Federal Government Likely Heading for Weekend Shutdown, but With Hope on the Horizon. At the time of this writing, the U.S. Senate has not passed legislation to fund most of the federal government beyond 11:59 p.m. (EST) this evening. Just a few days ago, Congress was on the glide path to do so, but as the Buzz noted last week, “Politics can always derail efforts at the last minute.” And this is exactly what happened in the Senate this week. Before leaving Washington, D.C., last week, the U.S. House of Representatives sent the Senate a six-bill funding package that needed to be passed to keep the government open. But part of the package included a bill funding the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Senate Democrats wanted to make changes to that bill following the killing of a U.S. citizen in Minneapolis this past weekend. The hopeful outcome at this time is for the passage of a revised spending package that includes the five non-controversial bills and a two-week continuing resolution of DHS funding. (The Senate is currently voting on such a spending package.) In this scenario, there will likely be a brief partial government shutdown until the House can agree on these new changes and the president signs the bill.

NLRB: New Personnel, New Processes. Now that a functioning quorum has been restored at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and a general counsel, Crystal Carey, is in place, the new folks in charge are digging into the enormous backlog of cases at the agency.

• On January 28, 2026, NLRB General Counsel (GC) Carey issued a memorandum titled, “Operational Priorities to Ensure Consistent, Fair, and Timely Case Resolution Across Regions”—her first publicly released memorandum since assuming the role. Traditionally, the first memorandum issued by a newly minted GC at the Board instructs regional offices to submit to the GC’s office cases or topics that are controversial or that the new GC might want to reconsider. According to Carey’s memo, however, her “priority is to address the backlog of cases, not add to it.” Consequently, the memo further states that Carey will soon “issue guidance on operational focused topics such as case processing, settlements, and remedies all aimed at achieving consistent, fair and prompt resolution of charges across the Agency.” While the GC and the Board work to resolve the backlog, existing Board law will remain in place.

• Speaking of the case backlog, this week, the Board issued a clarification responding to media reports of changes to its internal docketing protocol. According to the clarification, under the old intake system, Board agents received new charges with “incomplete information and were required to conduct extensive follow-up before any evidence was collected or meaningful investigative steps could occur.” Under the new protocols, “essential information is collected at the time the charge is filed, … [so] … [w]hen a Board agent reviews the case for the first time, there will already be an organized body of evidence ready for review.” The Board’s clarification further states, “The purpose of the new internal protocol is to improve efficiency and reduce delays caused by assigning cases to Board agents who are already managing significant caseloads and may not be able to begin new investigative work for months.” Eric C. Stuart and Zachary V. Zagger have additional details.

EEOC Commissioners Recoup More Litigation Authority. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has approved a “Resolution Concerning the Commission’s Authority to Commence or Intervene in Litigation.” The resolution addresses an issue that has been the subject of debate at the Commission for decades: the interplay between the commissioners and the EEOC’s general counsel with regard to enforcement of federal antidiscrimination laws. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides the Commission with the authority to file civil actions where an employer or labor organization has engaged in an unlawful employment practice, while empowering the Commission’s general counsel to conduct such litigation. Beginning in 1995, the Commission took several steps to delegate its statutory enforcement authority to the general counsel. This eventually led to complaints that the Commission had ceded too much of its authority to the general counsel. In early 2021, during the final days of the first Trump administration, the EEOC passed a resolution that returned much of this delegated litigation authority to the Commission. As a result of the most recent resolution, the commissioners will now vote to approve all cases, except those involving recordkeeping, consent decrees, or settlements.

Snow Way. Labor and employment attorneys are not the only stakeholders watching Congress sort through the federal government’s funding process. Washington, D.C.–based snow lovers have had a keen eye on the process, as well. Here’s why. The west front of the U.S. Capitol is a great spot for sledding in D.C.’s otherwise urban landscape. However, §16.5.20 of the United States Capitol Police’s Traffic Regulations for the United States Capitol Grounds states, “No person shall coast or slide a sled within Capitol Grounds” (though cross-country skiing or snowshoeing is allowed on the grounds “as a means for transportation”). Fortunately, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), the non-voting delegate to Congress representing the District of Columbia, has been able to insert language into the report accompanying the appropriations bill funding the legislative branch that encourages the Capitol Police to permit sledding. The language states:

Use of Grounds. As instructed in House Report 117-389, the USCP should continue to forebear enforcement of 2 U.S.C. 1963 and the Traffic Regulations for the United States Capitol Grounds when encountering snow sledders on the grounds.

This item was included in the legislation that President Donald Trump signed into law on November 12, 2025, to end last year’s federal government shutdown.

Quick Hits

• The Maine Department of Labor recently confirmed that benefit distributions will begin on May 1, 2026, for the PFML program.
• Both employers and employees contribute to the paid family and medical leave fund.

Covered workers will be entitled to take twelve weeks of paid time off for family leave, medical leave, leave to deal with the transition of a family member’s military deployment, or leave to stay safe after abuse or violence. Although the time off must occur on or after May 1, 2026, to be eligible for Maine PFML benefits, the state and its insurance provider will start accepting applications for benefits in April 2026.

Covered employers with at least one employee in Maine are required to register (a registration tutorial for employers can be found here, and frequently asked questions for employers can be found here) in the Maine Paid Leave Contributions Portal. Employers with fifteen or more employees must contribute 1 percent of wages and may deduct up to half of this contribution from employees’ wages. Employers with fewer than fifteen employees must contribute 0.5 percent of wages and may deduct the entire amount from employees’ wages.

After a covered employee takes PFML leave, the employee must be restored to the same position, or one with equivalent conditions, pay, and benefits, upon returning, if the employee has been employed for at least 120 days. Job restoration for employees who have not completed 120 days with their employers is not required under Maine’s PFML law; nevertheless, employers should carefully consider their obligations under other applicable laws prior to making decisions impacting the employment relationship. Moreover, retaliation against employees utilizing approved PFML is prohibited.

An employer may not require an employee to use other available paid time off, such as vacation days or sick days, during a PFML absence, or require an employee to exhaust all other paid time off before taking PFML. However, Maine PFML benefits may run concurrently with unpaid leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Maine Family Medical Leave law when they apply. Leave taken under the federal FMLA or Maine FMLA before an employee’s Maine PFML benefits begin will count against the employee’s available twelve weeks of Maine PFML, if taken for reasons qualified under the three laws.

Notably, Maine PFML includes qualifying reasons for leave that would not be covered under the federal FMLA. Employers may wish to review their handbook language related to the use of various leave benefits to ensure compliance and limit the potential for “stacking” leave periods.

While on PFML leave, workers will continue to accrue vacation time, sick time, seniority, and service credits in the same manner as before. Additionally, employers must continue covered employees’ health insurance coverage while the employees are on PMFL leave.

Next Steps

Employers in Maine may wish to train managers to understand the law and to recognize and respond to PFML leave requests in a legally compliant manner. Employers also may wish to coordinate with their third-party payroll provider to ensure payroll withholdings are executed correctly for the PFML program. The Maine Department of Labor is responsible for handling benefit distributions.

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

In addition, the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal tracks developments and provides real-time updates on Leaves and Maine’s employment laws, including the rules governing the PFML program. Full law summaries are available for Premium-level subscribers. Snapshots and Updates are available for all registered client users. For more information on the Client Portal or to inquire about a Client Portal subscription, please reach out to clientportal@ogletree.com.

Aimee B. Parsons is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Portland, Maine, 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

• In FY 2025, union election petitions filed by employees decreased to 2,100, marking the lowest number since 2022, yet still surpassing the first two years of the Biden administration.
• Unions achieved a high win percentage of 81.9 percent in representation elections, though the percentage reflected a slight decline from the previous year.
• Employer petitions dropped to 237, but employer petitions have been significantly higher since the NLRB’s 2023 decision regarding voluntary recognition procedures.

While there is usually some fanfare from the NLRB on the release of its annual statistics, the NLRB has quietly released its annual representation case statistics for fiscal year (FY) 2025 on its website. So, what do the latest figures tell us about labor relations in FY 2025? Here are three takeaways:

1. Number of Union Petitions Down

In FY 2025, employees/unions filed a total of 2,100 petitions for representation elections, known as “RC” petitions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this was the fewest number of petitions filed in a fiscal year since 2022. But while a drop in union petitions may have been anticipated with President Donald Trump taking office and Republicans holding the majority in the U.S. Congress, total filings were still higher than the first two years of the Biden administration, which was seen as more union friendly. The numbers suggest that employees remain highly interested in union representation compared to the years before President Biden took office.

• Union Election Win Percentage Remains High

Unions won 81.9 percent of elections held following an RC petition in FY 2025, an increase from 79.9 percent in FY 2024, but a slight decrease from 82.8 percent in FY 2023. Still, unions continue to enjoy an astounding overall win rate in elections. The numbers show that unions continue to have a strong chance of winning representation when the question goes to an election.

• Employer Petitions Drop, but Remain Higher Than Past Years

The number of employer petitions for union elections, known as “RM” petitions, fell to 237 in FY 2025 from 489 in FY 2024. Still, the numbers for the past two fiscal years represent a significant increase from the previous high of sixty-two, going back to FY 2016. The increase is likely attributable to the continuing effect of the NLRB’s August 2023 decision that requires employers to file a petition after receiving a written demand for voluntary recognition to preserve an election. The reduction may suggest that unions have not found that decision and its change in process as advantageous as they initially hoped. Instead, unions may continue to rely predominantly on filing their own RC petition after making a written demand.

Next Steps

Despite a change in the political climate, employers may not want to sleep on labor relations in 2026, and instead continue focusing on maintaining positive employee relations. While the number of RC petitions filed by employees/unions dropped in FY 2025 from the previous four years, the numbers still suggest continued interest in organizing, particularly compared to when former President Joe Biden took office.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Maine recently enacted a law requiring employers to notify employees and job applicants about employee surveillance.
• The law does not apply to cameras used in the workplace for safety and security purposes.
• The law was enacted without the governor’s signature, and it is expected to take effect in July 2026, depending on when the legislature adjourns.

In recent years, more employers have begun using technology to track employee movements and actions. This may include cameras in the workplace, GPS tracking on phones and wearable devices, keystroke monitoring, and biometric monitoring. Some employers use these tools to identify potential areas for cost savings and encourage productivity and efficiency. Others use them to effectively manage administrative tasks, including tracking mileage for employee reimbursement and monitoring sales activities. These tools tend to be more commonly used in industries such as trucking, delivery, construction, utilities, sales, and home healthcare.

Under the new Maine law, employers using surveillance must (1) inform job applicants about the surveillance during the interview process and (2) provide written notice at least once per year to all impacted employees. The law broadly defines surveillance to include all types of data collection.

Notably, L.D. 61 prohibits employers from requiring employees to install surveillance tools on their personal devices without first obtaining permission from impacted employees. The law further allows employees to decline employer requests to install tracking and data collection tools on their personal devices for surveillance purposes.  

The law also prohibits employers from using audiovisual monitoring in an employee’s residence or personal vehicle, or on the employee’s property, unless the audiovisual monitoring is required for the duties of the job. L.D. 61 does not apply to cameras installed in the workplace for security or safety purposes, or GPS trackers and other safety devices on company-owned vehicles operated by employees. It also does not apply to surveillance tools installed by an employer, patient, client, or unpaid caregiver in a setting in which employees provide personal care services.

Employers that violate this law may be subject to a fine of $100 to $500 for each violation.

Next Steps

Employers in Maine may wish to review and update their written policies and practices regarding employee surveillance to ensure compliance with state and federal privacy laws. They may wish to assess the effectiveness of the technology they are currently using to monitor workers.

Ogletree Deakins’ Portland (ME) office and Cybersecurity and Privacy Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Cybersecurity and Privacy, Maine, and Technology blogs as new information becomes available.

Aimee Blanchard Parsons is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Portland (ME) 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

• A jury in federal court recently awarded a former employee $5.5 million in her sexual harassment and retaliation case.
• A female security guard alleged that her boss sexually harassed and assaulted her, and that the company ended her employment after she complained to the company’s owner.
• Anti-harassment provisions in federal, state, and local laws may vary in scope and application.

Background

A former security guard sued C&M Defense Group, which now operates as Global Security Management Team, claiming that her supervisor, the vice president of operations at the time, subjected her to unwanted sexual comments, repeated sexual advances, and threats of physical violence after she rejected his advances in 2022. She claimed her supervisor made sexually explicit remarks and asked her to go to a strip club and a hotel with him—which she refused to do. A month later, she claimed he pushed her against a wall, groped her, and unzipped his pants at a worksite. She said he offered her financial favors and a promotion in exchange for sex. She used a recording device to record that incident.

After she reported several incidents to the company owner and provided the company with the recording she made, the company reassigned her to a different jobsite and stopped giving her hours to work. She filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In May 2024, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination, finding that there was reasonable cause to conclude that the company subjected the employee to a hostile work environment based on her sex and sexual orientation, and that it discharged her in retaliation for reporting harassment.

The federal lawsuit alleged that the company willfully failed to prevent or stop the harassment, and that it wrongfully retained the plaintiff’s recording device.

Antiharassment Protections

Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal for employers with 15 or more employees to allow sexual harassment at the workplace or fail to investigate when they know, or should know, that sexual harassment has occurred. A hostile work environment requires that the harassment is severe or pervasive. It also is unlawful for employers to retaliate against a worker who reports harassment or participates in an investigation. Many states have laws requiring similar—or more stringent—protections.

Under the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, arbitration agreements cannot cover disputes involving sexual harassment or sexual assault.

In this case, to be entitled to an award of punitive damages under Title VII, the plaintiff had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that C&M Defense Group acted with either malice or reckless indifference toward her protected rights. As instructed, the jury considered factors such as whether the company engaged in a pattern of discrimination or retaliation toward its employees, whether the company acted spitefully or malevolently, whether the company showed blatant disregard for legal obligations, and whether the company failed to investigate reports of discrimination and take corrective action.

The court told the jury that the company failed to preserve evidence, so that evidence should be assumed to be unfavorable to the company. Specifically, the evidence was texts between the company’s vice president, chief operating officer, and vice president of operations.

Next Steps

This case shows how failing to keep a workplace free of harassment and retaliation can lead to huge penalties, along with potential harm to the organization’s brand and public image. The case could be appealed to a federal circuit court.

Employers may wish to review their written policies to ensure they clearly state sexual harassment, hostile work environments, and retaliation will not be tolerated. They may wish to review all arbitration agreements to ensure they exclude claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault.

Employers should consider providing anti-harassment training to supervisors and employees, using programs that provide specific examples of what is and what is not harassment.  

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Employment Law, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, and Georgia blogs as new information becomes available. Ogletree Deakins recently posted a podcast entitled “Inside the Exclusive: Highly Sensitive Sexual Harassment and Assault Investigations.”

Natalie N. Turner is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Atlanta 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

• Germany’s Federal Labor Court (BAG) ruled that third-division soccer referees are not employees, reversing the Cologne Regional Labor Court’s decision and determining that the legal dispute should be heard in civil courts.
• The BAG found that the framework agreement and actual constraints on referees did not establish an employer’s right to issue instructions typical of an employment contract, emphasizing the freelance nature of the referees’ work.

The decision clarifies the employment status of third-division referees and aligns with principles from the “crowd worker decision,” but leaves open questions about the application to referees in higher leagues with VAR supervision.

Facts

The employee was a soccer referee who had been assigned to the regional league since the 2021/2022 season but now wanted to be considered for the next higher third division, called 3. Liga.

The employer was a subsidiary of the German Football Association (Deutscher Fußball-Bund (DFB)), which is responsible for appointing referees for the professional leagues of the German Football League (Bundesliga, 2. Bundesliga, and 3. Liga). It had not included the employee on the DFB referee list for the 3. Liga for the 2024/2025 season. The employee then brought an action against it before the Bonn Labor Court for payment of compensation and damages for age discrimination under Section 15 (1) and (2) of the General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG)).

In connection with the examination of the legal recourse to the labor courts, the Bonn Labor Court ruled that the referee was not an employee and referred the legal dispute to the civil courts. The Cologne Regional Labor Court, which was called upon to rule on this matter, affirmed the employee status of 3. Liga referees and overturned the referral decision. In doing so, it focused on the fact that referees were at least de facto bound by instructions regarding the assumption of individual match officiating duties on specific match days, which resulted, among other things, from possible disciplinary measures under the referee regulations in the event of cancellations of match officiating duties and from the employer’s monopoly position.

Further details on the facts of the case and the legal basis can be found in August 2025 article on the decision of the Cologne Regional Labor Court.

Federal Labor Court’s Opinion

The Federal Labor Court, in turn, ruled contrary to the Cologne Regional Labor Court that the referee was not an employee and that the legal dispute should therefore be heard before the Frankfurt am Main Regional Civil Court rather than the labor courts.

The framework agreement that the employee and employer would have concluded if the employee had been assigned to 3. Liga would not have established the employer’s right to issue instructions to the employee regarding his assignment to individual games, as is typical in employment contracts. Such a right to issue instructions does not arise from the framework agreement, nor does it arise from the actual constraints on referees to be available for games. An obligation to officiate certain matches as part of the referee team arises solely on a consensual basis. This is because, within the framework of deployment planning, referees are initially free to enter certain dates on which they cannot or do not wish to officiate as “exemptions” in the “DFBnet” system in advance of the season. Referees are only assigned to matches for which no exemption has been marked. And even after this so-called “preliminary assignment,” the referee can still refuse to officiate the match before the “final assignment” of the specific dates.

According to Section 11 No. 1 of the Referee Regulations, the employer is authorized to sanction repeated unjustified and reprehensible late cancellations of match assignments by referees, up to and including exclusion from the referee list. However, this only applies to match assignments that had already been agreed upon beforehand. Even if referees were concerned that the employer would no longer include them on the list of referees in the future if they made extensive use of “exemptions,” this would not be sufficient to constitute personal subordination by virtue of de facto coercion. It is inherent in freelance employment relationships that contractors do not receive follow-up assignments if they are not available on a regular basis.

Furthermore, since each individual refereeing assignment would be remunerated at the same rate and would be economically rewarding in itself, referees would not only start to “earn money” once they had taken on an increasing number of assignments. The remuneration structure therefore does not give rise to any expectation of constant availability for work, which is characteristic of an employee—unlike, for example, in the case of “atomized microjobs,” which only become worthwhile when performed multiple times (see the BAG’S so-called “crowd worker decision” of December 1, 2020, Ref: 9 AZR 102/20).

Nor does Section 7 No. 2 of the Referee Regulations, according to which referees must regularly attend training evenings and keep themselves fit through athletic training, give rise to a right of direction typical of an employment relationship. This does not take into account any specific employer interest. Rather, the client also has a legitimate interest in imparting and maintaining the knowledge necessary for successful cooperation through further training within the framework of a freelance employment relationship. The physical fitness of referees is a prerequisite for officiating games in professional leagues.

In the opinion of the Federal Labor Court, the individual agreements on the refereeing of certain matches do not constitute an employment relationship, even when viewed in conjunction with the framework agreement. On the one hand, during the soccer game, the employee was not bound by instructions in the manner typical of an employment contract. Rather, due to the nature of their task in officiating games, referees are not bound by instructions. On the other hand, the employee’s involvement in the organizational framework of the game—for example, by specifying the location and time of the game and the clothing to be worn—does not constitute a specific feature of an employment contract, but rather results from the nature of the task, i.e., officiating a soccer league game.

Conclusion

The BAG’s decision provides legal clarity with regard to the classification of the employment relationships of 3. Liga referees and counteracts inconsistent assessments depending on the regional labor court district. In addition, the decision contributes to the further concretization of the principles regarding the “de facto” subordination of employees, which the BAG developed in its “crowd worker decision” of December 1, 2020 (Ref.: 9 AZR 102/20).

It remains unclear whether this reasoning can be applied to referees in the Bundesliga and 2. Bundesliga. In the present decision, the Federal Labor Court did not have to rule on whether referees are bound by instructions during a soccer match, which could possibly result from the “supervision” of referees by a video assistant referee (VAR). Such a system is not yet in use in 3. Liga.

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

Dr. Martin Landauer is partner in Ogletree Deakins’ Munich office.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• In 2025, healthcare employers faced increasing privacy litigation and shifting regulations around healthcare privacy, including ADA compliance, federal privacy protections, and state AI and health data laws, with heightened HIPAA enforcement by HHS.
• Healthcare employers in 2025 dealt with staffing shortages and wage and hour issues, influenced by proposed FLSA changes, civil awards for worker misclassification, state court rulings on meal and rest periods, and restrictions on noncompetition provisions and H-1B visa fees.
• In 2026, healthcare staffing will continue to be an issue for employers in 2026, and states are continuing to focus on AI and privacy in the workplace, staffing, and workplace safety.

Privacy: While privacy litigation is on the rise, the regulatory landscape around healthcare privacy continues to shift, causing uncertainty for employers in the healthcare industry. Employers continued to face privacy considerations for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, shifting federal privacy protections for substance-abuse records and reproductive health information, and changes to state AI laws and health data laws, all while the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ramped up Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) enforcement.

Staffing: As the nation continues to experience staffing shortages of healthcare professionals, healthcare employers saw an increase in wage and hour considerations across both ordinary workers and workers from staffing agencies. These included proposed changes to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exemptions in home health, sizable civil awards against staffing companies for misclassification of workers, and changes in state courts to meal and rest period class actions. State laws limiting noncompetition provisions and other restrictive covenants for healthcare professionals, as well as the federal government’s $100,000 fee for H-1B visa petitions also impacted the supply of healthcare professionals.

Workplace Safety: At a time when healthcare worker safety is critically important and amid federal changes to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) authority, employers in the healthcare industry were among the highest reporters of workplace safety incidents, including continued assaults by patients against healthcare workers. Healthcare employers encountered new state laws regarding threats against workplace and medical facilities, public and legal expectations pertaining to viral exposure and vaccinations, improvements to workplace violence prevention measures in eight states, a recommendation to increase employer liability for employee sexual assault, and proposed rulemaking pertaining to COVID-19 exposure in healthcare settings.

Looking Forward to 2026

AI and Privacy: An increasing number of states continue to pass AI laws on employers. At least one state has proposed legislation that prohibits the use of discriminatory AI in employment decisions. For example, Illinois has proposed legislation limiting the use of AI in employment decisions that result in discrimination. Colorado’s Artificial Intelligence Act, currently set to become effective in the summer of 2026, also may impose restrictions on AI usage in employment, especially if the AI system is discriminatory. As privacy and AI laws continue to evolve, we anticipate seeing a related rise in privacy litigation against employers and entities using AI.

Staffing: As ongoing shortages of nurses, physicians, and other healthcare professionals continue to affect healthcare employer staffing, 2026 has seen and will continue to see a further increase in the use of both staffing agencies and in wage and hour issues with healthcare employees. In Washington and Minnesota, new state legislation will affect healthcare worker meal and rest period breaks. Continued state-level restrictions on restrictive covenants in the healthcare industry may also affect how healthcare employers can maintain their staffing levels.

Workplace Safety: In the absence of clear federal regulations on workplace safety, states continue to emphasize the importance of workplace safety for employees, especially healthcare employees.

Ogletree Deakins’ Healthcare Industry Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Cybersecurity and Privacy, Healthcare Immigration, State Developments, Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets, Wage and Hour, Workplace Investigations and Organization Assessments, Workplace Safety and Health, and Workplace Violence Protection blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) is a new federal IPEDS requirement for four-year colleges and universities, including graduate-only institutions, to report undergraduate and graduate admissions, aid, and outcomes data.
• Covered institutions must submit six academic years of data (2019-20 through 2025-26) during the current collection window, which closes March 18, 2026, leaving a compressed timeline to assemble both the current year and the prior five years.
• With a short runway to the ACTS submission deadline, institutions may want to move promptly to map data sources, align definitions, and address privacy and security controls, consult NCES instructions and FAQs, and prepare for potential risk-based Title VI reviews that will draw on these submissions.

Who Must Report and When

ACTS applies to four‑year, degree‑granting public, private not‑for‑profit, and private for‑profit institutions that primarily award bachelor’s degrees or higher, including institutions that award only graduate degrees. NCES opened the collection on December 18, 2025, and it will close on March 18, 2026. Reporting covers the current 2025–26 academic year plus the five prior academic years (2019–20 through 2024–25), for a total of six years. With the collection already underway and a March 18, 2026, close, institutions face a compressed timeline to compile and submit both current‑year and retrospective data. NCES has also posted collection instructions and a frequently asked questions guide (FAQs) to support filers. Institutions may be exempt in a particular year if both: (1) they were open admission or admitted 100 percent of applicants in that year; and (2) they did not award non‑need‑based aid in that year. Following the public comment periods, NCES indicated a limited change clarifying that two‑year colleges are exempt when they admit all applicants and do not award non‑need‑based aid, while the broader framework moved forward to approval.

What ACTS Signals for Compliance and Risk

ACTS enables the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to enhance transparency and facilitate widespread Title VI compliance through detailed, disaggregated reporting of admissions, aid, and outcome data. The administration’s notices and the public comments received during the notice and comment period contemplate expansive risk‑based reviews drawing on race‑ and sex‑disaggregated applicants (people who apply), admitted students (people offered admission), and enrollees (students who actually start). The data will also be grouped  by GPAand test score quintiles, application round (early/regular), family income and Pell Grant eligibility, first‑generation status, financial aid offered and received, graduation outcomes, and other factors used in admissions decisions. For undergraduate applicants, ACTS calls for unweighted secondary‑school GPA and test scores in addition to the above. For first‑time, full‑time degree/certificate‑seeking undergraduates who enroll, reporting extends to aid received, parental college attainment, and the student’s unweighted cumulative GPA after the first academic year. Comparable categories apply to graduate applicants and enrolled students, with reporting organized at the program level (e.g., by CIP code). The breadth and granularity, coupled with a tight launch window, elevate operational, privacy, and data‑quality risks.

Next Steps for Institutions Now

Institutions subject to ACTS may want to mobilize cross‑functional teams spanning admissions, institutional research, IT/data governance, financial aid, and legal to map data sources and close readiness gaps across the full lookback period. Early scoping should prioritize definitions alignment, student‑level to aggregate reconciliation, treatment of test‑optional applicants, and standardization of GPA and quintiles across feeder schools and programs. Given the potential for small‑cell privacy risks and cybersecurity considerations, institutions may also want to review de‑identification protocols, access controls, and disclosure review processes. Privileged analyses of admissions and scholarship decision factors across the reporting years, controlling for permissible criteria, may assist in informing Title VI risk assessments.

Ogletree Deakins’ Higher Education Practice Group and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Higher Education and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The NLRB has implemented new case intake procedures requiring charging parties to submit evidence before their unfair labor practice cases are docketed.
• Under the new procedure, a failure to provide documentation and information supporting a charge within two weeks may lead to the dismissal of the charge.
• Designed to enhance efficiency in case handling and reduce the existing case backlog, the updated process may result in quicker resolutions of unfair labor practice charges.

In one of his last acts as acting general counsel of the NLRB, William B. Cowen issued Memorandum GC 26-01 on December 23, 2025, outlining new procedures for processing and assigning charges filed after October 1, 2025. The memorandum states that the NLRB will now require charging parties to submit evidence and documentation within two weeks before a case is assigned.

Recent reporting on the memorandum suggested the NLRB’s updated protocol could create hurdles for charging parties seeking to bring unfair labor practice charges. However, the NLRB has now clarified that the “information requested at intake is the same information that Board agents have always required at the beginning of an investigation” and that “[t]he two-week deadline for responding to preliminary information requests under the updated protocol is fully consistent with longstanding agency practice.”

“The purpose of the new internal protocol is to improve efficiency and reduce delays caused by assigning cases to Board agents who are already managing significant caseloads and may not be able to begin new investigative work for months,” the clarification issued by the NLRB’s Office of Public Affairs stated.

Evidence Submission by Charging Parties

Memorandum GC 26-01 explained that charging parties must e-file specific evidence within two weeks of docketing, and the failure to provide the requested evidence may result in a charge being dismissed. According to the memorandum, charging parties must submit:

• a chronological outline of relevant events and communications;
• relevant documentation and supporting communications; and
• a list of witnesses with contact information and a brief summary of each witness’s testimony.

The regional office will send a docketing letter to the charging party with a new email address for the regional offices and the telephone number of a Board employee for questions about the new initial evidence submission requirements.

According to the memorandum, the updated procedures were aimed at providing relief to the NLRB’s twenty-six regional offices and improving case processing efficiency. Acting General Counsel Cowen acknowledged that the Board and its regional offices faced a significant backlog of cases exacerbated by the 43-day federal government shutdown and decreasing staffing levels. The memorandum came after the NLRB had lacked a quorum of members for most of 2025, and before two new members appointed by President Donald Trump were sworn in on January 7, 2026.

The NLRB said in its new clarification is designed to increase efficiency and reduce delays. Under the prior procedure, the NLRB said Board agents were receiving charges with incomplete information, which required “extensive follow-up before any evidence was collected or meaningful investigative steps could occur.” That process had contributed to the growing backlogs and delays, the NLRB stated.

“By ensuring that essential information is collected at the time the charge is filed, the updated internal protocol allows the agency to make better use of limited investigative resources,” the NLRB stated.

Assignment to a Board Agent

In addition to the information request requirements, Memorandum GC 26-01 explained that charges will not be immediately assigned to a Board agent, but will instead be placed on a list monitored by NLRB staff, awaiting the initial evidence submission. The procedures will not apply to charges related to existing cases or to certain statutory priority charges, as defined by the NLRB Casehandling Manual, including unfair labor practice charges filed against unions that require injunctions, such as to stop illegal picketing or boycotts.

Once the charging party has submitted evidence and it has been determined that the case should be assigned for investigation, the charge “will not be assigned until there is a Board Agent who has sufficient capacity to allow them to timely investigate the charge.” The memorandum stated that “[i]f there is no Board Agent with sufficient capacity, the charge will remain on the unassigned case list until there is a Board Agent with capacity.”

Next Steps

The new case intake protocol changes are designed to improve efficiency and could potentially result in quicker dismissals, particularly when charges lack factual support. Employers may want to note the new evidence submission requirements for filing unfair labor practice charges and the potential for case dismissals for failing to comply. Employers may also want to ensure the organization and retention of records, communications, and events related to potential charges.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Despite the EU Pay Transparency Directive having entered into force in June 2023, giving member states three years to transpose it into national law, only three member states have published partially finalised drafts: Belgium (Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles), Malta, and Poland.
• Core obligations span a ban on salary history and transparency on pay levels during recruitment; pay information rights; gender-neutral pay structures; and mandatory pay gap reporting for employers with 100 or more employees from 2031, and, beginning June 2027, for employers with 150 or more employees.
• Employers must prepare now or risk noncompliance from June 2026.

Core Obligations Set Out in the EU Pay Transparency Directive

The Directive’s core framework is not subject to national negotiation. From 7 June 2026, employers across the European Union will be bound by the following core obligations:

• Recruitment transparency: Employers must provide job applicants with information on the initial pay level or pay range, typically in the job vacancy or before the first interview, and must not ask candidates about their previous salaries.
• Workers’ right to information: Employees can request in writing information on their individual pay levels and the average pay for workers of the opposite gender performing the same work or work of equal value.
• Pay secrecy prohibitions: Contractual clauses that prohibit employees from disclosing their pay or that of colleagues performing work of equal value are prohibited.
• Gender-neutral pay structures: Salaries must be based on objective, gender-neutral criteria, such as skills, experience, responsibility, and working conditions, and employers must be able to demonstrate how the criteria have been applied.
• Pay gap reporting requirements: Employers with between 100 and 149 employees will have to calculate and publish gender pay gap statistics by 7 June 2031 and every three years after that. By 7 June 2027, employers with 250 or more employees will have to report annually using 2026 pay data, and employers with between 150 and 249 employees will have to report every three years using 2026 pay data. Where a pay gap within a worker category is 5 percent or more and cannot be justified by objective, gender-neutral reasons and remedied within six months, employers will be required to conduct a joint pay assessment with employee representatives and implement remedial measures.

Directive Implementation Progress

The Netherlands has already announced expected delays, possibly until January 2027, and there are fears that other countries may also experience similar delays. However, the European Commission has recently reiterated that it expects all EU member states to complete their implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive by the 7 June 2026 deadline.

Belgium (Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles) has taken one of the most advanced steps, with a draft decree that already introduces gender pay gap reporting and pay transparency obligations for certain sectors.

Malta has published a draft bill that largely mirrors the Directive’s requirements, including pay transparency in recruitment, pay information rights, and pay gap reporting. Malta has already introduced obligations focused specifically on the Directive’s pre-employment salary disclosure requirements and the right of employees to request pay information, which came into effect on 27 August 2025. However, the remaining provisions of the Directive’s implementation have not yet received final parliamentary approval.

Poland has also published a draft bill implementing the Directive, with some transparency measures already in force and full implementation planned ahead of the June 2026 deadline.

Other EU member states, including Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Sweden, have announced or published partial drafts. These drafts remain subject to change as they undergo review processes in their relevant countries.

What Does This Mean for Employers?

The slow progress of the Directive’s implementation may mean that employers face shorter deadlines than first anticipated. Employers located in or subject to local laws in a member state that has yet to make an announcement may wish to consider the framework for preparation set out in the Directive. It is also important to consider that member state requirements may exceed the minimum requirements of the Directive and impose stricter obligations or penalties.

Employers that fail to prepare now for the June 2026 implementation deadline may find themselves inadequately prepared and at risk for noncompliance with the Directive’s requirements. Employers are encouraged to stay informed about the implementation process in their respective jurisdictions. 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.

Further information can also be found by listening to our podcast, “Understanding the EU Pay Transparency Directive: What Employers Need to Know.”

Ogletree Deakins’ London office, Pay Equity Practice Group, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Cross-Border, Pay Equity, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

Daniella McGuigan is a partner in the London office of Ogletree Deakins and co-chair of the firm’s Pay Equity Practice Group.

Lorraine Matthews, a practice assistant in the London office of Ogletree Deakins, contributed to this article.

Emilia Mobius, a paralegal in the London office of Ogletree Deakins, contributed to this article.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts