Quick Hits

• Starting on July 1, 2026, B-1 and B-2 visitor visa applicants can pay a $750 fee to secure a consular interview appointment within ten business days at select U.S. embassies and consulates.
• The expedited option aims to help business and tourist travelers who need faster access to visa appointments due to short-notice travel needs.
• The State Department will announce participating consular posts before the program takes effect on July 1, 2026.

The New Program

Under a temporary final rule, applicants seeking B-1 business visitor and B-2 tourist visas will be able to pay a $750 fee to secure interview appointments within ten business days at participating U.S. consular posts. The service will initially operate only at select consulates and embassies, with the State Department planning to announce participating locations in the coming weeks.

For many travelers, the new option could provide greater flexibility when unexpected opportunities or personal circumstances arise. Business professionals may need to travel on short notice for meetings, conferences, contract negotiations, or client visits. Families may be looking to attend weddings, graduations, milestone celebrations, or reunions with relatives living in the United States. Tourists planning vacations, cruises, national park visits, or major cultural events may also benefit from a faster path to obtaining interviews.

The timing of the new program coincides with a period of heightened international travel demand. As FIFA World Cup 2026 (June 11, 2026–July 19, 2026) gets underway, bringing millions of visitors to North America, the United States is also preparing for a range of other large-scale events and travel opportunities that typically drive visa demand. International trade shows, industry conferences, university visits, cultural festivals, and holiday travel periods all contribute to increased demand for visitor visas.

The expedited interview option represents another step in the State Department’s efforts to manage visa processing and address backlogs that have affected travelers in many parts of the world since the pandemic.

At the same time, the State Department continues to pursue other measures aimed at reducing visa overstays and strengthening compliance. Last year, the State Department launched a pilot program requiring certain visitor visa applicants to post bonds of up to $15,000 before receiving visas. The program has since grown to fifty countries, most of them in Africa.

Next Steps

While the new, expedited appointment service will not eliminate standard visa processing requirements, it offers travelers who are willing to pay an additional fee a way to access interview appointments significantly sooner than they might otherwise find in some locations.

Additional details, including which consular posts will participate and how applicants can request expedited appointments, should emerge before the program takes effect on July 1, 2026.

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

To learn more about this development and other critical immigration issues facing employers today, please join our Virtual Immigration Insights Symposium on Wednesday, October 7, 2026, from noon to 2:30 p.m. ET. Register here.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Multiple states and major localities across the United States will increase their minimum wage rates in the coming months.
• Several jurisdictions are also raising the minimum cash wage for tipped workers.

PLEASE NOTE:

• Jurisdictions that will not have—or have not announced—upcoming mid-year increases in their minimum wage rates are not included below.
• This list includes several major localities with minimum wage rates that will increase in mid-2026. It is not exhaustive of all localities nationwide that may have a mid-year minimum wage rate change.
• If a jurisdiction’s minimum cash wage for tipped workers is changing in mid-2026, it is included in the list below.

MID-2026 MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES (State and Major Localities)

All increases shown below will be effective on JULY 1, 2026, unless noted otherwise.

ALASKA

$13.00 to $14.00

CALIFORNIA

Berkeley
 $19.18 to $19.61

Emeryville

$19.90 to $20.34

Los Angeles (City)
$17.87 to $18.42

Hotel Workers: $22.50 to $25.00

Los Angeles County (unincorporated areas)
$17.81 to $18.47

Malibu

$17.27 to $17.91

Pasadena
$18.04 to $18.57

San Diego—Hospitality Employers*

Hotels and Amusement Parks: $19.00

Event Centers: $21.06

*Rates established by Oct. 2025 Hospitality Minimum Wage Ordinance

No change to general minimum wage ($17.75)

San Francisco
$19.18 to $19.61

Santa Monica
$17.81 to $18.47

Hotels/businesses on hotel property: $22.50 to $25.00

West Hollywood

Hotel Employers: $20.22 to $20.87

No change to general (non-hotel employer) minimum wage ($20.25)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

$17.95 to $18.40

$10.00 to $10.30 – TIPPED WORKERS

FLORIDA

$14.00 to $15.00 (effective September 30, 2026)

$10.98 to $11.98 (effective September 30, 2026) –TIPPED WORKERS

ILLINOIS

Chicago

$16.60 to $17.05

$12.62 to $12.96 –TIPPED WORKERS

Cook County

$15.00 to $15.40

$9.00 to $9.25 –TIPPED WORKERS

MARYLAND

Montgomery County

Employers with 51 or more employees: $17.65 to $18.00

Employers with 11–50 employees: $16.00 to $16.50

Employers with 10 or fewer employees: $15.50 to $15.95

MINNESOTA

Saint Paul

Large / Macro Businesses (101+ employees): $16.37 – no change

Small Businesses (6–100 employees): $15.00 to $16.37

Micro Businesses (5 or fewer employees): $13.25 to $14.25

OREGON

Standard Statewide Rate: $15.05 to $15.55

Portland Metro Employers (i.e., employers located within the “urban growth boundary of a metropolitan service district”): $16.30 to $16.80

Employers in Nonurban Counties: $14.05 to $14.55

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

The Ogletree Deakins Client Portal provides subscribers with timely updates on wage and hour laws, including minimum wage. Our updated minimum wage and minimum wage tip credit law summaries contain state and major locality current minimum wage and tip credit rates, new rates going into effect in mid-2026 (as reflected above), and other future minimum wage and tip credit rates that states and major localities have published and/or announced. Full law summaries available for Premium-level subscribers; Snapshots and Updates 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. House passed a bill that would impose a one-size-fits-all timeline on collective bargaining, which now heads to the U.S. Senate for consideration.
• The bill would mandate an accelerated bargaining timeline and a mandatory process that can result in the imposition of first-contract terms.
• The bill has some bipartisan support, though businesses have largely come out against it and argue it goes against the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce government bureaucracy.

Under the bill, H.R. 5408/S. 844, once a prescribed time for bargaining (120 days) expires, government officials would impose nonreviewable contractual terms on the parties that will be binding for two years.

Proponents of the bill forced the vote through use of the House “discharge” process to circumvent Republican leaders’ control of the legislative agenda. Twenty Republicans joined with Democrats to ensure passage of the bill. The FLCA now heads to the U.S. Senate, where it is supported by approximately one dozen Democrats, as well as Republican Senators Josh Hawley (MO), Roger Marshall (KS), and Bernie Moreno (OH).

Background on the Proposal

The FLCA is pulled directly from the Employee Free Choice Act and the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, big labor-supported bills that have been rejected by the U.S. Congress. A coalition of nearly 400 business organizations wrote that FLCA “runs counter to President Trump’s effort to rein in the federal bureaucracy, threatens the economic viability of businesses, forces contract terms without the consent of employees or employers, and amounts to an unconstitutional taking.” Critics also note that, because an arbitration panel would set the terms, employees would lose the customary right to ratify—or reject—the first contract that governs their wages, benefits, and working conditions.

The bill is one component of Senator Hawley’s broader labor reform framework, which would also limit employers’ rights to communicate with employees about the pros and cons of unionization, enact civil penalties for unfair labor practices, and resuscitate the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) ergonomics regulation that Congress rejected in 2001.

What Employers Need to Know

Currently, the law requires an employer and a newly certified union to meet at a reasonable frequency to bargain in good faith over a first contract, but it sets no deadline for reaching an agreement and forces neither side to accept any particular proposal nor make any particular concession. In short, the law requires a bargaining process, but explicitly does not require any substantive outcome as to whether an agreement is reached or, if so, what terms it will contain.

The FLCA would change that by adding an accelerated bargaining timeline and a mandatory process that can result in the imposition of first-contract terms. Bargaining would have to begin within ten days of a union’s written demand. If the parties did not reach agreement within ninety days, the union could request the involvement of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), triggering thirty days of mediation. If mediation did not produce an agreement, the dispute would proceed to binding interest arbitration, and the resulting first-contract terms would bind the employer for two years.

Key Takeaways

For employers, the practical concern is that binding interest arbitration would shift first-contract decision-making from the bargaining table to an arbitrator applying statutory factors that may not capture the company’s business model, competitive strategy, or long-term investment plans. The arbitrator would be directed to consider the employer’s financial status and prospects, the size and type of its operations, employees’ cost of living, employees’ ability to sustain themselves and their families, and the wages and benefits provided by other employers in the same business. Those factors could lead to contract terms based on industry comparisons or perceived ability to pay, rather than the employer’s particular operating model, budget, staffing needs, or business plan. The arbitrators making these decisions need not have any experience operating a business or any familiarity with the employer’s industry.

The bill also would shift bargaining leverage. A union could run out the ninety-day bargaining period, request FMCS mediation, and then move the first contract to binding interest arbitration, leaving the employer with less ability to hold the line on terms that do not fit the business. That shift could also affect organizing campaigns, because employees may feel they have less to lose when a first contract is all but guaranteed within months, and any resulting terms would bind the company for two years.

Ogletree Deakins’ Traditional Labor Relations Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Governmental Affairs and Traditional Labor Relations blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• A federal district court vacated the Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1B fee requirement.
• The court found that the fee exceeded presidential authority and violated the APA.
• The government is expected to appeal, and USCIS has not yet announced how it will implement the ruling.

Background

On September 19, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Proclamation 10973, invoking Sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to impose a $100,000 supplemental payment requirement on new H-1B petitions filed for beneficiaries located outside the United States. The administration stated that the measure was intended to address perceived abuse of the H-1B program and to protect U.S. workers, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) occupations. Before the proclamation, H-1B filing fees generally ranged from approximately $960 to $7,595, depending on the employer and filing circumstances.

Multiple federal lawsuits have challenged the proclamation. In December 2025, a federal district court in Washington, D.C., upheld the fee requirement in a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities. That decision is currently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which heard oral argument in March 2026. Separately, a coalition of healthcare organizations, labor unions, and educational institutions filed a challenge in Global Nurse Force et al. v. Trump, which remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

In December 2025, a coalition of twenty states filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, arguing that the proclamation exceeded the president’s statutory authority and that the agency guidance implementing the fee violated the APA. On June 8, 2026, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the states on all claims and vacated the implementing policy and its implementing guidance in its entirety.

Analysis and Impact

The court found that the proclamation’s $100,000 payment requirement is a tax, not an immigration restriction, and that the president lacks the authority to impose it. Relying on the Supreme Court of the United States’ recent decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the district court explained that only the U.S. Congress has the power to impose taxes. While the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the president to restrict the entry of noncitizens, it does not authorize the president to create new taxes. The court therefore concluded that the proclamation exceeded the president’s legal authority.

The court also held that the agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act in implementing the policy. Specifically, the agencies failed to follow the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process, exceeded the fee-setting authority granted by Congress, and did not adequately consider the policy’s impact on employers and institutions outside the technology sector, including healthcare providers, universities, and schools.

Key Takeaways

• The government is expected to appeal the decision and ask the court to pause the ruling while the appeal is ongoing. If the court agrees, the $100,000 fee could still be required for now.
• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has not yet explained how it will handle the ruling. It is unclear whether the agency will stop requiring the fee right away, update its guidance, or take another approach.
• A separate appeal is still underway in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court could issue a decision at any time, which may affect the outcome regardless of the recent ruling.
• Other lawsuits challenging the proclamation are also continuing, including the Global Nurse Force case in California. Because of this, the rules around the fee requirement may continue to change in the coming months.

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

To learn more about this development and other critical immigration issues facing employers today, please join our Virtual Immigration Insights Symposium on Wednesday, October 7, 2026, from noon to 2:30 p.m. ET. Register here.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The 2026 FIFA World Cup, co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, poses significant workplace safety risks due to expected large crowds in host cities.
• Employers that proactively approach address crowd control issues and commuting logistics can help ensure a safe environment for employees during the event.
• The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) crowd management guidelines emphasize the importance of anticipating and mitigating hazards posed by surging crowds.

Over the course of the thirty-nine-day event, eleven U.S. cities will host a total of seventy-eight matches (104 across all three countries), bringing millions of fans and potentially causing unprecedented disruption to workplaces nationwide.

For employers—particularly those in host cities like Los Angeles, Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, Kansas City, Boston, New York/New Jersey, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Seattle—this is not merely a spectator event. It is a workplace safety event. The legal issues surrounding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) compliance, crowd control, and commuting logistics demand attention before the first whistle blows.

Moreover, multiple crowd-control incidents in recent years, including at soccer matches, serve as a warning to authorities in host cities and to employers, particularly those in the hospitality, food service, and entertainment industries, about the potential for crowd-control and safety issues they might encounter.

The General Duty Clause Does Not Take a Holiday

Under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act, employers are required to provide a safe workplace. Section 5(a)(1), often called the General Duty Clause, mandates that employers keep their workplace “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.” That obligation is not diminished because an international soccer tournament is generating massive foot traffic outside the office door.

While OSHA does not have a binding standard for crowd control risks, it has long recognized that large crowds in close proximity to workers pose foreseeable dangers. In 2014, OSHA issued crowd management guidelines for retail settings, stemming from an incident in which a retail worker was trampled during a “Black Friday” sales event. While originally developed for retail environments, the guidance underscores employers’ obligations to anticipate and mitigate hazards posed by surging crowds near their workers.

Employers with facilities near stadiums, fan zones, transit hubs, or watch-party districts face a heightened obligation to evaluate whether those conditions create ingress or egress hazards for their own employees. Employers may want to remain aware of risks posed by blocked or obstructed exits, impeded evacuation routes, and compromised building access.

Crowd Control as an Everyday Obligation

While large events like the World Cup illustrate the potential for crowd-related hazards, the underlying risks of crowd-control issues and employers’ ongoing obligation to maintain safe workplaces are not limited to such unique events. OSHA crowd management guidelines, which apply to any employer with operations that attract large crowds, emphasize maintaining unobstructed exit routes, not exceeding safe occupancy levels, and planning for foreseeable surges.

Commuting and Travel Risks

Employers, even those not hosting or near World Cup crowds, may also want to note the potential risks to employees with commuting and travel related to the event. Employees may face difficulties commuting to and from the workplace and traveling in the surrounding areas. Some employees near stadiums or fan zones may not be able to reach the workplace or exit safely on matchdays. Transit officials have urged commuters in New York City and New Jersey, which are co-hosting matches, to work from home if possible and avoid ride-shares to the extent possible on matchdays as crowds are expected to strain the region’s transit networks. Such circumstances may trigger employers’ obligations to plan for such foreseeable risks or hazards.

Key Takeaways

The World Cup may serve as a reminder that crowd-related hazards are a recurring issue, particularly relevant for employers in retail, hospitality, food service, entertainment, and event management. As such, employers may want to consider:

• developing a written crowd management action plan tailored to specific events or conditions and staffing, communication protocols, and emergency procedures;
• ensuring that exit routes are clearly marked and remain unobstructed;
• recognizing and complying with maximum occupancy limits;
• training employees on the crowd management plan, crowd management procedures, emergency responses, and how to recognize crowd hazards such as occupancy limits and obstructions to exits;
• examining workplace spaces to identify specific crowd-related risks; and
• coordinating with law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical services in advance of expected large crowds and consider having trained security personnel on site.

Ogletree Deakins’ Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Hospitality, Retail, Sports and Entertainment, Workplace Safety and Health, and Workplace Violence Prevention blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• While the ADA’s interactive process is a collaborative dialogue, employers retain ultimate discretion over the choice of effective accommodations.
• Employees may not redefine the essential functions of jobs or unilaterally dictate the terms of accommodations.
• Although reassignment is the accommodation of last resort, it satisfies the employer’s reasonable accommodation obligation.

Background

In this case, the employee worked as a federal air marshal for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for more than seven years. Although she had several medical conditions at the time of hire, she was able to perform the essential job functions of the job. Over time, she developed additional medical conditions, leading to extended periods of temporary “light duty” status.

Eventually, TSA told the employee that she could no longer meet the agency’s medical standards for her position and recommended she seek reassignment to a different position within TSA or another federal agency. Notably, in her accommodation request for reassignment, the employee herself acknowledged her “inability to perform the essential duties of [her] current position.” Because there were no open positions available within TSA, the employee applied for and was reassigned to a position at another agency.

After transitioning to the new role, the employee experienced difficulties and sought reconsideration of her reassignment, but TSA’s accommodation office advised that it could no longer assist her since she was no longer a TSA employee. The employee then brought a claim for failure to accommodate under the Rehabilitation Act (the federal employee analog to the ADA), claiming TSA should have kept her permanently in a light-duty position. The federal district court dismissed her lawsuit, and an appeal to the Fourth Circuit followed.

Legal Framework

Like the ADA, whose standards it adopts, the Rehabilitation Act protects a “qualified individual with a disability” from discrimination in federal employment. A “qualified individual” is one who, “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.”

Defining what constitutes the “essential functions” of a job is primarily the employer’s prerogative. Courts afford “considerable deference” to employer judgments in this area because an employer understands the day-to-day work environment and how each role contributes to the organization’s mission. A reasonable accommodation may be required to help the employee perform the essential job functions, but it cannot eliminate those functions.

Determining the appropriate reasonable accommodation involves an interactive process between employer and employee. “[T]he employee may not unilaterally dictate the terms of those accommodations,” the Fourth Circuit stated; rather, the employer retains “ultimate discretion” to select an effective accommodation from those available, and such accommodation need not be the one preferred by the employee or even the most effective one.

The Court’s Analysis

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, finding the employee’s complaint deficient on two independent grounds: that she was not a qualified individual under the Rehabilitation Act and that TSA did provide her with reasonable accommodations. In so finding, the Fourth Circuit made the following key points:

• The employee’s admission of her inability to perform the essential job functions of her position meant she was not a qualified individual. In her complaint, the employee admitted that she had requested reassignment due to her “inability to perform the essential duties” of the desired light-duty role that she previously held. The court found this admission “damaging” to her claim since it negated the requirement of being a qualified individual.
• TSA provided reasonable accommodation. TSA first placed the employee on “light duty” status with limited responsibilities. When she could no longer perform even those adjusted duties, the agency explored whether any other vacant positions within TSA could accommodate her. When none were available, TSA collaborated with the employee on reassignment to another federal agency. This progression was “wholly consistent” with guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) treating reassignment as a last resort.
• The employee self-selected the reassignment position. The court noted that the employee herself had identified the positions at the other agency and selected her reassignment there. Her subsequent dissatisfaction with the role did not transform TSA’s accommodation into an unreasonable one.
• Employee dissatisfaction does not equal discrimination. The court stated plainly that the interactive process gives employees “a meaningful voice” but does not guarantee them their preferred outcomes. Here, the employee exercised that voice by selecting her own reassignment. The fact that she later regretted that selection did not create a viable Rehabilitation Act claim.
• TSA’s obligations ended upon reassignment. Once TSA facilitated the employee’s reassignment to the other agency, its statutory obligations were fulfilled. The Rehabilitation Act does not permit employees to “link all [their] current and future difficulties” to a former employer’s accommodation decisions.

Key Takeaways for Employers

The Fourth Circuit’s decision and reasoning may offer guidance in several areas of concern to employers managing disability accommodation requests:

• Documenting the interactive process. TSA’s success in this case rested in part on the clear record of its ongoing engagement with the employee, starting with the light-duty accommodations through the reassignment discussions. It makes sense for employers to memorialize each step of the interactive process to demonstrate good-faith collaboration.
• Defining and delineating core responsibilities and essential functions. The court deferred to TSA’s judgment that certain aspects of the role were essential functions, even when employees could perform other, marginal aspects of the job. Employers will benefit from ensuring job descriptions accurately reflect essential functions and applying those standards consistently.
• Offering reasonable options, not necessarily preferred options. Employers are not required to provide employees’ preferred accommodations—only ones that are reasonable. When multiple reasonable accommodations exist, the employer may select the option that best serves its operational needs.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• A federal court vacated USCIS’s freeze on work permits, green cards, and other benefit requests for applicants from thirty-nine countries designated as “high risk” by the government, as well as foreign nationals with documentation issued or endorsed by the Palestinian Authority.
• The ruling also struck down a related global asylum hold, USCIS re-review of benefit requests previously approved for applicants from affected countries, and a “country-specific factors” policy.
• The timeline for USCIS to resume adjudications remains uncertain, as the government may appeal the decision or seek a stay.
• The federal court’s ruling represents a significant development for foreign nationals from these countries and their employers.

The challenged USCIS policies halted adjudication of immigration benefit requests—including green cards, employment authorization documents, and nonimmigrant petitions—for individuals from countries the government deemed “high risk,” including foreign nationals from thirty-nine countries and those with Palestinian Authority-issued or -endorsed travel documents. USCIS also enacted related policies, including a global asylum hold, a comprehensive re-review policy of approved benefit request applications for individuals from travel-ban countries who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021, and a “country-specific factors” policy that directed officers to treat being from a travel ban country as a negative factor when reviewing a benefit request that required USCIS discretion.

In Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, found that each policy—the global asylum hold policy, the adjudication benefits hold policy, the comprehensive re-review policy, and the “country-specific factors” policy—violated the Administrative Procedure Act and conflicted with existing law. He additionally found that the policies were arbitrary and capricious because USCIS did not provide a reasoned explanation for enacting the policies, did not account for reliance interests in enacting the policies, and provided a pretextual reason for enacting the policies.

The ruling carries several practical implications. By vacating and setting aside the challenged policies, the court’s order is expected to set the stage for USCIS to resume adjudicating nonimmigrant petitions, work permits, green card applications, and other benefit requests for affected individuals from the designated countries. Employers with sponsored employees whose Form I-129, Form I-485 (Adjustment of Status, or “green card” application), Form I-765 (Employment Authorization Document), or other benefit request applications had stalled may see movement on those cases. As the government may seek a stay or appeal, the practical timing or long-term effect of any resumption in adjudication remains uncertain. The court noted that USCIS’s freeze in adjudicating benefit request applications left many individuals without work and without legal status for an extended period, and the practical effect of the ruling on those individuals will depend on how USCIS implements the order.

Next Steps

As this is a district court decision, the government may appeal and may seek a stay of the order while it undergoes review. Any resumption of adjudications is therefore subject to change. Employers with petitions pending with USCIS that were affected by the now-vacated policies should monitor further developments, including any government motion to stay the court’s order or notice of appeal.

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

To learn more about this development and other critical immigration issues facing employers today, please join our Virtual Immigration Insights Symposium on Wednesday, October 7, 2026, from noon to 2:30 p.m. ET. Register here.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent executive order directs several state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of AI’s impact on the labor market.
• The executive order’s mandates include potential revisions to existing worker protection laws and required notices with reductions in force.
• The order also emphasizes the need for transparency in AI-related employment data and highlights protections against automated decision-making discrimination.

Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-6-26 directs multiple California state agencies to study AI’s impact on the labor market, review existing worker protection laws, and develop recommendations for policy updates. The order imposes no specific compliance requirements but lays out an ambitious policy framework, including multiple exploratory reviews and reports that could set the stage for legislative or regulatory proposals.

The order comes after Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-5-26 in March 2026, focused on state government adoption of AI and government procurement, and Executive Order N-12-23 in September 2023, aimed at addressing potential safety and privacy risks. Meanwhile, the current presidential administration’s executive actions have sought to establish federal preemption over state and local AI laws and regulations and clear barriers to the development of the technology in the United States.

Key Points From the Executive Order

Potential California WARN Act Revisions

The executive order requires the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to, within 180 days, recommend revisions to the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (Cal-WARN) Act to make it more responsive to emerging industry trends. The recommendations could lead to changes to notice requirements for layoffs related to AI-driven workforce changes, possibly including shorter trigger thresholds or AI-specific notification obligations.

Currently, at least two states, Connecticut and New York, have amended their WARN Acts to require certain employers to provide notice when reductions in force are related to the adoption of AI. Meanwhile, the California Senate has passed a bill, Senate Bill (SB) No. 951, that would require employers to provide advance written notice when AI or automation drives workforce reductions or hiring freezes, but the bill has stalled in the state Assembly.

Severance and Displaced Worker Safety Net Review

The executive order also tasks the LWDA with reviewing policies that provide displaced workers with safety-net protections, including severance practices, equity compensation, and temporary, subsidized employment programs. This review will include a “comparative analysis” of practices in other countries. That analysis may foreshadow California-specific legislative proposals around mandatory severance or other restrictions related to AI-displacement of workers.

Collective Bargaining and Technology Adoption

By October 15, 2026, the LWDA must review how collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) and the bargaining process are addressing new technologies such as AI “to identify what can be learned from unionized workplaces.” The order notes that this can include looking at how “worker voice is incorporated in the adoption of emerging technologies.” Unionized employers may expect heightened scrutiny on technology-related bargaining obligations, while non-union employers may see pressure to adopt similar consultation practices.

AI-Related Employment Data Reporting

The California Employment Development Department (EDD) is required to launch a dashboard within ninety days, “showing AI’s impacts on employment across various sectors.” Additionally, the order directs EDD to report feedback from businesses about the role of technological adoption in hiring and workforce decisions in its “California Labor Market Review” publication, at least twice annually through 2027. These reports may require employers to report data.

Automated Decision-Making Discrimination Protections

The order further highlights California’s existing protections against employment discrimination through automated decision-making technologies, as outlined in the 2025 regulations adopted by the California Civil Rights Department and the California Privacy Protection Agency. Employers may wish to review their use of AI tools in hiring, performance evaluation, and discharge decisions to ensure compliance with these existing frameworks.

Employee Ownership Models

Notably, the executive order directs the California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) to evaluate regulatory barriers to employee-owned company structures and explore ways to enable workers to share in AI-driven productivity gains through equity ownership. Such an analysis signals the potential for future incentives or requirements to compensate employees for AI adoption, but at this time, the proposal appears to be in an exploratory stage, and it is not immediately clear whether this could lead to substantive policy proposals.

Next Steps

Although Executive Order N-6-26 does not impose immediate compliance obligations on employers, it establishes an ambitious road map for California’s AI regulatory priorities. Employers with California operations may want to consider auditing their use of automated decision-making and AI tools to make employment decisions and reviewing WARN Act and Cal-WARN Act compliance protocols in anticipation of potential changes to notification requirements. Employers should also note developments from the LWDA, EDD, and other state agencies as those agencies issue their reports.

Ogletree Deakins’ California offices and Technology Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the California, Cybersecurity and Privacy, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Reductions in Force, Technology, Traditional Labor Relations, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Fragmentation—not convergence—now defines the global restrictive covenant landscape.
• Remote work has weakened the logic of traditional geographic restrictions.
• Mandatory compensation regimes materially change enforcement economics in several jurisdictions.
• Trade secret litigation is rising as noncompetes narrow—and it is significantly more complex across borders.
• A single global template creates inconsistent leverage and strategic vulnerability.

The global noncompete model is breaking down—not because restrictive covenants are disappearing everywhere, but because enforcement is fragmenting in ways that create asymmetric cross-border risk.

For global employers, the real danger is not that a clause fails in one jurisdiction. It is that enforceability differs across most jurisdictions—and can become even more complex in globalized economies when an executive moves, competes remotely, or shifts regional focus.

Divergence Is the Operating Reality

Across Europe, courts continue tightening proportionality analysis, resulting in employers having to justify duration and scope with precision. In countries such as Germany and Italy, for example, mandatory compensation during the restricted period fundamentally alters the economics of enforcement.

The United Kingdom continues to consider reform. In parts of the Middle East, enforcement may be available but is highly fact-sensitive, particularly in expatriate-heavy markets. The Asia-Pacific region remains a patchwork, with dramatically different enforcement cultures between jurisdictions.

There is no single global trajectory. There is structural divergence.

Cross-Border Mobility Is Stress-Testing Enforcement

The modern executive rarely operates in one jurisdiction.

It is increasingly common to see senior leaders with U.S.-governed contracts do any of the following: relocate to an EU jurisdiction, oversee operations in the Gulf, join a competitor headquartered in Asia, and/or service global accounts remotely.

In this environment, governing law clauses are only one factor. Courts may look at where the employee works, where the competitive activity occurs, and whether enforcement conflicts with local labor policy.

Cross-border enforceability is no longer theoretical. It is strategic.

Remote Work Has Undermined Geographic Logic

Traditional noncompetes were built on territorial assumptions: a defined market, physical presence, and measurable geographic scope.

That logic weakens when commercial activity is global and digital. Executives managing multinational client portfolios from a laptop complicate the justification for broad territorial restrictions. Courts are increasingly focused on legitimate business interests and demonstrable harm, not historical drafting conventions.

Overreach is easier to challenge—and easier to invalidate.

The False Comfort of the Global Template

Many multinationals still:

• apply identical durations across jurisdictions,
• embed restrictive covenants into global equity plans without recalibration,
• rely on minimal local addenda, and
• overlook mandatory compensation regimes.

Uniform drafting does not produce uniform protection. It produces uneven leverage and uneven enforceability.

A clause that appears robust in one country may be economically unsustainable or legally vulnerable in another. Sophisticated departing executives understand this—and structure their moves accordingly.

As noncompetes narrow in certain markets, employers increasingly rely on trade secret litigation. That shift introduces further cross-border complexity: data localization constraints, dispersed evidence, and varying standards for interim relief. Trade secret enforcement is slower, more expensive, and more fact-intensive than many companies anticipate.

Weak restrictive covenant architecture does not eliminate risk. It redistributes it.

A 2026-Ready Strategy

Multinational employers developing restrictive covenant strategies may want to ensure the strategies:

• are layered and jurisdiction-specific,
• are aligned with local enforceability standards,
• include strengthened nonsolicitation and confidentiality provisions,
• are thoughtful about the use of garden leave where viable, and
• have compensation or equity structures that are designed with jurisdictional economics in mind.

Employers will also want to ensure that executive-level covenants are based on mobility patterns and enforcement anchors.

Global mobility is accelerating. Political scrutiny is intensifying. Enforcement is becoming more policy-driven and jurisdiction-specific.

Uniformity for its own sake is no longer defensible.

A global template cannot absorb fragmentation.

A global strategy can.

Ogletree Deakins’ Cross-Border Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Cross-Border and Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• A separate department of an establishment (Betriebsteil) eligible for a works council under the German Works Constitution Act (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz (BetrVG)) can exist even if the main establishment is located abroad. This does not violate the principle of territoriality.
• For the required minimum degree of organizational independence of a separate department of an establishment, it is not harmful that key personnel and disciplinary decisions continue to be made centrally abroad.

The Case

The employer is an airline with its registered seat in Malta and group headquarters in Ireland. It operates, among other locations, a base at Berlin-Brandenburg Airport (BER) with approximately 320 cockpit and cabin crew members. It maintains an “Airport Office” on-site. The cockpit and cabin personnel start and end their shifts in or at the aircraft.

Decisions on hirings and dismissals, disciplinary measures, scheduling, promotions, and transfers are made by management personnel based in Malta and Ireland. However, a base captain (chief of the cockpit crew) and a base supervisor (chief of the cabin crew) are assigned to the base at BER.

After the employees at BER took the initiative to elect a works council, the employer filed a petition with the Labor Court Cottbus (Arbeitsgericht Cottbus) seeking a declaration that the base at BER did not constitute an organizational unit eligible for a works council.

Both lower courts—including the Higher Labor Court of Berlin-Brandenburg (Landesarbeitsgericht (LAG))—dismissed the petition.

The Decision of the LAG

The LAG had already held that the base at BER constitutes a separate department of an establishment—eligible for a works council—within the meaning of the Works Constitution Act (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz (BetrVG)).

Not an Establishment, but a Separate Department Eligible for a Works Council

The court found that the base does not qualify as an establishment (Betrieb) within the meaning of Section 1(1) of the BetrVG. The key personnel and social management functions—such as scheduling, hirings, dismissals, disciplinary measures, and leave decisions—are not exercised on-site but rather from the group headquarters in Ireland and the registered seat in Malta.

However, the court held that the base constitutes a separate department of an establishment (selbständiger Betriebsteil) in which a works council can be formed. The requirements of Section 4(1) sentence 1 no. 1 of the BetrVG were met:

1. The BER base is geographically far removed from the main establishment—regardless of whether the group headquarters in Ireland or the registered seat in Malta is considered the main establishment. The fact that the main establishment is located abroad does not preclude this conclusion. A domestic main establishment as a reference point is not strictly required.
2. In addition, the base has its own permanent workforce of approximately 320 cockpit and cabin crew members. Together with the “Airport Office,” it also has the necessary operational infrastructure.
3. The required minimum degree of organizational independence is established through the base captain and the base supervisor, who issue technical instructions to the local employees. The fact that key personnel and disciplinary decisions continue to be made centrally in Ireland or Malta is not harmful. A rudimentary level of managerial authority on-site is sufficient.

BAG Confirms: Works Council Election Permissible

The BAG confirmed the LAG’s decision: A works council can be elected at the BER base.

The fact that the main establishment is located abroad does not prevent this. This does not violate the territoriality principle, under which the BetrVG applies only to domestic establishments. The separate department, deemed an independent establishment pursuant to the BetrVG, is located in Germany.

Practical Implications

So far, the BAG has only published a press release regarding the decision. The full text of the ruling will provide further insight into the detailed reasoning. One thing is already clear: The BAG’s decision is particularly significant for companies with cross-border management structures.

Internationally active companies that maintain operating sites with their own workforces in Germany may want to anticipate that works councils can be elected at those sites—even if key personnel and disciplinary decisions are made centrally abroad.

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

Bastian Sepp is an associate in the Munich office of Ogletree Deakins.

Niklas Thiel, a law clerk in the Munich office of Ogletree Deakins, contributed to this article.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts