“Trump NLRB” Takes Shape. As the Buzz forecast last week, on December 11, 2025, the U.S. Senate approved a package of ninety-seven executive branch nominees. Included in the package were Scott Mayer and James Murphy—both nominated to fill empty seats on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—as well as Crystal Carey, who will now be the Board’s general counsel.

With Mayer and Murphy joining current Democratic member David Prouty, the Board has a functional quorum for the first time since January of this year. But even though Republicans will have a majority, reversing Biden-era Board decisions may not be so easy. While not required by law, traditionally, the Board does not overturn case precedent without at least three affirmative votes. If Mayer and Murphy adhere to this tradition, it means they will need one additional vote—likely from a future Republican nominee—to reverse Board cases issued between 2021 and 2024.

Court of Appeals Upholds Removal of NLRB, MSPB Members. On December 5, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed district court rulings that found President Donald Trump’s removal of Gwynne Wilcox from the NLRB and Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protections Board (MSPB) were unlawful. In reversing the lower courts’ decisions, the court of appeals ruled that these terminations were lawful because the statutory language prescribing fixed terms for members of the NLRB and MSPB, while allowing for removal for neglect of duty or malfeasance, unconstitutionally limits the president’s ability to remove agency officials who wield executive power on his or her behalf. With specific regard to the Board, the court of appeals determined that the agency wields significant executive authority, including the power to promulgate regulations, craft national labor policy through adjudication, order remedies through enforcement authority, conduct litigation, and oversee union elections.

CBP Proposes Social Media Vetting for Tourists, Short-Term Business Travelers. In a notice published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2025, and pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is soliciting public comment on proposed changes to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). With an ESTA approval, most nationals of Visa Waiver Program countries are permitted to travel to the United States for business or tourism for ninety days or less without obtaining a visa. Specifically, CBP proposes to “require ESTA applicants to provide their social media from the last 5 years.” Comments must be submitted by February 9, 2026.

The administration has already initiated similar social media vetting protocols as applied to F, J, and M visa holders and, most recently, to H-1B visa holders.

DOL Seeks to Help Faith-Based Organizations. On December 10, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published a Federal Register notice titled, “Addressing Barriers to Participation of Faith Organizations in DOL Programs and Funding.” The notice seeks input from responders on “specific DOL regulations, guidance, or policies, explicitly or implicitly restrict or discourage faith-based organizations from participating in DOL-funded programs (e.g., job training, workforce development, or employment services).” Specifically, DOL seeks information regarding potential “accommodations, policies, or tools could DOL develop to ensure faith organizations receive reasonable accommodations for their religious beliefs and practices” to participate in DOL programs. Comments must be submitted by February 9, 2026.

The solicitation of information is consistent with the current administration’s efforts to support faith-based groups and target religious-based discrimination.

USCIS Cuts Work Authorization Times. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has updated its policy manual to amend the maximum validity period for Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for certain foreign nationals. Effective December 5, 2025, the maximum EAD validity period for the following foreign nationals will be reduced from five years to eighteen months:

• Those admitted as a refugee
• Those granted asylum
• Those granted withholding of deportation or removal
• Those with a pending application for asylum or withholding of deportation or removal
• Those with a pending application for adjustment of status under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 245
• Those with a pending application for suspension of deportation, cancellation of removal, or relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA)

The changes do not impact those holding H-1B visas, for which work authorization is tied to approval of the underlying petition.

House Passes Bill to Honor Women in World War II. This week, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed H.R. 2290, the World War II Women’s Memorial Location Act. Language in the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act authorizes the Women Who Worked on the Home Front Foundation to “establish a commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia and its environs to commemorate the commitment and service represented by women who worked on the home front during World War II.” The World War II Women’s Memorial Location Act, which now heads to the U.S. Senate, builds on this authorizing language by specifically selecting a location on the National Mall for construction of the memorial. The genesis of the memorial dates to 2012, when then-fifth-grade student Raya Kenney designed the memorial as part of a school project. Kenney is now the founder and executive director of the WWII Women’s Memorial Foundation, which will provide all the funds for the construction of the memorial.

Quick Hits

• Columbus, Ohio, enacted an ordinance requiring employers with fifteen or more employees in the city to disclose reasonable salary ranges or pay scales in job postings.
• The ordinance took effect on December 3, 2025, but enforcement will be delayed until January 1, 2027, allowing employers time to adjust their job postings and compensation structures to comply with the new requirements.
• The ordinance aligns with similar municipal laws in Ohio, such as those in Cleveland, Toledo, and Cincinnati, which are all aimed at increasing pay transparency, yet Ohio does not have a statewide pay transparency law.

On November 4, 2025, Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther signed Columbus Ordinance 2898-2025, amending Chapter 2335 of the Columbus City Codes—which prohibits salary history inquiries—to require pay transparency in job postings.

Ordinance 2898-2025 went into effect on December 3, 2025, but enforcement against employers will be delayed until January 1, 2027.

Compensation Disclosure

The ordinance requires employers with fifteen or more employees within the city to “provide a reasonable salary range or scale for potential employment” in job postings, meaning compensation. The requirement applies to job postings, meaning both solicitations to recruit applicants for a specific position and postings, either “done electronically” or in “a printed hard copy,” that “includes a description of the position and/or qualifications of desired applicants.”

Reasonable Salary Range

Under the ordinance, employers must provide a “reasonable salary range or scale for potential employment,” referring to financial compensation that includes but is not limited to “wages, commissions, hourly earnings, and other monetary earnings.”

The ordinance sets forth a nonexhaustive list of factors for the “reasonableness” of a posted salary range:

• employer’s budget flexibility,
• anticipated pay ranges requested by qualified applicants,
• potential variation in the position’s responsibilities,
• opportunities for growth,
• cost of living in the location of the position, and
• market research on comparable positions.

These factors are insightful as employers continue to seek understanding of what constitutes a “reasonable” pay range in other jurisdictions.

Exclusions

The pay transparency requirements do not apply to postings that are “replicated and published without an employer’s consent” nor to postings for internal job transfers or promotions within an organization. The requirements also do not apply where compensation is determined by processes established by collective bargaining.

Enforcement

The requirements will be enforced by the Columbus Community Relations Commission under the city codes, which allow individuals to file complaints alleging discrimination. Employers that violate the requirements may be subject to civil penalties and even referral to the city prosecutor to evaluate for prosecution.

Pay Transparency in Ohio

In recent years, several local municipalities in Ohio have enacted laws requiring compensation disclosure with the goal of improving pay equity among employees. Interestingly, though, Ohio does not currently have a statewide pay transparency law.

The Columbus ordinance comes after a Cleveland pay transparency ordinance went into effect on October 27, 2025, requiring employers with fifteen or more employees in the city to “provide the [s]alary range or scale” in job postings and prohibiting inquiries into an applicant’s salary history. Columbus also prohibits employers from inquiring about job applicants’ wages, benefits, and other compensation during the hiring process, under an ordinance enacted in 2024.

Toledo and Cincinnati also have pay transparency laws but only require employers to provide pay ranges to applicants upon reasonable request.

Next Steps

Employers in Columbus may want to review their job postings and advertisements to ensure compliance with these new pay transparency obligations. Employers may further want to review their overall compensation structures with regard to desired compensation ranges and consistency throughout the organization.

Ogletree Deakins’ Pay Equity Practice Group and Columbus office will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Pay Equity and Ohio blogs as additional information becomes available.

In addition, the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal tracks developments and provides real-time updates on Pay Transparency / Job Postings and Ohio employment laws. Full law summaries are available for Premium-level subscribers. Snapshots and Updates are available for all registered client-users. For more information on the Client Portal or a Client Portal subscription, please reach out to clientportal@ogletree.com.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The U.S. Department of Justice recently published a final rule eliminating liability for disparate impact discrimination for organizations that receive federal money.
• Intentional discrimination, including disparate treatment based on race, color, or national origin, remains unlawful under Title VI.
• The rule took effect immediately.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives federal funding. Title VI prohibits employment discrimination only if employment is a primary objective of the federal investment, and the alleged discriminatory employment practices negatively affect the delivery of services to the program’s ultimate beneficiaries, such as students, patients, or those served by government agencies.

Disparate impact generally refers to when a neutral policy or practice disproportionately and negatively affects a legally protected group. Disparate impact does not require plaintiffs to prove an intent to discriminate existed. The original rule and regulations allowed agencies to consider federal-funding recipients’ policies and practices that had an alleged discriminatory effect.

The newly implemented rule clarifies that Title VI only prohibits intentional discrimination. Notably, Title VI is different from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which applies to all private employers with fifteen or more workers and prohibits discrimination against a broader range of protected characteristics based on disparate treatment and disparate impact theories of discrimination.

Data can still be used to prove discrimination under Title VI. The final rule states, “Eliminating disparate-impact liability does not preclude the use of data on disparate outcomes to help prove intentional discrimination. … This use of statistical disparity to help establish, as an evidentiary matter, liability for intentional discrimination materially differs from using it to impose liability for an unintentional disparate impact.”

The new rule eliminating disparate impact theory under Title VI comes on the heels of President Donald Trump’s executive order (EO) on April 23, 2025, broadly calling for an end to disparate-impact liability for discrimination and ordering federal agencies to stop enforcement of antidiscrimination laws based on disparate impact theories. The final rule aligns with that executive order.

Next Steps

Going forward, the DOJ will not pursue enforcement actions against organizations for disparate-impact discrimination under Title VI. However, some states’ antidiscrimination laws include liability for disparate impact. Employers may wish to review their policies and practices to ensure they comply with applicable state antidiscrimination laws.

In addition, in 2001, the Supreme Court of the United States found in Alexander v. Sandoval that individuals lack a private right of action to sue for disparate-impact discrimination under Title VI.

In defense against discrimination lawsuits, employers can present evidence that their employment decisions were based on valid business reasons, such as seniority, skill, education level, or business needs. Employers may wish to carefully document their nondiscriminatory reasons for hiring, firing, promoting, or demoting an employee. They also can track workforce analytics over time to determine if protected groups are experiencing disparate impacts. Such information may be useful for business strategy, recruiting, and retention, even when disparate-impact liability is not present.

Ogletree Deakins’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance Practice Group, Government Contracting and Reporting Practice Group, Higher Education 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, Government Contracting and Reporting, Higher Education, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as new 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.

Nonnie L. Shivers is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Phoenix office.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Nineteen states will increase their minimum wage rates in 2026.
• The federal minimum wage remains at $7.25 per hour for nontipped employees and $2.13 per hour for tipped employees (with a maximum tip credit of $5.12).

Please note the following:

• Minimum wage changes that will take effect on January 1, 2026, are shown in red text.
• This chart includes major localities with their own minimum wage rates that will increase in 2026. It is not exhaustive of all localities nationwide that may have a minimum wage different from the applicable state or federal rate.
• Jurisdictions that will not have, or have not yet announced, 2026 increases in their minimum wage rates generally are not included in the chart below.
• The federal minimum wage rate remains at $7.25 per hour for nontipped employees and $2.13 per hour for tipped employees (with a maximum tip credit of $5.12).

To expand and explore the full chart, please click the thumbnail below.

The Ogletree Deakins Client Portal provides subscribers with timely updates on wage and hour laws, including minimum wage and tip credit requirements. Our updated Minimum Wage and Minimum Wage Tip Credit state law maps and law summaries cover state and major locality current minimum wage and tip credit rates, new rates going into effect on January 1, 2026 (as reflected in the above table), and other future minimum wage and tip credit rates that states and major localities have published or announced. (Full law summaries are available for Premium-level subscribers; Snapshots and Updates are available for all registered client users.) For more information on the Client Portal or a Client Portal subscription, please reach out to clientportal@ogletree.com.

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

Follow and Subscribe

LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) aimed at halting state-level AI regulations, positioning it as part of a broader strategy to enhance U.S. leadership in AI technology and promote a uniform national policy.
• The EO establishes an “AI Litigation Task Force” to challenge state laws deemed unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful or preempted and directs federal agencies to report on and restrict funding to states that implement AI regulations.
• The move is expected to provoke resistance from states that have already enacted various AI regulations to address concerns such as bias, privacy, and transparency, highlighting the ongoing tension between federal and state approaches to AI governance.

The EO, entitled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” seeks to establish a uniform, minimally burdensome national standard for AI by challenging and limiting conflicting state AI laws, asserting federal preemption where appropriate, and marshals several federal agencies to take actions or withhold funding to stop such laws and regulations or at least deter states from considering laws or regulations that may restrict AI.

The EO directs the creation of a task force to challenge state AI laws, mandates a federal evaluation of “onerous” state AI laws, conditions certain federal funding on states’ AI laws being non-onerous, and initiates steps at various government agencies to develop federal standards and preemption positions regarding reporting, disclosure, and deceptive conduct mandates imposed on AI models.

“It is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome uniform national policy framework for AI,” the EO states.

‘AI Litigation Task Force’

The EO directs U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to establish within thirty days an “AI Litigation Task Force” within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) with the “sole responsibility” to challenge state AI laws in court, “including on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the Attorney General’s judgment.” The task force will consult with administration officials, including Special Advisor for AI and Crypto David Sacks.

Federal Evaluation of State AI Laws

Further, the EO directs Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick to produce within ninety days an evaluation of existing state AI laws identifying “onerous” laws that conflict with the EO’s policy, and refer those to the AI Litigation Task Force for potential challenge. The EO states that the evaluation must, “at a minimum, identify laws that either “require AI models to alter their truthful outputs” or compel disclosures/reporting in ways that could violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or other constitutional provisions.

Funding Conditions and Restrictions

The EO further directs the secretary of commerce to issue a policy notice conditioning access to certain federal funding on states’ AI regulatory posture. Specifically, the policy notice must set conditions under which states remain eligible for remaining funds under the federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, a $42.5 billion federal grant program for the expansion of high-speed internet infrastructure. The order specifies that states with laws identified as conflicting will be ineligible for nondeployment funds to the maximum extent allowed by federal law.

Federal agencies are further directed to assess whether discretionary grants can be conditioned on states refraining from enacting conflicting AI laws or agreeing not to enforce existing ones during any year they receive funding.

Federal Preemption and a National Framework

The EO directs the preparation of a legislative recommendation for establishing a uniform federal regulatory framework for AI that expressly preempts conflicting state AI laws.

The EO also directs the Federal Communications Commission chairman to initiate a proceeding to determine whether to adopt a federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting state laws. Additionally, the order directs the Federal Trade Commission chairman to issue within ninety days a policy statement on how the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices could apply to AI models, and clarify when state law requirements that AI outputs be altered are preempted by the FTC Act.

Potential State Pushback

The EO and resulting litigation challenges tied to it are likely to receive pushback from states. Several states and municipalities, including California, Colorado, Illinois, Texas, and New York City, have enacted laws or regulations that impose restrictions on the use and development of AI, including transparency obligations, notice requirements, antidiscrimination protections, and guardrails to protect safety. According to the Conference of State Legislatures, all fifty states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Washington, D.C., have introduced legislation on AI in 2025.

Next Steps

The EO is a coordinated federal initiative to consolidate AI regulation at the national level, challenge conflicting state laws, condition funding to discourage fragmentation, and launch federal preemption pathways through agency action and proposed legislation—all with the stated goal of accelerating U.S. AI innovation and safeguarding national and economic security.

 The order creates uncertainty over the growing number of state and local laws and regulations on AI and opens the door for states with conflicting laws to face restrictions on federal funds. Actions connected to the EO are likely to face legal resistance from states and other groups; presently, employers should stay mindful of the evolving legal obligations in various United States jurisdictions concerning AI, including those going into effect in early 2026 in Illinois and Texas.

For more information, please join us for our upcoming webinar, “New Executive Order Challenging State AI Laws: How Will Employers Be Impacted?” which will take place on Tuesday, December 16, 2025, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. EST. The speakers, Jennifer G. Betts, Danielle Ochs, and Nonnie L. Shivers, will discuss how this new EO and likely legal battles over new and existing state AI laws will impact employers. Register here.

Ogletree Deakins’ Cybersecurity and Privacy Practice Group, Technology Practice Group, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Cybersecurity and Privacy, Governmental Affairs, Technology, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The Washington State minimum wage for nonexempt employees sixteen years of age and older will increase 2.8 percent over the 2025 rate to $17.13 per hour in 2026.
• In order to qualify as an overtime-exempt worker, an employee must be paid at least 2.25 times the minimum wage rate, or $80,168.40 annually, regardless of the size of the employer.
• Several localities, including Seattle, Bellingham, Burien, Everett, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila, as well as unincorporated King County, will also increase their minimum wage rates in 2026.

Each year, the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) announces a cost-of-living adjustment to the state minimum wage rate based on the federal Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W).

The 2026 minimum wage rate represents a 2.8 percent increase, year-over-year, reflecting a slight rise in the rate of inflation over the past year. For comparison, the minimum wage rate increased 8.6 percent in 2023, 3.4 percent in 2024, and 2.3 percent in 2025.

Overtime-Exempt Workers

Effective January 1, 2026, overtime-exempt workers must meet certain job duty requirements and receive a salary that is 2.25 times the annual state minimum wage rate, regardless of the employer’s size. That equates to $80,168.40 annually, or $1,541.70 weekly. The rate is set to increase annually, according to the salary threshold implementation schedule released by L&I.

Overtime-Exempt Computer Professionals Paid on an Hourly Basis

Washington employers that pay overtime-exempt computer professionals on an hourly instead of a salary basis must pay at least 3.5 times the hourly minimum wage rate. In 2026, Washington employers must pay such overtime-exempt computer professionals at least $59.96 per hour.

Local Minimum Wage Increases

Seattle

Effective January 1, 2026, the City of Seattle’s minimum wage will increase to $21.30 per hour, regardless of employer size. This constitutes a 2.6 percent increase over the 2025 minimum wage rate of $20.76.

Bellingham

The City of Bellingham’s local minimum wage is exactly $2.00 above the Washington State minimum wage rate. Effective January 1, 2026, the minimum wage rate in Bellingham will be $19.13 per hour. This constitutes a 2.5 percent increase over the 2025 minimum wage rate of $18.66 per hour.

Burien

Effective January 1, 2026, large employers in Burien, with 500 or more full-time employees, are required to pay a minimum hourly wage of $21.63 per hour. Midsize employers (i.e., those with 21–499 full-time employees) are required to pay a minimum hourly wage of $20.63 per hour. Employers with twenty or fewer full-time employees are exempt from the local wage ordinance but are still subject to Washington’s state minimum wage.

In February 2025, Burien voters passed a local initiative to change how the City of Burien determines its minimum wage, but that initiative is currently being challenged in court. Burien employers should be aware of this litigation, as it may ultimately change Burien’s minimum wage requirements.

Everett

The City of Everett has announced that, effective January 1, 2026, large employers (i.e., those with 500 or more employees) must pay a minimum hourly rate of $20.77 per hour, which is an increase of 2.6 percent over the 2025 rate of $20.24 per hour. Also, effective January 1, 2026, employers with 15–499 employees, or annual gross income of over $2 million in revenue in Everett, are required to pay an hourly minimum wage of $18.77, which is an increase of 2.9 percent over the 2025 minimum wage rate of $18.24 per hour.

In addition, effective July 1, 2026, the minimum wage rate for those employers with 15–499 employees or an annual gross income of over $2 million in revenue in Everett will increase again to $19.77 per hour.

Renton

The City of Renton increases its minimum wage rate annually based on the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue area’s rate of inflation. Effective January 1, 2026, the minimum wage rate for “large” employers (i.e., those with 501 or more employees), will be $21.57 per hour. This is an increase of 3.2 percent over the 2025 minimum wage rate of $20.90 per hour. Also, effective January 1, 2026, the minimum wage rate for “mid-sized” employers (i.e., those employers with 15–499 employees worldwide or over $2 million of annual gross revenue in Renton) will be $20.57 per hour. Employers with fewer than fifteen employees are not subject to the local ordinance, but they are still subject to Washington’s state minimum wage.

In addition, effective July 1, 2026, the minimum wage rate for mid-sized employers in Renton will increase again to $21.57 per hour, so that all employers in Renton with at least fifteen employees will be subject to the same minimum hourly wage rate.

SeaTac

The City of SeaTac has announced that, effective January 1, 2026, the local minimum hourly wage rate for employees in the hospitality and transportation industry will be $20.74 per hour. This is an increase of 2.8 percent over the 2025 minimum wage rate of $20.17 per hour.

Tukwila

The City of Tukwila announced that, effective January 1, 2026, the minimum hourly wage will be $21.65 per hour for all employers, regardless of size. This represents a 2.6 percent increase over the 2025 local minimum wage rate.

Unincorporated King County

Effective January 1, 2026, for employers in areas of unincorporated King County, the minimum hourly wage rates are increasing as follows:

• Employers with 500 or more employees must pay a minimum hourly wage rate of $20.82 per hour.
• Employers with 16–499 employees must pay a minimum hourly wage rate of $19.82 per hour.
• Employers with fifteen or fewer employees and annual gross revenue of $2 million or more globally must pay a minimum hourly wage rate of $19.82 per hour.
• Employers with fifteen or fewer employees and annual gross revenue of less than $2 million globally must pay a minimum hourly wage rate of $18.32 per hour.

Employers in King County can determine if they are in an unincorporated area subject to these minimum wage rates by using King County’s interactive map.

Looking Ahead

Ogletree Deakins’ Seattle office and Wage and Hour Practice Group will continue to monitor and report on Washington State wage and hour developments and will provide updates on the firm’s Washington and Wage and Hour blogs as additional information becomes available.

In addition, state and federal wage information—in addition to other wage and hour information—is also available in the firm’s Client Portal, which is available to all Ogletree Deakins clients. Client Portal subscribers receive detailed wage and hour law summaries (including those specific to Washington), template forms, state law maps, and other related materials, which are updated as the law changes.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires employers to report any work‑related fatality within eight hours of learning of the death and to report any in‑patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye within twenty‑four hours of learning of the outcome. An in‑patient hospitalization is a formal admission to the in‑patient service of a hospital or clinic for care or treatment and excludes admissions to the emergency department only or admissions solely for observation or diagnostic testing. An amputation is the traumatic loss of a limb or other external body part, including fingertip amputations, with or without bone loss, and medical amputations resulting from irreparable damage, and excludes certain avulsions and similar conditions. If the employer does not learn of a reportable outcome immediately, the reporting clock begins when the employer knows or reasonably should know of the outcome.

Quick Hits

• Employers must report any work-related fatality within eight hours and any in-patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye within twenty-four hours of learning of the outcome, with specific exclusions for incidents occurring beyond certain time frames.
• Employers can report incidents to OSHA via the nearest area office, OSHA’s 24/7 toll-free number, or the Serious Event Reporting portal, ensuring all required details are included, and the scene is secured to prevent further harm.
• Certain high-hazard establishments with one hundred or more employees must submit case-level data from Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA, in addition to Form 300A, and should verify coverage annually using OSHA’s tools.

Two time‑limit exclusions are important and often misunderstood. Employers are not required to report a fatality that occurs more than thirty days after the work‑related incident or exposure. Employers are not required to report an in‑patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye that occurs more than twenty‑four hours after the work‑related incident or exposure. Incidents arising from motor vehicle accidents on public streets or highways or on public transportation systems are not reportable unless they occur in construction work zones. Regardless of reportability, recordability on the OSHA 300 Log depends on the recordkeeping criteria described in Part I, and employers must still record qualifying cases and update the Log as outcomes change.

Employers may report by contacting the nearest area office during business hours, calling OSHA’s 24/7 toll‑free number (800-321-OSHA), or submitting the report through OSHA’s Serious Event Reporting portal. Leaving a voicemail, sending a fax, or emailing a local office does not satisfy the reporting requirement if the office is closed. The report should include the establishment name, the location and time of the incident, the number and names of affected employees, a concise description of the incident, and the name and telephone number of a knowledgeable contact at the facility. Employers should secure the scene to preserve relevant evidence and prevent further harm while ensuring imminent hazards are abated promptly.

Reporting dovetails with recordkeeping and employee protections. Reporting a severe event triggers neither a presumption of a violation nor a waiver of recordkeeping duties; the employer must still evaluate work‑relatedness and recordability, prepare the Form 301, and make or update the Log entry within seven days. If a case later results in death within thirty days of the incident, the employer must both update the Log to reflect the fatality and ensure the eight‑hour reporting requirement was met upon learning of the death. Employers may use a workers’ compensation first report as an OSHA 301 equivalent if it captures all required information and is completed using OSHA’s instructions. Throughout, employers must maintain reasonable, non-retaliatory procedures for injury and illness reporting and ensure that incentive programs and post‑incident drug testing do not deter reporting.

State plans may impose additional or different reporting triggers, definitions, and timelines. For example, California requires immediate reporting, defined as “as soon as practically possible but no later than eight hours after the employer knows or with diligent inquiry would have known,” for serious injuries or illnesses and deaths, and defines serious injury to include in‑patient hospitalization for care or treatment, amputations, loss of an eye, or serious permanent disfigurement. Multi‑state employers should maintain a state‑by‑state matrix in their incident response plans that identifies definitions, timelines, and reporting channels, and they should rehearse both federal and state workflows so they can be executed reliably at any hour.

Key 2024–2025 Developments and Practical Watchpoints

Electronic submission obligations expanded for certain high‑hazard establishments with one hundred or more employees, beginning with 2023 data due March 2, 2024, and this requirement continues annually. These establishments must submit case‑level data from Forms 300 and 301 to OSHA, in addition to the Form 300A. OSHA’s coverage is defined by NAICS‑based industry lists and establishment‑size thresholds that can change over time, and OSHA has indicated it will make certain submitted data publicly available in de‑identified form. Employers may therefore want to confirm coverage each January using OSHA’s official tools, verify NAICS alignment after reorganizations, and implement quality checks that ensure narrative fields and other data elements are accurate, objective, and free of unnecessary personal details.

OSHA continues to emphasize the anti‑retaliation provisions embedded in the recordkeeping rule. OSHA prohibits recordkeeping procedures that are unreasonable or otherwise deter reporting. In hybrid and remote work arrangements, OSHA’s home‑office guidance requires recording injuries and illnesses directly related to the performance of work for pay in the home rather than those arising from the general home environment. Finally, because state‑plan definitions and timelines can change, state recordkeeping requirements and serious‑injury reporting may be different than federal OSHA requirements.

Employers that apply OSHA’s recordkeeping decision framework consistently, distinguish first aid from medical treatment using OSHA’s exclusive list, count days away and restricted duty correctly, and protect privacy where required will meet the regulation’s core expectations. They will also post accurate 300A summaries, retain records for five years, submit required electronic data by March 2, and report severe incidents within OSHA’s eight‑hour and twenty‑four‑hour windows. The principal update since the original draft is the expansion of electronic submission to include case‑level 300 and 301 data for certain high‑hazard establishments with one hundred or more employees. Because coverage depends on NAICS codes and establishment size and may be updated over time—and because state‑plan rules can be more stringent—employers may want to verify applicability each January and incorporate jurisdictional specifics into incident response playbooks. Those targeted verifications will both confirm current duties and sharpen compliance readiness for the next recordkeeping year.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Effective immediately, USCIS is pausing review of all immigration benefit request from individuals who were born in or hold citizenship from one of the nineteen countries identified as “high-risk” in Presidential Proclamation 10949.
• USCIS is pausing the adjudication of all pending asylum and withholding of removal applications regardless of the country of birth or nationality.
• Approved benefit requests for individuals born in or holding citizenship of the nineteen identified countries who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021, are now subject to a comprehensive re-review process.

USCIS announced the policy memorandum “[i]n light of identified concerns and the threat to the American people,” following the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., on November 26, 2025. The memorandum is aligned with Executive Order 14161, which directed a cross‑agency tightening of immigration vetting and screening, and Presidential Proclamation 10949, which implemented country-specific entry restrictions barring entry for nationals of Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, and partially barring entry for nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.

USCIS will be conducting a thorough national security and public safety review on a case-by-case basis to assess benefit eligibility including whether:

1. The individual is listed in the Terrorist Screening Dataset (TSDS) in higher-risk categories or has serious negative information connected to lower tiers.
2. The individual has been involved with, plans to be involved with, or is associated with activities, people, or groups tied to terrorism or other national security concerns as outlined under specific immigration laws.
3. The individual “is linked to prior, current, or planned involvement in, or association with, an activity, individual, or organization that may pose a risk of serious harm or danger to the community,” including certain criminal conduct.
4. The individual is unable to establish his or her identity as outlined in USCIS policy and Presidential Proclamation 10949.

USCIS clarified that individuals in the affected group will need to attend interviews in any situation where an interview is normally required. For benefit categories that typically do not require an interview, officers will decide on a case-by-case basis whether an in-person appearance is needed after reviewing the file. USCIS also noted that follow-up interviews may be scheduled if additional verification is necessary—such as confirming identity, evaluating eligibility, or addressing any national security or public safety concerns. The agency acknowledges that the initiative may result in processing delays.

Within ninety days of issuance of the memorandum, USCIS will prioritize a list for review, interview, re-interview, and referral to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other law enforcement agencies as appropriate, and, in consultation with the Office of Policy and Strategy and the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate, issue operational guidance.

As a result of the directive, individuals with pending asylum or withholding of removal applications should expect a pause in the processing of their cases. Similarly, individuals who were born in or are a citizen of one of the enumerated nineteen high-risk countries should anticipate delays in processing and may be required to present additional documentation to confirm security or background information. Applicants with prior approved benefit requests who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021, may also receive similar requests as part of the re-review initiative.

Key Takeaways

This latest USCIS directive is consistent with the administration’s broader focus on national security outlined in recent executive orders and presidential proclamations. The policy memorandum does not expressly indicate that the submission of new benefit applications for impacted applicants will be restricted. The halt on adjudicating benefit requests of nationals from the nineteen “high-risk” countries, and all pending asylum cases, regardless of nationality, will remain in place until the USCIS director lifts the hold in a subsequent memorandum. Applicants should expect delays in processing, additional identity/background requests, interview notices, and potential gaps in employment authorization due to operational delays.

Ogletree Deakins’ Immigration Practice Group will continue to monitor developments with respect to this program and other changes and will provide updates on the Immigration blog as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The New York City Council enacted two new pay data reporting laws, requiring large employers to submit annual reports detailing pay data by race, ethnicity, and sex.
• The designated agency will collect demographic information modeled after the former federal EEO-1 Component 2 reports and will have the authority to modify reporting requirements, including options for different gender identities.
• Employers face penalties for noncompliance, including written warnings and fines, and the designated agency will conduct annual pay equity audits to evaluate potential pay disparities.

The City Council had initially passed the measures in October 2025, but outgoing Mayor Eric Adams vetoed the legislation on November 7, 2025. The city council then voted to override those vetoes, setting in motion the establishment of a pay data reporting scheme for the city’s largest employers.

Pay Data Reporting

Int. 0982-2024-A will require private employers with more than 200 employees working in New York City to submit pay data reports to a soon-to-be-designated city agency. The reports would include demographic and occupational information and be submitted annually using an electronic form.

Designated Agency

Int. 0982-2024-A establishes a new pay data reporting system. By December 4, 2026, the mayor will designate an agency to “conduct a pay equity study of the private workforce” and set up a system to collect information from covered employers. Within a year after the designation, the agency will “develop a standardized fillable form, which may be electronic or web-based,” to allow covered employers to submit the pay data reports anonymously. Employers will then be required to submit the reports within a year after the publication of the standardized forms and do so annually thereafter.

Reporting Requirements

The pay data reports will collect current demographic information of employees, modeled after the former federal EEO-1 Component 2 reports, which were collected by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2019 for the years 2017 and 2018. Those Component 2 reports required employers to place employees in one of twelve pay bands within their respective EEO-1 job category and separate them by gender and race or ethnicity. Those reports allowed employers to rely on the total taxable wages for federal income tax purposes, as reported in Box 1 of the W-2 tax forms for each employee.

The New York City law would allow the designated agency to make potential modifications to the reports, “including but not limited to inclusion of reporting options accounting for different gender identities.” The reports must also allow covered employers “to provide explanatory remarks regarding any of the information contained in the report.”

Statement of Accuracy

Employers will additionally be required to submit a “signed statement by an authorized agent” confirming the submission of the report and attesting to the accuracy of the information submitted.

Penalties

Covered employers that fail to submit the pay data reports will face a written warning and be provided thirty days to comply. Failure to comply within thirty days could result in a civil penalty of $1,000. Subsequent violations will be subject to a civil penalty of $5,000.

Annual Pay Equity Audits

Int 0984-2024-A provides that the designated agency will use the information from the reports to conduct a study that evaluates whether there are potential pay disparities based on gender and race or ethnicity and deliver the findings within six months to the mayor and the speaker of the city council within one year after employers are required to submit their reports.

The designated agency will be required to publish the aggregate information from the reports submitted by the covered employers in a way that does not identify any particular covered employer or covered employer’s employees.

Next Steps

With the new pay data reporting laws, New York City joins other jurisdictions, such as California, Illinois, and Massachusetts, in the trend of establishing pay data reporting requirements aimed at reducing pay disparities and ensuring equal employment opportunities. It is anticipated that states and local municipalities will continue to impose their own reporting obligations, as the federal government has shifted its focus away from such reporting.

Ogletree Deakins’ New York office, Government Contracting and Reporting Practice Group, Pay Equity 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, Government Contracting and Reporting, Multistate Compliance, New York, Pay Equity, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed that Sierra Pacific Industries waived its right to compel arbitration by engaging in years of litigation conduct inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate, including failing to timely produce signed arbitration agreements and participating in extensive class discovery involving employees subject to arbitration.
• The court applied the waiver standard articulated in Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc., focusing on whether Sierra Pacific’s conduct was so inconsistent with an intent to enforce arbitration rights as to constitute intentional relinquishment, rather than relying on the previously used multifactor test from St. Agnes Medical Center v. PacifiCare of California.
• The appellate court dismissed Sierra Pacific’s appeal of the trial court’s order imposing evidentiary and issue sanctions, finding such orders are not directly appealable under California law.

Background

The underlying class action was initiated in October 2018 by a former Sierra Pacific employee, alleging multiple wage and hour violations on behalf of eight putative classes of current and former nonexempt employees. Although many employees had signed arbitration agreements, neither the named plaintiffs nor other class representatives had done so. Sierra Pacific initially failed to raise arbitration as an affirmative defense and resisted discovery requests for signed arbitration agreements, despite a court order compelling production in February 2020.

Over several years, Sierra Pacific produced only limited information, objected to discovery on privacy and burden grounds, and was sanctioned multiple times for noncompliance. After class certification in November 2022, Sierra Pacific produced over 3,000 signed arbitration agreements and moved to compel arbitration against absent class members who had signed such agreements. Plaintiffs opposed, arguing Sierra Pacific’s litigation conduct amounted to waiver of its arbitration rights and sought evidentiary and issue sanctions for the delayed production.

Key Holdings

Waiver of Arbitration Rights. The Court of Appeal, applying the waiver principles set forth in Quach, found clear and convincing evidence that Sierra Pacific intentionally relinquished its right to compel arbitration. The court emphasized that Sierra Pacific’s prolonged refusal to produce signed arbitration agreements, participation in class discovery and mediations involving signatory employees, and omission of arbitration as an affirmative defense in its operative answer were all inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. The court rejected Sierra Pacific’s argument that its inability to move to compel arbitration prior to class certification precluded a finding of waiver, holding that waiver can be based on pre-certification conduct and that the totality of the party’s actions must be considered.

Discovery Sanctions. The trial court imposed evidentiary and issue sanctions against Sierra Pacific for its repeated failure to comply with discovery orders, specifically its refusal to produce signed arbitration agreements for nonexempt employees. The appellate court dismissed Sierra Pacific’s appeal of the sanctions order, holding that such orders are not directly appealable under California law and are not subject to ancillary appellate jurisdiction in connection with the appeal of the arbitration order.

Key Takeaways

Employers are encouraged to take care to exercise diligence in assessing how best to assert arbitration rights and comply with discovery obligations, as litigation conduct inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate may result in waiver of those rights.

The waiver inquiry under California law now focuses on whether a party’s conduct is so inconsistent with an intent to enforce arbitration rights as to constitute intentional relinquishment, without requiring a showing of prejudice to the opposing party.

Orders imposing evidentiary and issue sanctions for discovery violations are not directly appealable, underscoring the importance of compliance with court orders throughout litigation.

The decision reinforces the need for transparency and timely disclosure of arbitration agreements in wage and hour class actions, and clarifies that pre-certification conduct may be considered in determining waiver of arbitration rights.

Reviewing litigation and discovery practices in wage and hour class actions remains a critical step to ensure timely assertion and preservation of arbitration rights and strict compliance with discovery obligations. The appellate court’s decision in Sierra Pacific Industries Wage and Hour Cases serves as a cautionary reminder of the consequences of inconsistent litigation conduct and discovery noncompliance.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts