250th anniversary of the United States, and focused on the shared bonds between the two countries:

“But again, the surest way that we protect a special relationship long term is by renewing and recommitting to our foundational principles. As Churchill taught us, the strongest alliances are between kindred countries of kindred principles. What has always set us apart from the rest of the world is our commitment to liberty, our pursuit of excellence, our desire to put faith and family at the center of our lives.”

In 1976, Speaker of the House Carl Albert (a Democrat from Oklahoma) was invited as a guest to Speaker’s House, the official residence of the Speaker of the House of Commons, by Speaker of the UK House of Commons George Thomas to celebrate the United States’ bicentennial. Albert did not address Parliament.

Quick Hits

• On January 17, 2026, outgoing New Jersey governor Phil Murphy signed into law a bill that will expand the reach and protections of the NJFLA.
• The new law also appears to greatly expand state law, including new job-protection provisions for employees taking medical leave.
• The new law takes effect on July 17, 2026, six months following its enactment.

Smaller Employers Affected and Newer Employees Eligible

The new law amends the NJFLA to cover small employers and reduce the minimum amount of time an employee must be employed before being eligible for leave.

The NJFLA currently provides twelve weeks of leave every twenty-four months to eligible employees who require time off to care for a seriously ill family member or bond with a new child. To be eligible for NJFLA leave under existing law, an employee must: (1) work for an employer with thirty or more employees; (2) have been employed at least twelve months; and (3) have worked at least 1,000 hours in the twelve months preceding the requested leave start date.

The new legislation changes each of these eligibility requirements. Now, an employee will be eligible for NJFLA leave if the employee: (1) works for an employer with fifteen or more employees; (2) has been employed for at least three months; and (3) has worked at least 250 hours in the preceding three months.

New Medical Leave Job-Protection Provisions

The new law also appears to greatly expand state law to include new job-protection provisions for employees taking medical leave and receiving state Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) benefits. Currently, the NJFLA (unlike the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)) does not provide job-protected leave for an employee’s own serious medical condition. Under the new law, employees receiving state TDI benefits for their own medical condition must be restored to the same job they had before taking leave, or a job that is equivalent in terms of “seniority, status, employment benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment.”

Although this amendment to the TDI law does not describe this as a new “leave” right, the job restoration requirement may effectively create a new job-protected medical leave entitlement. Further, since employees are eligible for up to twenty-six weeks of state TDI benefits, the new law may provide for up to twenty-six weeks of medical leave—a truly remarkable change in the law, providing fourteen more weeks of job protection than is currently available under the FMLA.

Whether the new law in fact creates a new twenty-six–week, job-protected medical leave entitlement, or perhaps simply requires restoration to prior employment when an employee returns from leave under an employer’s existing medical leave policy or takes leave under the FMLA is unclear.

Ability to Choose Order of Earned Sick Leave and Temporary Disability Benefits

Additionally, if an employee is eligible for earned sick leave under New Jersey’s Earned Sick Leave Law and eligible for TDI benefits, the employee may choose “the order in which the different kinds of leave are taken,” but will not receive more than one kind of paid leave at the same time.

What This Means for Employers

The law takes effect on July 17, 2026, six months following its enactment. Given the extraordinary changes the new law appears to implement, we hope state authorities will issue guidance and clarification immediately to address, among other things, whether the law in fact requires up to twenty-six weeks of job-protected medical leave and, if so, how the law interacts with the FMLA. In the meantime, employers will want to review and modify their current policies to be prepared for the law’s enactment.

Ogletree Deakins’ Morristown office and the Leaves of Absence/Reasonable Accommodation Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Leaves of Absence and New Jersey blogs as additional information becomes available.

In addition, the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal tracks developments and provides real-time updates on Leaves and New Jersey’s employment laws, including the NJFLA. 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 to inquire about a Client Portal subscription, please reach out to clientportal@ogletree.com.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The EEOC voted 2–1 along party lines to rescind the 2024 anti-harassment guidance that recognized harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity as unlawful under Title VII.
• The reversal aligns with the Trump administration and EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas’s federal policy shift to define sex as immutable and binary.
• This rescission follows a federal court ruling that the EEOC had overstepped its authority with the original guidance, finding it had unlawfully broadened the interpretation of sex-based discrimination.

The 2024 harassment guidance, which was adopted in a 3–2 vote, broadly updated the EEOC’s interpretations of anti-harassment protections under federal law, but notably, it addressed new positions on harassment based on “race” and “color” and pregnancy and childbirth, as well as sex-based harassment against LGBTQ+ individuals.

The guidance came on the heels of the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from making hiring or termination decisions as to employees or applicants based on their gender identity (including being transgender) or sexual orientation as unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. However, a federal court in Texas vacated portions of the guidance in May 2025, finding that the EEOC had exceeded its authority.

Despite the court order, EEOC Chair Lucas, who voted against adopting the guidance in 2024, targeted the guidance for formal rescission. Chair Lucas has nevertheless recognized (including in her confirmation hearing testimony) that Bostock remains good law as to hiring, firing, and promotion decisions.

Commissioner Brittany Panuccio, another Trump appointee who was confirmed to the Commission in October 2025, joined Lucas in voting to rescind the guidance. Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal, a Biden appointee, voted against rescission, while criticizing the Commission for rescinding the guidance document in its entirety instead of excising parts with which the majority disagrees.

The vote comes a week after the EEOC voted to change its procedures for voting on agency policies and enforcement changes, granting the chair the authority to deny requests from other commissioners to hold public or private meetings to consider changes.

EEOC’s 2024 Harassment Guidance

The 2024 harassment guidance was the first significant update to the EEOC’s interpretations of the legal standards and employer liability for unlawful harassment under federal law in more than two decades. It outlined the EEOC’s prior decisions and enforcement strategy that discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity is a form of unlawful sex-based discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The guidance had specifically recognized certain conduct as potentially unlawful harassment, such as:

• “outing,” or the deliberate disclosure of an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity without their permission;
• other harassing conduct toward an individual because “not present in a manner that would stereotypically be associated with that person’s sex”;
• misgendering, meaning the “repeated and intentional” use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with an individual’s “known” gender identity; and
• the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with an individual’s gender identity.

The guidance also expanded the explanation of potential harassment based on “color” under Title VII, taking the position that color-based harassment could occur between employees of the same race or national origin.

Additionally, the guidance also took the position that harassment based on childbirth, or related medical conditions, “can include issues such as lactation; using or not using contraception; or deciding to have, or not to have, an abortion,” if that harassment “is linked to a targeted individual’s sex.”

In May 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that EEOC had exceeded its authority because the guidance “contravenes Title VII’s plain text by expanding the scope of ‘sex’ beyond the biological binary.” The court vacated the portions addressing accommodations for bathrooms, dress, and pronouns. Following that order, the EEOC added a disclaimer to the published guidance and highlighted portions that had been vacated.

Shift in EEOC Enforcement

The rescission of the 2024 guidance comes after then-Acting EEOC Chair Lucas, in January 2025, removed language from several materials from its internal and external websites and other documents to align with President Donald Trump’s inauguration day executive order, EO 14168, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” That EO directed federal agencies to “enforce laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations to protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes.”

At that time, Lucas targeted the 2024 guidance as requiring EEOC approval, calling the guidance “fundamentally flawed.” Lucas also previously issued a statement on the guidance, arguing that protections for sexual orientation or gender identity, including regarding pronouns and bathroom access, unlawfully expand on the Bostock holding, which applies to hiring or termination decisions.

Next Steps

The rescission of the guidance removes employer guidance on potential unlawful harassment and signals a shift in the EEOC’s enforcement. The EEOC’s interpretations in the now rescinded nonbinding guidance may still be helpful for employers to understand the law and potential harassment claims that can be pursued by litigants. While the EEOC’s step with a quorum is not surprising given shifting federal policy and priorities, employers could still face employee claims and liability for unlawful harassment, and the Bostock decision remains binding Supreme Court precedent. Employers may want to remain acutely aware of all applicable law, including applicable state, local, and federal law.

Ogletree Deakins’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance Practice Group and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Employment Law, Governmental Affairs, 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

• USCIS will continue to accept adjustment of status filings based on the Dates for Filing Chart in February 2026.
• All EB-3 categories advance, except India and China-mainland.
• EB-4 Certain Religious Workers (SR) is Unavailable (U) in February 2026 due to the program’s sunset on January 30, 2026.

Final Action Dates

The final action dates in the EB-3 category advance for all countries except for China-mainland and India in the February 2026 Visa Bulletin. Additionally, the EB-4 Certain Religious Workers subcategory is unavailable (U) for all countries in February 2026. No movement is shown for all other categories.

• EB-1: No movement is shown. The final action date for China-mainland and India remains February 1, 2023; all other countries continue to be current.
• EB-2: No movement is shown.
• EB-3: All countries advance except for China-mainland (which remains at May 1, 2021) and India (which remains at November 15, 2013). All other countries advance by just over one month to June 1, 2023.
• EB-4: No movement is shown.
• EB‑4 Certain Religious Workers: Unavailable (U).
• EB-5: No movement is shown.

Source: U.S. Department of State, February 2026 Visa Bulletin, Final Action Dates Chart

Dates for Filing

The dates for filing in the EB-3 category advance for all countries except for China-mainland and India in the February 2026 Visa Bulletin. Additionally, the EB-4 Certain Religious Workers subcategory is Unavailable (U) for all countries in February 2026. No movement is shown for all other categories.

• EB-1: No movement is shown. August 1, 2023, remains the date for filing for China-mainland and India. All other countries remain current. EB-2: No movement is shown.
• EB-3: All countries advance except for China-mainland and India. All other countries advance by three months to October 1, 2023.
• EB-4: No movement is shown.
• EB‑4 Certain Religious Workers: Unavailable (U).
• EB-5: No movement is shown.

Source: U.S. Department of State, February 2026 Visa Bulletin, Dates for Filing Chart

Key Takeaways

With advancement in the final action dates, more applicants will become eligible to complete the final step of the permanent residency process. Additionally, applicants who became eligible to file their Adjustment of Status (AOS) application from November 2025 through January 2026, as outlined in the Dates for Filing Chart, will have at least another month to submit their applications.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Muldrow’s lowered standard of harm for discrete discriminatory acts under Title VII does not apply to hostile work environment claims, according to the Tenth Circuit.
• A circuit split exists on this issue, with the Sixth Circuit reaching the opposite conclusion.
• Employers may face different standards for hostile work environment claims depending on jurisdiction.

Background

In Russell v. Driscoll, a civilian employee at a U.S. Army hospital alleged that his female supervisor treated the men in her division poorly compared with female employees. Following multiple complaints, the Army investigated and determined that the supervisor had, in fact, engaged in gender discrimination in violation of the Army’s equal-opportunity policy.

The employee filed internal complaints, followed by a lawsuit claiming that his supervisor had created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. The federal district court granted summary judgment for the Army, finding that the supervisor’s actions did not meet the standard for establishing an unlawful hostile work environment.

Legal Framework

Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex, encompassing two major categories: (1) discrete discriminatory acts arising from specific employment decisions (such as discharge or demotion) and (2) hostile work environment harassment claims based on a series of smaller actions that add up to create a negative work environment.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow resolved a circuit split over whether an employee “must meet a heightened threshold of harm—be it dubbed significant, serious, or something similar” to assert a viable Title VII discrimination claim based on a discrete employment action. The Court rejected the heightened standard, holding that an employee “need show only some injury respecting her employment terms or conditions.” (Emphasis added).

For hostile work environment claims, long-standing Supreme Court precedent requires an employee to show that “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” Courts have traditionally viewed this as setting a high bar for such claims.

The Court’s Opinion

The employee argued that Muldrow’s lessened standard should apply to hostile work environment claims in addition to discrete employment action claims. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, holding that the Supreme Court had not expressly overruled its standard for hostile work environment claims and that Muldrow’s analysis was not applicable to such claims. As the court explained, the severe or pervasive nature of the underlying conduct “is integral to determining whether any actionable Title VII injury occurred” and applying the Muldrow standard would wholly undermine the hostile work environment claim.

In arriving at this holding, the Tenth Circuit noted that the Sixth Circuit had reached a different result, though it was unclear whether Muldrow’s impact on hostile work environment claims was actually contested in that case. The Tenth Circuit strongly rejected the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, asserting that applying Muldrow would essentially “gut[] the very thing that distinguishes hostile-environment claims from discrete-act claims.”

The Tenth Circuit also noted that the Fourth and Fifth Circuits had issued unpublished decisions (which carry less weight as precedent) aligning with the Tenth Circuit’s approach, although, like the Sixth Circuit case, it was unclear whether the issue was actually contested in either case.

Takeaways for Employers

At least in the Tenth Circuit—and likely in the Fourth and Fifth Circuits—employers can take some reassurance that employees must still meet a high bar to establish a viable hostile work environment claim under Title VII. But as other courts consider the issue, the existing circuit split may deepen, and different standards could apply across jurisdictions—unless and until the Supreme Court provides a definitive answer.

Ogletree Deakins’ Employment Law Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Employment Law and State Developments blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• “Ley Silla”—the Chair Law—took effect in June 2025, with Labor Ministry inspections starting in December 2025.
• App‑based couriers have been recognized as employees since June 2025.
• SIQAL, the Labor Ministry portal for anonymously filing complaints and reporting workplace accidents, has been live since September 2025.
• The minimum wage increased 13 percent, effective January 1, 2026. The daily, monthly, and annual UMA‑indexed amounts will increase 3.69 percent over the 2025 UMA rates, effective February 1, 2026.
• The Labor Ministry’s inspections are expected to tighten up enforcement throughout 2026, through all kind of visits.

2025 Labor and Employment Roundup

Mexico saw several initiatives from late 2024 gain traction in 2025, translating into concrete obligations for employers across industries.

Chair Law. The Chair Law (“Ley Silla”) was published on December 19, 2024, and became enforceable in June 2025. The Chair Law requires employers to provide a sufficient number of seats with backrests for employees and to refrain from prohibiting seated breaks when the nature of the work allows it. While the obligations had been in place since June, labor authorities initiated formal inspections on this topic in December 2025.

App-based couriers as employees. Amendments to the Federal Labor Law recognizing app‑based couriers as employees were published on December 24, 2024, and took effect in June 2025. The reforms established a regulatory framework intended to protect couriers who provide services through digital platforms and to provide legal certainty to the sector. Employers and platforms operating in this space may want to review their contracting models, onboarding, social security registration, benefit accruals, and health and safety obligations to ensure they align with an employment relationship.

INFONAVIT Loans. On February 22, 2025, amendments to the National Housing Fund Institute for Workers Law (INFONAVIT) law were published. Although approved early in 2025, their practical relevance increased toward the end of the year due to criteria issued by INFONAVIT and the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación). Employers may want to validate payroll configurations, contributions, and employee communications to ensure proper handling of INFONAVIT rights, deductions, and any new procedural requirements.

SIQAL (whistleblowing tool): A New Way to Submit Complaints and Report Workplace Accidents in Mexico. Since September 2025, the SIQAL portal—run by the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social (STPS))—has provided a centralized, anonymous channel for filing labor complaints and reporting workplace accidents. This tool spans issues from general labor noncompliance to unsafe working conditions.

Preparing for 2026

With 2025 now closed, employers may want to prepare for new financial thresholds, potential legislative changes, and increased enforcement intensity in 2026.

Minimum Wage. On December 3, 2025, The National Commission on Minimum Wages (Comisión Nacional de los Salarios Mínimos (CONASAMI)) approved a 13 percent increase to the minimum wage effective January 1, 2026.

Update of Mexico’s Unit of Measure. On January 12, 2026, the National Institute of Statistics and Geography announced an increase to Mexico’s Unit of Measure and Update (UMA), setting it at $117.31 MXN per day, effective February 1, 2026.

Risk premium update. The Mexican Social Security Institute (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS)) requires employers to review and, where applicable, update their risk premium based on the prior year’s workplace accidents and occupational diseases. Employers must prepare and submit the annual report of work accidents for the relevant period and confirm that classification, contribution rates, and supporting documentation are accurate and complete (due February of every year).

Forty-Hour Workweek. The initiative to reduce the workweek to forty hours was reintroduced to the Congress of the Union, with the latest proposal suggesting enforceability beginning in 2027. Although there is no definitive approval date, Mexico’s current administration has treated the matter as a priority, and approval is plausible in 2026. Employers may want to model staffing, scheduling, overtime exposure, and cost scenarios under a forty‑hour framework and consider collective bargaining implications.

World Cup 2026. With Mexico co‑hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup, there has been public discussion about declaring the opening day a holiday in Mexico City. This has not been confirmed, but employers may want to monitor official announcements, and employees’ vacations / absenteeism trends to be prepared to approach the World Cup.

T-MEC (USMCA) trade agreement. Review of the Mexico-United States-Canada Treaty is scheduled for discussion on July 1, 2026, with an emphasis on compliance with labor and energy commitments. Potential adjustments could affect sectors such as automotive and technology. Employers may want to monitor the review’s outcomes and anticipate supply chain, compliance, and labor‑relations impacts over the medium term if revisions are adopted.

Workplace Inspections. Given the heightened regulatory focus and the new and amended obligations described above, workplace inspections are likely to become more frequent and more granular. Authorities may emphasize compliance with the Chair Law, INFONAVIT obligations, general working conditions, accident reporting, and proper classification of platform‑based workers. Employers may want to prioritize audit‑ready documentation, ensure internal policies reflect current law, and conduct periodic compliance reviews.

Ogletree Deakins’ Mexico City office will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Cross-Border and Mexico blogs as additional information becomes available.

Pietro Straulino-Rodríguez is the managing partner of the Mexico City office of Ogletree Deakins.

Natalia Merino Moreno is an associate in the Mexico City office of Ogletree Deakins.

María José Bladinieres is a law clerk in the Mexico City office of Ogletree Deakins.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Mexico’s Unit of Measure (UMA) is updated annually and is mostly used to establish amounts that must be paid for penalties imposed by Mexican authorities.
• Employers must consider this unit to comply with the penalties and verify which unit is applicable.

Daily, Monthly, and Annual Amounts

Each year, the National Institute of Statistics and Geography calculates this unit and sets the amounts on a daily, monthly, and annual basis. The UMA amounts for 2026 will increase by 3.69 percent over the 2025 amounts and are as follows:

1. Daily: $117.31 MXN, increased from $113.14 in 2025 (approximately $6.55 USD, up from $6.49 USD in 2025)
2. Monthly: $3,566.22 MXN, increased from $3,439.46 in 2025 (approximately $199.01 USD, up from $197.41 USD in 2025)
3. Annual: $42,794.64 MXN, increased from $41,273.52 in 2025 (approximately $2,388.45 USD, up from $2,368.94 USD in 2025)

The increase in the UMA has direct implications for the payment of penalties, fines, and other contributions related to employers’ breach of their labor and employment obligations.

Ogletree Deakins’ Mexico City office will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Cross-Border and Mexico blogs as additional information becomes available.

Pietro Straulino-Rodríguez is the managing partner of the Mexico City office of Ogletree Deakins.

Natalia Merino Moreno is an associate in the Mexico City office of Ogletree Deakins.

María José Bladinieres is a law clerk in the Mexico City office of Ogletree Deakins.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• In July 2024 Massachusetts enacted An Act Relative to Salary Range Transparency, which includes a requirement that covered employers report their EEO-1 workforce demographic data to the state each year.
• Covered employers must use an online portal to submit their EEO-1 reports.
• The deadline to file the data for the 2025 reports is February 2, 2026.

The federal government requires certain employers to submit workforce demographic data in a report, called an EEO-1 form, each year. Under Massachusetts’s 2024 pay transparency reporting law, An Act Relative to Salary Range Transparency, employers that had one hundred or more employees in Massachusetts at any time during the prior calendar year (and which are subject to EEO-1 reporting obligations) must send their most recent EEO-1 report to the state each year. For the 2025 filings that are due by February 2, 2026, employers that file EEO-1 reports must determine if they had one hundred or more employees in Massachusetts at any time during calendar year 2025. The published materials do not discuss remote employees.

The state maintains a portal that employers must use to submit their most recent EEO-1 report.

The portal does not require login information, but it allows the direct upload of the reports through the provided link. The instructions direct filers to make sure the uploaded file name contains the legal name of the filing entity and the type of report being filed, such as EEO-1 reports. The instructions provide contact information for several agencies that can answer questions concerning the implementation and interpretation of the filing requirement. During the first year of filings the portal did not provide confirmations of filings. For this reason, filers may want to consider alternative means of confirming their filings have been made.

The Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development (EOLWD) has published guidance in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to help employers comply with the workforce demographic reporting requirements. The FAQs include a discussion of which report should be submitted.

The FAQs state in a special notice that the deadline to submit this year’s EEO reports is February 2, 2026.

Next Steps

Massachusetts employers may wish to make the necessary preparations to file the required reports with the state before the deadline using the online portal. As a reminder, EOWLD has stated that employers need only file the most recent EEO-1 reports they have, and they do not need to include any form of wage data. The filing platform for the 2025 EEO-1 reports has not opened yet.

Ogletree Deakins’ Boston office, Government Contracting and Reporting Practice Group, Multistate Advice and Counseling Practice Group, and Pay Equity Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Government Contracting and Reporting, Massachusetts, Multistate Compliance, and Pay Equity blogs as new information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit provided guidance in a recent unpublished opinion on leave and remote work as reasonable accommodations under the ADA and West Virginia Human Rights Act.
• Indefinite leave is not a reasonable accommodation as a matter of law.
• Remote work is not a reasonable accommodation for an employee who is receiving short-term disability insurance benefits, which typically are awarded only when an employee cannot work at all.

Background

The employer approved eight weeks of remote work for an account manager experiencing pregnancy complications, followed by twelve weeks of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) parental bonding leave after she gave birth to twins. Due to severe childbirth-related complications, the employee required surgery that imposed significant physical restrictions, and she was approved for short-term disability (STD) benefits under her employer’s STD policy through her anticipated return date.

When the employee failed to return as expected, the employer contacted her. The employee stated she remained unable to work, that her STD benefits had been extended, and directed the employer not to contact her about a return date. The employer responded that her FMLA leave was exhausted, that STD benefits were separate from protected leave, and that her directive not to be contacted was unacceptable. The employee replied that she had another surgery scheduled for the following week with a four-to-six-week recovery period and possibly additional surgery thereafter. The employer then terminated her employment, citing the critical nature of her position and its inability to hold her job any longer.

The employee sued, alleging that the employer failed to accommodate her under the West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA), the state’s equivalent to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, concluding that the employee was still unable to work after six months of leave and had not demonstrated the existence of a reasonable accommodation that would meet her needs. This appeal followed.

The Fourth Circuit’s Decision

The Fourth Circuit applied the ADA’s standards in evaluating the employee’s state law claims. The ADA obligates employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities, absent an undue hardship on their business operations. A reasonable accommodation is any modification or adjustment to a job or work environment that allows an employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of the employee’s role or to enjoy the same benefits and privileges of employment as other employees. Such accommodations can include leave and remote work—both of which can be difficult for employers to manage.

In affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer, the Fourth Circuit highlighted several key points on reasonable accommodations:

• An indefinite period of leave is not reasonable. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the longstanding principle that “an employer is not required to give a disabled employee an indefinite period of time to correct a disabling condition that renders him unqualified.” (Internal citations and quotations omitted).
• A reasonable accommodation should enable an employee to perform essential functions now or in the near future. While the Fourth Circuit acknowledged that a precise return-to-work date is not required, it noted that the key issue is whether the employee can return at any point in the near future. Here, even after six months of leave, the employee was unable to provide even an approximate return-to-work date.
• Remote work is not a reasonable accommodation for employees who cannot work. The Fourth Circuit observed that, contrary to the employee’s argument, her ability to work remotely prior to giving birth is not necessarily determinative of her ability to work remotely after giving birth. Furthermore, the Fourth Circuit noted that the employee’s statements about being unable to return to work pending multiple surgeries, as well as her receipt of short-term disability benefits, which are awarded when employees are unable to perform their job, confirmed that the employee was unable to work. Consequently, her requested accommodation of remote work was not reasonable. 

Implications for Employers

This case offers several considerations for employers regarding leave and remote work as reasonable accommodations under the ADA:

• Indefinite Leave Is Not a Reasonable Accommodation: Employers are not required to grant an indefinite period of leave as a reasonable accommodation. A specific return-to-work date may not be realistic, but it is reasonable to request at least an approximate date for such return.
• Leave Cannot Impose an Undue Hardship: A return-to-work date does not render the leave automatically reasonable, however. Depending on the circumstances, extended leaves, and even shorter leave periods, may impose an undue hardship that would enable employers to deny the leave request.
• The Interactive Process Is Key: The communication between the employee and employer to clarify the employee’s limitations and assess possible accommodations is a vital part of the reasonable accommodation obligation. It is important for both the employer and employee to participate in this process; the employee cannot simply refuse to provide information, as we have previously discussed.
• Shifting Circumstances May Result in Shifting Accommodations. As we previously noted, accommodations are not set in stone. What may have been reasonable previously may not necessarily be reasonable in the future if circumstances have changed significantly. Thus, although an employee may have previously been allowed to work remotely, that does not mean that remote work continues to be a reasonable accommodation.
• STD Benefits May Mean the Employee Is Unable to Perform His or Her Job Functions. The receipt of STD benefits may indicate that the employee is not capable of performing his or her job functions, including on a remote basis. This understanding can help guide employer decisions on whether the requested accommodation is reasonable.

These principles may assist an employer in navigating the complexities of leave and remote work as possible accommodations, and help ensure compliance with the ADA and state laws.

Ogletree Deakins’ Leaves of Absence/Reasonable Accommodation Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Employment Law, Leaves of Absence, and State Developments blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On February 27, 2024, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) against the State of Texas as an employer, holding that the U.S. Congress passed the law—part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023—in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s quorum requirements.
• On August 15, 2025, after the federal government appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel reached a split decision, ultimately reversing the district court’s order and holding that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—the agency charged with enforcement of the PWFA—could enforce the PWFA against the State of Texas.
• Now, an en banc panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case and decide. It is likely that the issue will ultimately reach the Supreme Court of the United States.

The PWFA, which went into effect on June 27, 2023, requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation to workers for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, “unless such [a] covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business.”

In late 2022, the U.S. Congress passed the PWFA as part of a funding package under consideration, with only 205 members of the U.S. House of Representatives voting in person in favor of it. The State of Texas then sued the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and other federal agencies, arguing that because only 205 members of Congress were physically present to vote on the PWFA, the House of Representatives had lacked a valid quorum. Two hundred twenty-six votes were cast by House members who voted by proxy in favor of the law. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed, holding that Congress had passed the PWFA using an unconstitutional congressional rule implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, which permitted non-present congressional members to vote by proxy and thus be counted toward quorum requirements.

The Fifth Circuit panel’s majority disagreed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, finding that the vote-by-proxy rule was not unconstitutional and that congressional lawmakers had not needed to vote in person to reach a quorum. In dissent, the panel’s minority found that the vote-by-proxy rule was unconstitutional and that Congress had exceeded its authority when passing the PWFA without a quorum.

Now, a full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel will decide.

Ogletree Deakins’ Leaves of Absence/Reasonable Accommodation Practice Group will continue to monitor and report on developments with respect to the PWFA and will provide updates on the firm’s Employment Law, Leaves of Absence, and State Developments blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts