Quick Hits

• Massachusetts’s PROTECT Act, effective August 5, 2026, requires employers that receive an I-9 notice of inspection from DHS/ICE to deliver written notice in each affected employee’s primary language within forty-eight hours of receipt.
• Employers in Massachusetts may want to prepare now by assigning responsibility for the notice process, pre-translating notice templates, mapping individual distribution methods for all employees, and proactively auditing I-9 files.
• Beyond the I-9 notice requirement, the PROTECT Act restricts state and local law enforcement participation in civil immigration enforcement, limits civil arrests on certain state property, and requires many healthcare providers to adopt a written enforcement interaction policy by October 4, 2026.

The New Rule

When an employer receives a notice of inspection (NOI) from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for I-9 forms or other employment eligibility records, Massachusetts law now requires that employers take the following actions:

• 48-hour deadline: Written notice must be sent to employees within forty-eight hours of receiving the NOI.
• Individual delivery: Each affected employee must receive his or her own notice. A notice posted in a breakroom, on an intranet, or on a bulletin board is not enough.
• Primary-language requirement: Notice must be given in the employee’s primary language, not just English.
• Clock starts at receipt: The forty-eight-hour period begins when the employer first receives the notice of inspection.

A state-issued sample notice is available for use by employers.

Tips for Employers

Employers in Massachusetts may want to consider the following steps to comply with the PROTECT Act:

• Assigning ownership: Consider deciding today who is responsible for triggering the notice process the moment an NOI is received and establishing an actionable process.
• Pre-translating notice templates: Employers that have workforces where multiple languages are spoken may want to have translated versions of the sample notice ready in advance.
• Mapping distribution methods: Employers may want to confirm how they will individually reach every affected employee, including remote staff, employees on leave, and multisite workers.
• Auditing I-9 files proactively: A clean I-9 audit process reduces the risk of substantive violations surfacing during an inspection, separate from the notice obligation itself.

Other Parts of the PROTECT Act Impacting Employers

The I-9 notice rule is the piece most directly tied to day-to-day employer operations, but the law reaches further. Employers with on-site clinics, childcare programs, or other covered facilities should note that the act also:

• restricts the ability of state and local law enforcement to participate in civil immigration enforcement,
• limits civil arrests in certain nonpublic areas of state property, and
• requires many healthcare providers to adopt a written policy addressing civil law enforcement interactions by October 4, 2026.

Bottom Line

• The forty-eight-hour I-9 notice requirement carries real compliance risk and almost no lead time once triggered.
• Employers may want to treat this as an operational readiness issue.
• Employers may want to have the template ready, know who owns the process, and know exactly how notices will reach every affected employee.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Washington State’s Immigrant Worker Protection Act requires employers to provide workers with notice of federal Form I-9 inspections and inspection results and to post a workplace rights notice.
• All Washington employers with at least one worker, including state and local government entities, are covered and must provide each notice within five business days of receiving the relevant federal notice and post the attorney general’s workplace poster.
• The rules take effect on October 1, 2026.

Covered Employers

The act covers every private or public employer that employs one or more workers in Washington, including the state, state agencies, political subdivisions, and municipal corporations.

Before a Form I-9 Inspection

Within five business days after receiving a federal agency notice of an inspection of Form I-9 records or related worker records, employers must give written notice to each worker and the worker’s authorized representative, if any. The notice to the employee must include:

• a copy of the federal notice of inspection;
• the federal agency’s name;
• the date the employer received the notice;
• the types of records sought and any other identified purposes of the inspection, to the extent known; and
• contact information for a statewide organization identified and approved by the attorney general that provides information and advocacy related to immigrant and refugee rights.

Employers are required to post and maintain the notice conspicuously on the premises where notices to workers are customarily posted through completion of the inspection. The communication to the employee must have proof of transmission, either through hand delivery, mail, email, or text message.

After a Form I-9 Inspection

Within five business days after receiving written Form I-9 inspection results, employers must provide each affected worker and the worker’s authorized representative with the following documentation:

• a copy of the federal agency’s written results;
• a written notice of the employer’s and worker’s obligations arising from the results; and
• a description of the worker’s deficiencies or other items identified in the results, the period for correcting potential deficiencies, a mutually agreed meeting date and time or options within that period and notice of the worker’s right to representation at any meeting.

Employers are required to limit all information to each individual worker and redact other workers’ personal information. The communication to the employee must have proof of transmission, either through hand delivery, mail, email, or text message.

Workplace Posting

Every Washington employer must conspicuously post and keep posted the attorney general’s workplace poster describing workers’ rights under the act.

Enforcement and Penalties

The attorney general may investigate violations and seek injunctions and damages. For each failure to provide a required notice to a worker, a court must order $500 in statutory damages payable to the attorney general, doubled for a willful violation. A worker, former worker, person injured by a violation, or organization whose membership includes any such person may bring a private action in superior court for injunctive relief and damages.

Next Steps

To prepare for the requirements taking effect on October 1, 2026, Washington employers may want to take the following steps:

• Assigning responsibility for the two notice requirements, each due within five business days, and creating a Form I-9 inspection response checklist
• Preparing notice templates and delivery procedures that preserve proof of transmission
• Training HR and managers on worker protections and reviewing verification and reverification practices for compliance with federal requirements

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

USCIS Releases Proposal to Eliminate Sixty-Day Grace Period. Today, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a proposed rule, “Eliminating the Discretionary 60-day Grace Period,” in the Federal Register. As indicated by the title, the proposal would eliminate current regulations that allow certain nonimmigrant visa holders to remain in the United States for up to sixty days after separation from employment—a grace period generally used to pursue other immigration options or seek new employment opportunities. According to the proposal’s preamble, the current “60-day discretionary grace period disconnects the alien’s lawful status from the very basis of eligibility under these employment-based nonimmigrant classifications.” USCIS further maintains that eliminating the grace period eases its administrative burden. Comments are due on or before November 10, 2026.

DOL Issues New Wage-and-Hour Opinion Letters. The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) continues to release new opinion letters to provide insight into the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to real workplace situations. WHD released the following opinion letters this week:

• Meal Breaks. The first letter addresses compensability during a sixty-minute lunch break, during which employees use part of that time to walk to and from the designated break area. The letter concludes that even though employees may take up to fourteen minutes to walk to and from the break area, the remaining forty-six minutes, during which employees are relieved of all work responsibilities, are sufficient for a bona fide meal period and therefore not a compensable work break.
• Volunteering by Employees. The second letter concerns the wage-and-hour implications for employees who also freely volunteer for their nonprofit employer. In this case, the nonprofit employer breeds and trains service dogs, and the question is whether veterinarians, directors, and trainers can also serve as volunteer “puppy raisers” without additional compensation. The letter concludes that when the job duties are sufficiently different and distinct from the volunteer activities (e.g., a veterinarian providing medical care during the day and then raising and training a puppy at home at night), the volunteer time is not compensable. However, in the case of individuals employed as dog trainers, their compensable duties (e.g., training and socializing dogs) are so similar in nature to their volunteer time as puppy raisers that “the volunteer hours are part of the employment relationship and must be counted as hours worked for FLSA purposes as long as they qualify as compensable worktime under the FLSA.”
• Tip Pools and Supervisors. The situation involves a shift supervisor who sometimes takes shifts tending bar or assisting servers and waiters. The employer asks if the supervisor can share in the tip pool. The letter concludes that as long as the employee is a “supervisor” under the FLSA, “he or she is prohibited from receiving any portion of tips from other employees—even if he or she also works bartending shifts alongside other employees or assists other employees performing tipped work.” The letter notes, however, that the employee may retain tips for services that he or she “directly and solely” provided. When tips are consolidated and shared and “it is not possible to attribute the tip solely to the supervisor, the supervisor is not permitted to take any portion of those tips.”

NYC Mayor Establishes Office to Promote Union Organizing. On September 3, 2026, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani signed Executive Order No. 20, “Cracking Down on Worker Abuse and Establishing the Mayor’s Office of Worker Power.” The order instructs various city agencies to coordinate and share information to “ensure maximum impact in protecting workers’ rights.” These agencies are also instructed to “prioritize the investigation of employers and entities with a history of labor violations or other indicators of poor compliance with labor standards, with a particular focus on such employers that have large numbers of workers with low wages.” As part of these enforcement efforts, the order further directs agencies to “seek monetary relief for all workers who experience violations without regard to whether any such worker filed an individual complaint.” (Emphasis added.)

The order also establishes the Mayor’s Office of Worker Power. According to an accompanying press release, the Mayor’s Office of Worker Power will:

• “Convene rank-and-file workers, union leaders, worker centers, immigrant workers, gig workers and platform workers.
• Hold public hearings on significant worker issues.
• Provide referrals to organizations that support workers.
• Coordinate with City agencies to produce research on pressing issues facing workers.
• Develop policy proposals informed by workers’ experiences.
• Engage workers on emerging challenges, including new technologies, worker misclassification, immigration-based exploitation and climate risks to worker safety.
• Connect workers with information about their rights at everyday touchpoints, including workforce centers, libraries, IDNYC offices, schools and community events.”

The Mayor’s Office of Worker Power will be overseen by New York City’s Deputy Mayor for Economic Justice, Julie Su, who served as Acting Secretary of Labor in the Biden Administration. The Executive Director of the MOWP will be a former organizer for the United Auto Workers.

Teamsters Endorse Republican Senator—an FLCA Cosponsor—for Reelection. This week, a Teamsters union affiliate in Kansas endorsed Republican Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) in his reelection bid to the U.S. Senate. Marshall currently serves on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and he is a cosponsor of union-friendly bills such as the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA), the Warehouse Worker Protection Act, and the Railway Safety Act. Assuming Marshall wins reelection (the last Democrat elected to a Senate seat in Kansas was George McGill in 1932), he will be one of the highest-ranking Republicans serving on the committee in the next Congress—perhaps even in line to chair the committee—depending on what happens with Susan Collins’s reelection bid and committee membership reshuffling.

September 11, 2001. Twenty-five years ago today, the U.S. House of Representatives convened for what was to be a routine day of legislative business. As news of the now-infamous terrorist attacks developed, then–Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) (second in line to assume the presidency pursuant to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947) was quickly removed to a secure location. Shortly thereafter, when it became apparent that attacks were being directed at the Washington, D.C., area, the entire House recessed and evacuated. Members of the House returned to the Capitol on the morning of September 12, 2001, to deliver speeches condemning the attacks and mourning the loss of the 2,977 victims. At approximately 1:00 a.m. on the morning of September 13, the House passed Joint Resolution 61, which condemned the attacks, vowed a “war against international terrorism,” and declared September 12, 2001, a National Day of Unity and Mourning. Five days later, on September 18, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the Authorization for Use of Military Force “to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.”

Quick Hits

• Female retail employees in the UK sued Next Retail Limited for paying them less than male warehouse workers for work of equal value.
• The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) determined that recruiting and retention needs at warehouses were legitimate reasons for the pay differential.
• The EAT found the pay differential was a proportionate response to a legitimate aim.

The UK’s Equality Act 2010 prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, age, race, religion, and other protected characteristics. It requires employers to give men and women equal pay for equal work. Unequal pay can be justified “if it is in pursuance of an objective which is legitimate and where the means chosen are proportionate to that objective,” the EAT explained.

Background on the Case

The claims were originally brought by 3,540 female retail sales employees working in Next’s shops. In 2018, they sued under the Equality Act 2010, alleging they were paid less than male employees in Next’s warehouses. Over the relevant time period, about 77 percent of the company’s retail sales employees were female, and about 22 percent were male, while about 47 percent of warehouse employees were female, and about 53 percent were male.

At the first hearing, the Employment Tribunal (ET) determined that the work performed by the retail sales employees was of equal value to that of the warehouse operatives, in terms of effort, skill, and decision-making. The burden of proof, therefore, shifted to Next to explain the differential in pay between the two roles.

Next argued that it paid warehouse employees more based on material factors, including business viability and resilience, retaining and recruiting warehouse workers, maintaining 24/7 operations in the warehouse, incentivizing high productivity, and incentivizing good attendance records. It said that the same commercial pressures did not exist with retail sales roles as they did with warehouse jobs because the two different roles related to separate labour markets.

The ET held that business viability, resilience, and market-related considerations were not viable justifications for setting different pay rates as they were “all about cost” and that those reasons could not, without more, provide objective justification for the pay differential.

Employment Appeal Tribunal Decision

The EAT concluded that there was no direct sex discrimination in this case, so it looked to the question of whether indirect sex discrimination occurred due to a neutral policy or practice putting a protected group at a particular disadvantage.

The EAT concluded that the ET was correct in finding that the female claimants demonstrated a particular disadvantage because of the statistical differences between the claimant and comparator groups. However, it held that the ET erred by focusing primarily on the company’s cost-saving considerations in setting different pay rates. It found the ET failed to assess whether the pay differential was a proportionate response to the genuine business need to recruit and retain warehouse staff. The proportionality determination calls for a “critical evaluation” of business practices and needs, the EAT noted.

The EAT also found that the ET erred by requiring the company “to establish separate and distinct aims for both the higher and lower levels of pay,” rather than a single aim that was the reason for the unequal pay. The EAT also dismissed the claimants’ cross-appeal.

Lessons Learned

This case illustrates that employers in the UK can point to genuine recruiting and retention concerns in specific labour markets to justify pay differential between roles that are of equal value.

The EAT held there was sufficient evidence that gender had nothing to do with the unequal pay rates in this case. Going forward, documenting pay decisions is critical, as it may assist an employer to defend equal pay litigation.

Not only is equal value a principle in UK pay equity law, but the concept of equal value is the cornerstone of the EU Pay Transparency Directive. Information and updates on the progress of the directive’s implementation across the European Union can be found using Ogletree Deakins’ Member State Implementation Tracker.

Ogletree Deakins’ Pay Equity Practice Group and the London office will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Cross-Border, Pay Equity, Retail, Trucking & Logistics, and United Kingdom blogs as additional information becomes available.

Daniella McGuigan is a partner in Ogletree Deakins’ London 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

• If an employee earns less than a male colleague who performs the same or equivalent work, gender-based disadvantage is presumed under German employment law.
• Employers may rebut this presumption by showing objective, gender-neutral reasons for differences in compensation.
• Upon remand of a pay equity case by the Federal Labor Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht (BAG)), the Regional Labor Court of Baden-Württemberg (Landesarbeitsgericht Baden-Württemberg (LAG)) denied a female employee’s claim for the top salary but awarded her the difference between her pay and the median pay of the male comparator group.

On August 18, 2026 (Ref. No. 2 Sa 14/24), the Baden-Württemberg LAG issued another ruling in the case after it was remanded by the BAG (Ref. No. 8 AZR 300/24). The employee was awarded the difference between her pay and the median pay of the male comparator group, but not the pay of the highest-paid male colleague. The employer successfully rebutted the presumption of gender-based discrimination as to that colleague.

The Case—An Equal Pay Claim at Multiple Levels

The employee sued for retroactive equalization of several compensation components. She based her claim on the difference between her pay and that of a named male colleague at the same level in the hierarchy. He was the highest-paid colleague. In the alternative, she sought to have her salary adjusted to the median pay of the male comparator group.

In its October 1, 2024, decision, the LAG awarded the employee higher compensation but denied an adjustment “all the way up” to the highest-paid colleague. In the court’s view, there were not enough indications of direct discrimination at that level.

BAG—A One-to-One Comparison Is Sufficient

The BAG partially set aside that decision in its October 23, 2025, judgment. The BAG held that a presumption of gender-based disadvantage arises when an employee alleges and, if disputed, proves that a male colleague receives higher pay for the same or equivalent work. The size of the comparison group and median values do not matter. This does not mean that employers must always pay employees of another gender the highest pay in the comparator group. Different pay remains possible when objective factors unrelated to gender explain the difference.

New LAG Decision—Presumption of Discrimination Rebutted

In its ruling on remand from the BAG, the LAG distinguished between the two claims. The employer rebutted the presumption as to the named male top earner. The decisive factors were the overall situation within the male comparator group and the fact that the colleague had worked in the position for significantly longer. The employee therefore was not awarded the difference between her pay and the top salary. The LAG nevertheless ruled for the employee regarding the difference between her pay and the median pay of the male comparator group. On that issue, the employer did not rebut the presumption with gender-neutral criteria.

Takeaways

A comparison with a single colleague can trigger a presumption of gender-based pay discrimination. An employer may rebut that presumption with objective, gender-neutral reasons. The outcome therefore depends on whether differences in the individual case can be explained, for example, by the job profile, scope of responsibility, experience in the role, or specifically documented performance factors. Employers may want to analyze their compensation structures and document gender-neutral reasons for pay differences for each personnel action affecting pay. That documentation can help rebut the presumption of gender-based disadvantage later, if necessary.

Julia Kulmegies is an associate in Ogletree Deakins’ Berlin office.

Lela Salman, a law clerk in Ogletree Deakins’ Berlin office, contributed to this article.

Ogletree Deakins’ Berlin office and Pay Equity Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Cross-Border, Germany, and Pay Equity blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• California enacted AB 2155, providing that a written arbitration agreement is unenforceable under state law to the extent it is unenforceable under the FAA.
• Arbitration agreements remain valid unless certain exemptions apply.
• The state law will take effect on January 1, 2027.

Under Assembly Bill (AB) 2155, employers cannot enforce arbitration agreements in California if the FAA would not enforce them. The law will take effect on January 1, 2027.

The FAA enforces arbitration agreements unless they are unconscionable. Separately, transportation workers engaged in interstate or international commerce are exempt from the FAA under Section 1 of the FAA. This exemption covers workers who transport goods or passengers across state lines. The exemption extends to seamen, railway workers, and similar workers who move goods across borders. Whether a workforce qualifies is fact-specific and often disputed.

An FAA exemption does not make an arbitration agreement unenforceable by itself. It means only that the FAA does not govern the agreement. State law then controls enforceability.

AB 2155 amends California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281. That section has long recognized arbitration agreements as “valid, enforceable and irrevocable,” subject to generally applicable contract defenses such as unconscionability or duress. Effective January 1, 2027, the statute adds a new subdivision. It stipulates that a “written agreement to submit to arbitration is not enforceable under this section to the extent the agreement is not enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act.” The state legislature’s analyses describe the bill’s purpose as incorporating into the California Arbitration Act “any and all exclusions under the [FAA].” The analyses point specifically to the Section 1 transportation-worker exemption and the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA).

AB 2155’s restriction applies “to the extent” an agreement “is not enforceable under” the FAA. A court cannot find that an agreement entirely outside the FAA’s scope is unenforceable under the FAA because the FAA has no occasion to rule on such agreements at all. This new state law is triggered by a determination that an agreement fails under the FAA, not by the FAA’s mere inapplicability. Enforceability of an FAA-exempt agreement continues under the California Arbitration Act and existing California case law. No court has yet addressed how this interacts with the transportation-worker exemption.

Where the FAA does not govern an arbitration agreement, California courts assess class-action waiver enforceability under the multifactor test from Gentry v. Superior Court. The Supreme Court of California held in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, that the FAA preempts Gentry only where the FAA applies. Gentry’s test does not automatically invalidate class-action waivers. The party opposing arbitration bears the burden to show that each Gentry factor favors class treatment. Employers can and regularly do defeat that showing, even for workers outside FAA coverage.

The second exclusion the state legislature identified is the EFAA. Under 9 U.S.C. § 402(a), when a person brings a sexual harassment or sexual assault case, a pre-dispute arbitration agreement is not valid or enforceable. The claimant may proceed in litigation instead.

Next Steps

Employers in California may want to review their arbitration agreements to identify any jobs subject to FAA exemptions, particularly the transportation-worker exemption. They may also want to consider whether to make arbitration agreements voluntary, rather than mandatory.

Labor Code section 432.6 prohibits conditioning employment on waiving legal forums for Labor Code violations. The FAA preempts section 432.6 for most employers. But the preemption does not apply to any transportation workers exempt from the FAA. Voluntary arbitration programs eliminate this risk by giving employees a genuine choice.

Employers may want to ensure agreements clearly identify governing law, the scope of arbitrable claims, and any limitations on representative proceedings. They also may want to monitor how courts construe AB 2155 going forward. An FAA exemption does not automatically defeat an otherwise enforceable class-action waiver. The Gentry framework remains available where applicable.

Ogletree Deakins’ Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, California, and Trucking & Logistics blogs as additional information becomes available.

Spencer C. Skeen is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ San Diego office.

Katie M. Greenbaum is an associate in Ogletree Deakins’ San Diego 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

• SkillBridge provides employers with access to talented military members who are in the process of becoming civilians.
• These individuals continue to be paid by the military while placed with SkillBridge employers.
• To participate, employers can either register to serve as SkillBridge employers or work through approved intermediaries.

For employers, human resource (HR) leaders, and talent acquisition teams, SkillBridge can be a practical way to connect with military talent before service members enter the civilian workforce. This article explains what SkillBridge is, why employers choose to participate, how the program generally works, and what organizations should consider before getting started.

What Is the DoW SkillBridge Program?

SkillBridge was created in 2011 with the goal of creating a high probability (not a guarantee) of post-service employment, while giving participating employers a structured way to engage transitioning service members before they enter the civilian workforce. During the last months of active duty, eligible service members can work full-time with an approved civilian employer to learn a job, build practical skills, and explore a possible career path after the military. Since its inception, well over 50,000 service members have completed the program.

SkillBridge generally works this way:

• The participant remains on active duty in the military and continues to receive military pay and benefits.
• The participant receives approval from their military command before participating.
• The employer receives approval by DoW or works with an approved SkillBridge partner.
• The employer provides training or an internship or apprenticeship experience, not simply to fill an ordinary job opening.
• At the conclusion of the program, the employer is not required to offer the service member employment, although many employers use SkillBridge as a pathway to hire.

For service members, SkillBridge can be a great way to break into an industry and develop skills necessary for civilian employment. For employers, the program can be a practical way to efficiently train a prospective employee and get to know military talent in the workplace before deciding whether to make a permanent offer.

Why Employers Participate

Employers across sectors—from manufacturing and logistics to technology and professional services—participate in SkillBridge for a range of strategic and operational reasons:

• Access to a high-caliber talent pipeline. Transitioning service members often bring leadership experience, technical skills, security clearances, and a strong work ethic that translate directly to civilian roles.
• Reduced hiring risk. SkillBridge allows employers to assess a candidate’s fit, capabilities, and cultural alignment in the actual work environment before extending a permanent job offer.
• Lower onboarding costs. Because participants receive military pay during the program, employers typically do not bear compensation costs during the training period, reducing the financial burden of onboarding a new hire.
• Support for workforce development and veteran-hiring goals. Participation demonstrates a commitment to the military community and can support broader talent, inclusion, and community engagement priorities.
• Community and brand positioning. Organizations that actively support the military-to-civilian transition often benefit from positive brand association and community goodwill.

Getting Started

Employers interested in SkillBridge do not need to have every operational detail finalized before exploring the program. However, there are concrete steps employers must take. The DoW requires that employers either apply directly to become an approved SkillBridge industry partner or work with an existing approved partner organization that manages the application and placement logistics on the employer’s behalf. Below is a practical starting framework.

Determining Program Fit

Employers can start by identifying one or more roles where transitioning military talent could add value and where their organizations can deliver genuine training, mentoring, or hands-on experience. The opportunity must qualify as job training, an internship, or an apprenticeship under DoW standards—not just an open headcount to fill.

Choosing an Approval Path

Employers may apply through the DoW SkillBridge employer portal to become an approved industry partner, or they may partner with an approved intermediary organization that facilitates placements. The direct approval route typically involves submitting a program description, demonstrating training value, and agreeing to program terms. Working through a partner can expedite access but may require a memorandum of understanding and coordination regarding participant matching.

Building a Program Framework

The employer will want to prepare a written description of the opportunity, including its expected duration (up to 180 days), training objectives, supervision plan, and the civilian skills the participant is expected to develop. The DoW will evaluate whether the program meets SkillBridge requirements, so specificity matters.

Planning for Command Approval and Scheduling

Every service member must obtain approval from his or her military command before participating. Employers should build in timing flexibility—military obligations can require the participant’s attention, and start dates may shift based on military mission requirements. Expect some back-and-forth coordination with the service member’s installation transition office or education center.

Practical Guardrails for Employers

Employers should keep a few practical guardrails in mind. Clearly describe the training experience; use the same screening, onboarding, and workplace rules that apply to similar applicants or interns; avoid shifting program costs to participants; protect confidential information; provide appropriate supervision and safety training; and be clear that participation does not guarantee a job offer.

Takeaways for HR and Talent Teams

Employers evaluating SkillBridge for the first time may wish to consider the following tips:

• Start with roles where service members’ experience, leadership, and technical skills may translate well to civilian work.
• Treat the opportunity as training or experiential learning, with clear objectives and supervision.
• Decide whether to seek DoW approval directly or work through an approved SkillBridge partner.
• Build in time for command approval and some scheduling flexibility during the transition period.
• Use ordinary HR processes for screening, onboarding, workplace conduct, safety, confidentiality, feedback, and records.
• Be clear with participants and internal stakeholders that SkillBridge can lead to employment but does not guarantee a job offer.

Conclusion

The DoW SkillBridge program gives employers a structured way to meet, train, and evaluate transitioning service members before they enter the civilian workforce. For HR and talent acquisition teams, it can be both a recruiting tool and a practical way to support veteran hiring.

Ogletree Deakins’ Military Workforce Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Military Workforce, Government Contracting and Compliance, and Employment Law blogs as additional information becomes available.

Adam J. Crane, a member of Ogletree Deakins’ Military Workforce Practice Group, served as a judge advocate in the United States Marine Corps and currently serves in the United States Marine Corps Reserve as a senior litigator and preliminary hearing officer.

James A. Patton, Jr., co-chair of Ogletree Deakins’ Military Workforce Practice Group, served as an officer in the United States Army and the United States Army Reserve.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The 9/11 Notice Act and regulations require employers to notify “where practicable” current and former employees who worked in affected areas of Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn of potential eligibility for federal compensation funds.
• The funds are not limited to first responders but apply to those helped with the clean-up and construction or lived, worked, or went to school in the affected areas during and after the attacks.

A quarter century after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the effects of the tragedy continue to linger, especially in New York City. Recently, Mayor Zohran Mamdani declared September 11 an official “Citywide Day of Remembrance and Service” to honor victims, first responders, survivors, workers, and affected families.

In May 2025, New York’s Empire State Department (ESD) finalized regulations under the 9/11 Notice Act requiring employers to notify “where practicable” current and former employees who worked in Lower Manhattan and Western Brooklyn during and in the months after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks of their potential eligibility for the September Eleventh Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) and the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program.

The VCF, which continues to receive 750 new claims each month, provides compensation to individuals (or representatives of deceased individuals) present at one of the three plane crash sites (New York City, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania) and who have since been diagnosed with a 9/11-related illness. The fund is not limited to first responders and is open to those who worked at the sites, including journalists and those who worked or volunteered in construction, cleanup, and debris removal, as well as those who lived, worked, visited, or went to school in the NYC Exposure Zone.

The WTC Health Program provides monitoring and treatment for certain conditions to eligible first responders and also provides benefits to eligible survivors who lived, worked, went to school, attended childcare, or attended adult day care in a specified area affected by the dust and debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

The New York regulations state that employers’ notifications must be made by email, text, electronic messaging system, postal mail, or facsimile, and entities providing such notifications must maintain a duplicate copy for not less than three years. Additionally, the state has urged, but not required, dissemination through social media.

The regulations specify that the notification obligations apply to those employees in specified affected areas. The WTC Health Program area covers Lower Manhattan south of Houston Street and any blocks in Brooklyn within a 1.5-mile radius of the former World Trade Center site, including Dumbo and Brooklyn Heights. The VCF area covers the immediate blocks around the World Trade Center and “any area related to or along the routes of debris removal, such as barges and the Fresh Kills landfill.”

Next Steps

While the regulations do not specify any express requirements regarding the timing of the notices, New York employers that had employees in the affected areas on September 11, if they have not already, may want to identify current and former employees who worked in the affected areas and immediately begin notifying those individuals.

Ogletree Deakins’ New York office will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Construction, Employment Law, Hospitality, New York, and Retail blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The NLRB upheld an arbitration confidentiality provision to the extent it protected the confidentiality of the proceedings and the outcome, while found that the provision’s blanket prohibition on disclosing the existence of arbitration was unlawful.
• The NLRB also upheld an arbitration provision covering “any and all” employment-related claims, finding a prominent savings clause reasonably informed employees of their rights to file a charge with the NLRB.

On August 10, 2026, the NLRB issued a 2–1 supplemental decision in Ralphs Grocery Company, 375 NLRB No. 25. The NLRB found that an employer’s arbitration policy applying to “any and all” claims did not unlawfully interfere with employees’ access to the NLRB processes. Notably, the NLRB also upheld most of the arbitration policy’s confidentiality provision, finding it was shielded by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). But the NLRB found that a blanket prohibition on employees’ acknowledging the existence of an arbitration was not protected because it exceeded the scope of the arbitration process.

The decision resolved those two lingering questions after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case—which started as a California wage-and-hour class action and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lawsuit—following the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2018 decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. That case resolved a separate issue over a class-action waiver in favor of the employer.

Confidentiality Clause Mostly Upheld

The arbitration confidentiality provision at issue required employees to keep the “existence, content, and outcome” of any arbitration proceeding “in the strictest confidence” and prohibited disclosure “without the prior written consent of all the parties.”

The NLRB analyzed the provision under its 2020 precedent in California Commerce Club, which held that confidentiality provisions contained in an arbitration agreement are shielded by the FAA to the extent that they protect the confidentiality of an arbitration proceeding. The NLRB noted that California Commerce Club recognized that while employees’ interest in discussing terms and conditions of employment is at the heart of Section 7 protection, a confidentiality provision “would nevertheless be lawful if shielded by the FAA.”

In the instant case, the NLRB thus found that the “portions of the confidentiality provision restricting the disclosure of the content and outcome of the arbitration are limited to the rules under which the arbitration will be conducted” and are lawful. In particular, the NLRB said the part of the confidentiality clause prohibiting the disclosure of “the outcome” of the arbitration is consistent with California Commerce Club.

However, the NLRB said the provision’s blanket prohibition on disclosing the very existence of an arbitration proceeding crossed the line. “Prohibiting the disclosure of the fact that the arbitration ever happened long after it ended is a perpetual gag order against disclosing, outside the arbitral forum, that the arbitration ever occurred,” the NLRB said. (Emphasis in original). The NLRB said the blanket provision was therefore unlawful under the NLRA since the overall arbitration policy applied to all claims, including claims arising under the NLRA.

Arbitration Policy Does Not Unlawfully Interfere With NLRB Access

The arbitration policy at issue required arbitration for “any and all … employment-related disputes” between employees and the employer “that would constitute cognizable claims or causes of action in a federal, state or local court or agency under applicable federal, state or local laws.” The policy contained a “savings clause” that expressly stated that employees “retain the right under the National Labor Relations Act to file charges with the National Labor Relations Board.”

The NLRB found the arbitration policy with the “prominent, stand-alone” savings clause was lawful because “a reasonable employee could not interpret the arbitration policy to restrict their right to file charges with the Board.” Further, the policy did “not give employees the impression that filing charges would be futile.” (Emphasis added).

Key Takeaways

The NLRB decision reinforces precedent upholding confidentiality provisions in arbitration agreements and highlights the interplay between the NLRA and FAA. The ruling indicates that such confidentiality provisions, even if they limit employees’ Section 7 interests in disclosing details of arbitration proceedings, are nevertheless lawful if protected by the FAA. However, the NLRB drew a line between maintaining confidentiality of the arbitration process and imposing a prohibition on acknowledging that an arbitration even occurred, the latter of which violates the NLRA.

The decision further suggests that well-drafted arbitration agreement with a prominent and clear savings clause is sufficient to survive scrutiny under the NLRA.

Employers wishing to maintain arbitration agreements may wish to review their arbitration policies and accompanying confidentiality provisions in light of this recent NLRB decision.

Ogletree Deakins’ Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Practice Group and Traditional Labor Relations Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, California, Class Action, and Traditional Labor Relations blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On September 8, 2026, the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) published an agreement in the Official Gazette of the Federation that approved the mandatory generation of the digital employers registration identification card (Digital TIP), which will supersede any previously issued physical TIPs.
• The agreement enters into force on September 23, 2026, and employers must enable access to the IMSS electronic notification portal, called Buzón IMSS, to generate the Digital TIP.

The Digital TIP must be generated through the IMSS electronic notification portal (Buzón IMSS). Employers must enable access to the Buzón IMSS in order to access this new service.

Main Modifications and Procedures

The implementation of this agreement represents the following key changes:

1. The Digital TIP is now mandatory and will supersede any previously issued physical TIP for procedures that require a TIP.
2. The Digital TIP is generated exclusively through the Buzón IMSS using the Tax Authority’s electronic signature (e.firma) as the authentication method.
3. IMSS personnel will now be able to verify the employer’s representative capacity, ensuring that an employer’s authorized representatives can carry out any procedure before the IMSS.
4. The Digital TIP format includes the employer’s name, address, date of issuance, name of authorized representatives (maximum of three per employer registration number (Registro Patronal)), and a verification code in QR format. It also includes a transaction folio, certificate number, the e.firma used to designate the employer’s representative(s), and a digital seal to prevent fraud and ensure authenticity.

The Buzón IMSS: A Prerequisite for the Digital TIP

Since the Digital TIP can only be generated through the Buzón IMSS, employers that have not yet enabled access to this portal must do so. The Buzón IMSS is the IMSS electronic notification portal that allows employers to receive notices, administrative resolutions, and requirements related to their compliance obligations. It also allows employers to submit required information, file requests, and review their status before the IMSS.

The following are some of the procedures and notifications available through the Buzón IMSS:

• Certificate of Weeks of Contribution to the IMSS, with a breakdown of enrollment history
• Certificate of Eligibility to Receive Medical Services
• Clarifications and Guidelines on the Operation of the Buzón IMSS
• Resolution of Determination of the Work Risk Premium
• Resolution of Correction of the Work Risk Premium
• Invitation to review the correct classification of employers
• Generation of a Certificate of Compliance with Social Security Tax Obligations
• Suspension of the Administrative Enforcement Process
• Inquiry Regarding Closed Occupational Risk Cases
• Application for Registration and Update of Beneficiaries

For notification purposes, the Buzón IMSS is more efficient than the IMSS’s daily Gazette. The Gazette is for public consultation, which imposes an additional administrative burden while searching through all the content of the Gazette for relevant notices. Additionally, it can only retain notifications for ten business days, making it inefficient and complicated for employers to be informed of any possible notification from the IMSS, especially those related to administrative resolutions and audit procedures.

Employers may want to periodically review the Buzón IMSS to verify any possible notification, or news from the IMSS, considering that, in accordance with the Social Security Law, notifications issued through this portal will be effective on the third business day after they are received by the employer.

Tips for Ensuring Future Compliance

The agreement enters into force on September 23, 2026. Before that date, employers may want to ensure that they have taken the following actions:

1. Verifying that the e.firma of the company and of the legal representative is active before the Tax Authority
2. Enabling the Buzón IMSS if not already activated and designating a representative to regularly review the portal
3. Reviewing and determining the representatives who will be incorporated in the Digital TIP

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts