Time is Ticking on the 119th Congress. Both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives returned to Washington, D.C., after being out last week. Believe it or not, with the mid-term elections, scheduled breaks, and holidays, there are not many days left in the 119th Congress in which the Senate and House will both be present in Washington, D.C. For example, there are only twenty-four such days until the August Recess, thirty-five such days until current government funding expires, and thirty-six such days until the midterm elections. Following the elections, there will be a lame-duck legislative session lasting approximately four weeks. Congress has a lot to do and little time to do it. And because all bills expire at the end of this current Congress (on January 3, 2027), these next few months could be a period of significant legislative activity, though most employment-related bills are still unlikely to be enacted, mostly due to the legislative filibuster in the Senate.

DOL Officially Reinstates 2019 Overtime Regulations. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) performed some regulatory housekeeping this week as a result of its recent decision to drop its defense of the 2024 Fair Labor Standards Act overtime regulations. On May 15, 2026, the DOL published a final rule in the Federal Register that scrubs the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to remove the Biden-era regulation promulgated in 2024 and to reinstate the 2019 regulations issued during the first Trump administration. The 2019 regulations have been the standard that the DOL has enforced since the Biden-era rule was vacated in November 2024. As the notice describes, “[T]his final rule merely conforms the text in the CFR to reflect the courts’ vacatur of the 2024 rule by removing the 2024 rule regulatory text and replacing it with the text from the 2019 rule.” Keith E. Kopplin and Zachary V. Zagger have the details.

“Faster Labor Contracts Act” Picks Up Steam. The Buzz is monitoring the ongoing effort in the House to force a vote on the Faster Labor Contracts Act. The pending discharge petition has been signed by 214 representatives—just 4 signatures short of the 218 required to force a vote on the House floor. Four Republicans have now signed the petition.

House Lawmakers Examine Workplace Safety Innovations. On May 13, 2026, the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing, titled, “Building a Safer Future: Private-Sector Strategies for Emerging Safety Issues.” The hearing focused on how employer-sponsored initiatives, such as the adoption of new technologies, can advance workplace safety even in the absence of prescriptive standards. Ogletree Deakins shareholder, Melissa K. Peters, who testified at the hearing, warned against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) preference for prescriptive rulemaking, which takes too long and is “too rigid to keep pace with technology and too broad to reflect the disparateness of the regulated workforce.” Instead, Peters advocated for performance-based or goal-focused standards that allow employers to “calibrate their programs to the actual hazards they face and let[] recent technology satisfy the rule without waiting for OSHA to catch up.” According to Peters, OSHA’s pending heat injury and illness prevention standard would benefit. Peters further recommended that OSHA take a performance-based approach, should the agency choose to proceed with its pending heat injury and illness prevention standard.

House to Vote on Student-Athlete Reform Bill. Next week, the House is expected to vote on the “Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act,” which would set new rules for the college athletics landscape. This includes protecting student-athletes’ ability to enter into “name, image, and likeness” (NIL) licensing agreements, changing coaches’ hiring timelines, and setting a five-year eligibility cap for student-athletes. But at the Buzz, we are most interested in provisions of the bill that would expressly prohibit student-athletes from being classified as “employees.” This bill came close to a floor vote in the House several months ago, but it was pulled at the last minute. The Buzz will have more on this next week.

Discharge Deep Dive. The House rule allowing members to discharge bills stuck in committees, as discussed above in relation to the Faster Labor Contracts Act, is a relatively new congressional phenomenon. The first iteration of the rule was adopted in 1910 as part of a series of maneuvers to check the power of then-Speaker Joseph Cannon, a Republican from Illinois. The process has changed over the ensuing years. In the 1930s, the number of required signatories was lowered from 145 (one-third of the House) to 218—a simple majority. The signatories to discharge petitions were never publicly disclosed until a 1993 rule change championed by then-representative James Inhofe of Oklahoma made the entire process transparent.

Measuring the success of discharge petitions has proved difficult, as the filing of a petition sometimes prompts leadership to take up the underlying bill, and the petition effort is subsequently abandoned. However, at least one estimate claims that of the 635 discharge petitions filed between 1935 and 2023, less than 4 percent have garnered the necessary 218 signatories. Of those, only four discharge efforts—at most—have ever resulted in enacted legislation during that time frame. The first of these successful efforts was the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, a frequent topic here at the Buzz.

Employers should not assume that current reporting obligations have changed until the EEOC takes further action. Employers may wish to monitor OMB and EEOC developments as this proposal raises questions about the timing of the 2025 EEO-1 filing cycle and as to whether these reports will be collected.

This is a developing story. Ogletree Deakins’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance Practice Group and Government Contracting and Reporting Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and provide updates on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance and Government Contracting and Reporting 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

• Golf courses and resorts tend to rely on seasonal hiring for the summer.
• Overtime pay, minimum wage, and child labor laws typically apply to part-time, seasonal workers.
• Golf resorts have legal obligations to prevent workplace safety hazards, including the risk of heat-related illness.

Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, and South Carolina have abundant golf tourism and high concentrations of golf courses. During the warmer months, golf facilities often rely on seasonal hiring and a significant influx of temporary staff to work as caddies, cart attendants, pro shop clerks, groundskeepers, bartenders, and restaurant servers.

Many seasonal employees are hourly workers who may qualify for overtime pay and minimum wage under federal, state, or local laws. The minimum wage and child labor laws vary widely by state. Some states restrict the total number of hours minors can work per week, and that threshold may be different when school is not in session. Some states require permits for minors to work, and others don’t.

Employers that fail to pay minimum wage or overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) may be subject to fines, back pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees. Violations of child labor laws can result in fines of up to $16,000 or criminal prosecution.

Caddies, beverage cart attendants, restaurant servers, and bartenders are often tipped positions. If the employer takes a tip credit from the minimum wage in a state where a tip credit is permitted, it’s important to make sure (1) that all tips, whether paid by credit card, electronic payment, or cash, are documented sufficiently to ensure that the employee earns at least the minimum wage for each hour worked when tips are taken into account; (2) that if there is a tip pool arrangement, improper employees are not included in the tip pool; and (3) the employer does not retain any portion of the tips paid to the tipped employees.

Improperly including supervisors, managers, or employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips (e.g., people who repair or wash golf carts or stock beverages on those carts, but don’t serve them) may invalidate the tip pool, and thus the tip credit, for all affected employees.

Workers With Visas

Many employers in the hospitality and tourism industries rely on foreign workers during peak seasons. The H-2B visa program allows U.S. employers to hire foreign citizens for temporary, seasonal, nonagricultural jobs. Employers seeking H-2B visas must establish that they have a seasonal need and that there are not enough U.S. citizens who are willing, able, and qualified to do the seasonal work.

The H-2B program is coordinated by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and requires approval from both agencies. An employer must obtain an occupational classification and prevailing wage from the DOL, obtain certification on their temporary need, and then petition for approval from USCIS. To receive an H-2B visa, foreign workers must have a valid, temporary job offer, meet the requirements for the position, and if needed, obtain an H-2B visa. Workers must be paid at least the prevailing wage set by the DOL.

H-2B slots are allocated based on a lottery system, and for the last several years demand has greatly exceeded supply. If employers are interested in this option for a temporary workforce, the process should be started at least six months in advance.

Workplace Safety

The general duty clause of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act requires employers to maintain a workplace free from recognized hazards causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm. That may include hazards related to heat exposure, golf carts, lawnmowers, and chemical exposure from pesticides and fertilizers.

They can reduce risks by providing rest breaks, shade, and personal protective equipment, such as gloves, safety goggles, and steel-toed boots. They also can decrease risks by enforcing golf cart safety rules for employees and completing regular maintenance for golf carts and landscaping equipment.

Next Steps

Golf facilities hiring seasonal workers may wish to review their minimum wage and overtime pay policies and practices to ensure compliance with local, state, and federal laws. They may wish to coordinate with third-party payroll vendors to ensure accurate recordkeeping and proper payments.

Golf facilities may wish to promptly address any foreseeable workplace hazards and take internal reports about workplace hazards seriously. They may wish to regularly train managers and employees on heat illness prevention, safe equipment handling, safe chemical application, emergency procedures, and first aid.

Ogletree Deakins’ Hospitality Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Employment Law, Hospitality, Immigration, Wage and Hour, and Workplace Safety and Health blogs as additional information becomes available.

Marissa E. Cwik is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Denver office.

R. Scott Deluca is Of Counsel in Ogletree Deakins’ Buffalo office.

Christopher P. Hammon is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Miami 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

• The determination as to who qualifies as a “subcontractor” is not always straightforward and carries real compliance risk if done incorrectly.
• The FAR and relevant case law reinforce a functional definition of “subcontractor” focused less on how a relationship is labeled and more on whether a vendor provides goods or services for the performance of the prime contract and whether the work is essential to contract performance.
• Contractors can apply a practical, nexus-based framework to assess whether a vendor’s role ties directly to statement-of-work requirements.

Under-inclusion of vendors and suppliers for the purposes of compliance with the FAR and executive orders can create a risk of noncompliance with the prime contract, whereas over-inclusion may create friction with vendors, particularly commercial suppliers that resist the inclusion of government-unique terms in their agreements. While the definition of “subcontractor” is broad, there is a practical, workable way to determine which vendors qualify as subcontractors for the purposes of these compliance obligations.

Background

Executive Order (EO) 14398, “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors,” issued March 26, 2026, and its implementing FAR clause, 52.222-90, introduced new compliance requirements aimed at addressing employment-related matters in federal contracting. EO 14398 and FAR 52.222-90 require contractors to flow down new compliance obligations to subcontractors and monitor certain subcontractor conduct. Among other things, prime contractors are required to “report any subcontractor’s known or reasonably knowable conduct that may violate th[e] clause,” to “inform the Contracting Officer if a subcontractor sues the Contractor and the suit puts at issue, in any way, the validity of th[e] clause,” and to flow down the clause into “subcontracts at any tier, including those for commercial products and commercial services.”

‘Subcontractor’ Defined

Procurement regulations and statutes, and related case law, provide a broad but functional definition of “subcontractor” that offers an analytical framework for understanding whether a vendor/supplier/consultant providing a contractor with goods or services is a “subcontractor” under the FAR.

The FAR defines “subcontract” as “any contract … entered into by a subcontractor to furnish supplies or services for performance of a prime contract or a subcontract.” The Anti-Kick Back Act defines “subcontractor” to mean “a person, other than the prime contractor, that offers to furnish or furnishes supplies, materials, equipment, or services of any kind under a prime contract or a subcontract entered into in connection with the prime contract.”

The language of these definitions is expansive yet focuses not on how an agreement is labeled, but on whether its purpose is to deliver goods or services to support the prime contractor’s performance of the prime contract. Although sparse, the case law addressing who is a subcontractor puts a finer point on these definitions by connecting the importance of the vendor’s goods or services to the prime contractor’s performance of the government contract.

In General Injectables & Vaccines, Inc., ASBCA No. 54930, 06-2 B.C.A. (CCH) ¶ 33401 (Aug. 31, 2006), a contractor that promised to deliver flu vaccines to the Defense Logistics Agency argued that its failure to deliver the vaccines should be excused because the manufacturer of the vaccine had its license suspended—a condition the contractor argued it was not responsible for. The board disagreed, reasoning that the manufacturer’s “performance was essential to the enterprise and its failures were [the contractor’s] failures, and its role as the supplier of the vaccine to [the contractor] made it [the contractor’s] subcontractor by any rational definition of that term.”

The takeaway is that, labels aside, where a vendor furnishes goods or services essential to the performance of the prime contract, the vendor is more likely to be a subcontractor for FAR compliance purposes.

There remain cases that a strict causation analysis may not neatly resolve, such as vendors whose goods or services can connect to the prime contractor’s performance obligations at some downstream point in the supply chain, or that support the prime’s enterprise operations generally with only ancillary benefits to its government work. Determining whether these vendors are “subcontractors” under the FAR may be a judgment call.

Identifying Subcontractors

The regulatory definition of “subcontractor” and the way courts have applied that definition show that identifying subcontractors calls for an inquiry into the proximate role a vendor plays in the contractor’s performance of a government contract. Accordingly, contractors can examine the following factors:

• Are the vendor’s goods or services used in the performance of the contract in any way?
• If yes, are those goods or services being used to carry out the contract’s statement-of-work requirements, as opposed to supporting the company’s general business operations?
• Is there a meaningful nexus between the vendor’s work and the contract’s deliverables such that the vendor’s contribution is integral, or “essential to the enterprise,” in meeting the prime contract’s requirements? Where that connection exists, the vendor is likely to fall within the FAR’s definition of a “subcontractor,” regardless of how the relationship is labeled.

Examples

The following examples illustrate how this analytical framework may apply in practice across common vendor relationships.

• Vendors performing statement-of-work requirements. If a vendor is performing a portion of the prime contract’s statement of work, it is likely a subcontractor.
• Product and equipment suppliers. Suppliers providing items that are incorporated into the contract’s deliverables are typically subcontractors. Even commercial item suppliers can fall into this category if their products are used to meet contract requirements.
• Professional services supporting contract performance. Consultants, engineers, or subject-matter experts engaged specifically to support contract deliverables will usually be subcontractors. The key is whether their work ties directly to the contract.
• Enterprise support vendors. Vendors providing services such as HR support, IT infrastructure, accounting, or general staffing across the company are not automatically subcontractors. In such situations, the question is whether the vendor’s work is tied to the government contract or to the company’s general operations. If a staffing firm provides personnel assigned specifically to perform contract work, that firm is more likely to be considered a subcontractor. If the same firm provides general workforce support across the enterprise, it may not be.
• Mixed-use vendors. Some vendors support both contract performance and general operations. In those cases, contractors may need to assess whether the portion of work tied to the government contract is identifiable and significant. If so, treating the vendor as a subcontractor may be the safer approach. A useful question is whether the vendor’s services would still be needed or required by the contractor in the absence of the government contract.

Key Takeaways

Contractors do not need a perfect legal test; they need a workable screening process. A practical approach is to ask one basic question during vendor onboarding or contract review: could we perform this government contract, or perform it as required, without this vendor’s goods or services? If the answer is no, the vendor likely falls within the FAR concept of a subcontractor, and flow-down of FAR 52.222-90 should be strongly considered.

Ogletree Deakins’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance Practice Group, Government Contracting and Compliance Practice Group, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and provide updates on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Government Contracting and Compliance, 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 Supreme Court recently found that freight brokers can be sued for negligent hiring after accidents involving motor carriers selected for interstate transport of goods.
• The FAAAA does not override state laws concerning negligent hiring of unsafe motor carriers.

The FAAAA preempts state laws related to prices, routes, and services for commercial trucking companies and brokers. However, a safety exception allows states to maintain safety regulatory authority with regard to motor vehicles.

In this case, the plaintiff was severely injured when his tractor-trailer was hit by another tractor-trailer on an Illinois highway. He sued the driver, the trucking company, and the freight broker. He alleged that the freight broker negligently hired the trucking company and the driver.

The Supreme Court weighed whether the safety exception may apply when there is a common-law claim alleging a freight broker was negligent when it selected a motor carrier to transport cargo. If preempted, remedies are significantly limited. Freight brokers are logistics professionals that connect businesses with carriers to transport products.

The Court found that the plaintiff’s negligent-hiring claim fell within the FAAAA’s safety exception and therefore was not preempted. “A claim that one company negligently hired another to transport goods is not preempted by the FAAAA because states retain authority to regulate safety ‘with respect to motor vehicles’ under the Act,” the Court stated.

Ogletree Deakins’ Trucking and Logistics Industry Group and Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Trucking and Logistics and Workplace Safety and Health blogs as additional information becomes available.

Kevin P. Hishta is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Atlanta office.

Robert P. Roginson is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Los Angeles 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 a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts that have stayed claims in pending actions under Section 3 of the FAA maintain jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the resulting arbitral awards under sections 9 and 10 of the FAA.
• In this case, the original employment discrimination claims were sufficient to establish the federal district court’s jurisdiction. The Court ruled that the original claims also established that court’s “authority to resolve the motions to confirm or vacate the arbitral award resolving those claims.”
• According to the Court, “nothing in the FAA precludes the normal operation of federal jurisdiction.”

In Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, No. 25–83, the Court affirmed a Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that a federal district court did have jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award (in a case stemming from an employment discrimination dispute). According to Justice Sotomayor, who authored the opinion of the unanimous Court, “[b]ecause a federal court in this scenario has jurisdiction over the original claims and does not lose that jurisdiction while the case is stayed pending arbitration, it retains jurisdiction to determine whether the arbitral award resolving those claims is valid and should be confirmed.”

In the underlying case, Justice Sotomayor noted, the district court had original jurisdiction over the employee’s federal claims. “It was this very jurisdiction that authorized the court to adjudicate the arbitrability of [the employee’s] claims under the parties’ contract to begin with, before staying litigation pending arbitration. Nothing in the FAA eliminated that jurisdiction while the parties arbitrated,” she wrote.

Questions about federal courts’ jurisdiction over motions to compel arbitration and motions to confirm, vacate, or modify arbitration awards under the FAA can become complicated. Such jurisdiction may depend on whether there are federal or state underlying claims at issue. For further analysis of recent Supreme Court decisions in this area, see our prior articles “Supreme Court Rules FAA Requires Courts to Grant Stay Requests After Compelling Arbitration” and “Supreme Court’s New Arbitration Ruling: Limits Federal Jurisdiction For Confirming or Challenging Arbitration Awards Under the FAA.”

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

Follow and Subscribe

LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On May 14, 2026, the DOL announced that it is formally rescinding the Biden administration’s 2024 overtime rule, which was set to increase the white-collar exemption salary threshold to $1,128 per week, and the threshold for the highly compensated employee exemption to $151,164 per year, as of January 1, 2025.
• The rescission follows two federal court rulings in Texas that vacated the 2024 rule, with the Fifth Circuit dismissing the final appeal on May 5, 2026.
• For now, the executive, administrative, and professional exemption threshold remains $684 per week, and the highly compensated employee limit remains $107,432 annually, in accordance with the DOL’s 2019 rule.
• The rescission takes effect on May 15, 2026.

The DOL Wage and Hour Division unveiled a final rule to rescind the regulatory effects of the overtime rule, which would have raised the minimum salary for white-collar workers to be exempt from overtime pay, and restores the federal white-collar exemption thresholds established under a 2019 DOL rule.

The final rule, scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on May 15, 2026, essentially reverses the overtime expansion that would have occurred under the 2024 rule issued by the Biden administration.

The rescission follows the 2024 rule’s being vacated by two federal courts in Texas. On May 5, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed appeals after the Trump administration stopped defending the 2024 rule in court.

New Final Overtime Rule

In practical terms, the new rule restores the salary threshold for the FLSA overtime exemption for executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) employees to $684 per week and restores the “highly compensated employee” (HCE) exemption threshold to $107,432 in total annual compensation, including at least $684 per week paid on a salary or fee basis.

The April 2024 DOL final rule would have raised the minimum salary for EAP employees to $1,128 per week, the equivalent of a $58,656 annual salary, and the minimum salary for the HCE exemption to $151,164 per year, as of January 1, 2025. These increases would have made potentially millions more white-collar workers eligible for overtime. The rule would have further required automatic updates to those thresholds every three years based on up-to-date wage data.

Legal Battles

In November 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in Texas v. Department of Labor, vacated the DOL’s 2024 rule on a nationwide basis, finding the rule exceeded the agency’s statutory authority. The Biden DOL had appealed that ruling to the Fifth Circuit.

Then, in December 2024, the Eastern District of Texas issued a summary judgment ruling in a separate case, Flint Avenue LLC v. Department of Labor, again invalidating the overtime rule. The Trump DOL appealed that ruling in February 2025, then later moved to withdraw both appeals, citing plans to revisit the rule. The Fifth Circuit then formally dismissed the final appeal on May 5, 2026, without issuing a merits ruling or sustaining or reversing the 2024 rule.

Separately, in September 2024, during the litigation over the 2024 rule, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the 2019 rule. The Fifth Circuit ruled in that case that the DOL has the authority to set minimum salary requirements for the EAP exemption as part of its “explicitly delegated authority to define and delimit the terms of the Exemption.”

Next Steps

The rescission of the 2024 overtime rule is unsurprising given that the Trump administration had signaled that it would revisit the rule. However, the administration is foregoing the process, at least for now, for revising exemption thresholds and instead restoring them to the levels in the 2019 rule. Notably, this removes the 2024 rule’s automatic triennial threshold adjustments.

Ogletree Deakins’ Wage and Hour Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Governmental Affairs and Wage and Hour 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’ New Administration Resource Hub.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• USCIS will require use of the Final Action Dates chart for employment-based adjustment of status filings in June 2026.
• EB-1 India final action date retrogresses by three and a half months; EB-2 India retrogresses by more than ten months, signaling continued pressure on India-chargeability backlogs.
• EB-3 dates advance slightly, with China moving forward six weeks and India moving forward one month; EB-5 Unreserved remains current for most countries.
• Additional retrogression in EB-1, EB-2 (India and China), EB-3 (Philippines), and EB-5 Unreserved (India) is possible before the end of FY 2026.

Employment-Based Final Action Dates for June 2026

The June 2026 Visa Bulletin Final Action Dates chart reflects the following:

Source: U.S. Department of State, June 2026 Visa Bulletin

Dates for Filing: Not Applicable for June 2026

Because USCIS has designated the Final Action Dates chart as the operative chart for June 2026, the Dates for Filing chart is not available for employment-based adjustment of status applications this month. Applicants who were eligible to file under the Dates for Filing chart but whose priority dates are not yet current under the Final Action Dates chart will be unable to file in June 2026.

Retrogression Warnings

The State Department flagged several categories for potential retrogression or unavailability before the close of fiscal year (FY) 2026 (September 30, 2026):

• EB-1 and EB-2 for India: High demand has already required retrogression of final action dates; further retrogression or an “unavailable” designation may follow if India’s pro-rated annual limits are reached.
• EB-2 for China: Sufficient demand and increased usage may require retrogression of the final action date in upcoming months.
• EB-3 for Philippines: Similar demand pressures could necessitate retrogression.
• EB-5 Unreserved for India: Retrogression or an “unavailable” designation may occur as early as next month.

The State Department also notes that some visa categories may become “unavailable” prior to the end of the fiscal year if annual limits, category limits, or pro-rated per-country limits are reached.

Next Steps

Employers and foreign nationals with pending or anticipated employment-based adjustment of status applications may want to consider the following:

• confirming whether a priority date is current under the Final Action Dates chart—not just the Dates for Filing chart—before submitting or expecting to submit an adjustment of status application in June 2026;
• for India-chargeability applicants in the EB-1 and EB-2 categories,  determining the impact of retrogression on case timelines;
• for employers sponsoring high volumes of India-born employees in the EB-2 pipeline, assessing risk in light of the potential for further retrogression or unavailability before September 30, 2026; and
• monitoring the USCIS website (uscis.gov/visabulletininfo) for any mid-month determinations affecting chart availability.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The Tenth Circuit held that a single mandatory racial sensitivity training—and its alleged aftereffects—did not meet the high bar for a hostile work environment claim under Title VII or Section 1981.
• The court found that training materials using terms like “white exceptionalism” and “white fragility” were not enough standing alone, because the plaintiff could not show they actually changed his job duties or advancement opportunities.
• A failure to investigate employee complaints about training content did not independently create a hostile environment, but the court signaled it could strengthen a claim where other allegations are more substantial.

Summary

In Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections, the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims brought by Joshua Young, a white former employee of the Colorado Department of Corrections. Young alleged that a mandatory racial sensitivity training created a discriminatory workplace for white employees. After a prior appeal found a single training session insufficient, Young amended his complaint to add allegations about the training’s later effects on his work environment.

The court applied the well-established standard that a hostile work environment claim requires discriminatory conduct “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment.” It found Young’s new allegations fell short: (1) his fear of future trainings was speculative; (2) the training did not require him to adopt any particular ideology; (3) a single disciplinary incident involving another officer did not affect Young’s own conditions; (4) his hesitation about using force reflected internal doubt, not actual job changes; and (5) the employer’s failure to investigate his complaints did not independently establish a hostile environment.

Employer Takeaways

The court acknowledged that diversity trainings can cross the line into unlawful discrimination, but this case offers a roadmap for staying on the right side of that line. Employers may want to include clear disclaimers that employees need not change personal values. Framing trainings as educational, not ideological, and documenting content changes over time, can undercut claims of an ongoing discriminatory program. And while a failure to investigate complaints was not dispositive here, such complaints merit serious attention—particularly where other facts might paint a stronger picture.

Ogletree Deakins’ Employment Law Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Employment Law, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, State Developments, Utah, and Wyoming blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Effective July 10, 2026, a new USCIS interim final rule gives adjudicators explicit regulatory authority to deny—rather than merely reject—immigration benefit requests with invalid signatures.
• Unlike a rejection, a denial means USCIS retains the filing fee, and the petitioner must file an entirely new petition to try again.
• Employers, HR professionals, and immigration practitioners may want to review signature workflows now, as USCIS will not permit petitioners to correct or cure an invalid signature after filing.

For employers sponsoring foreign national employees, practitioners managing high-volume filing programs, and any petitioner submitting benefit requests to USCIS, this rule has direct operational implications worth understanding now.

Background

Under longstanding USCIS practice, there are two very different outcomes when a filing doesn’t meet submission requirements:

• Rejection means the package is returned to the sender without adjudication. The fee is refunded. The filing date is not preserved. The petitioner can correct the deficiency and refile, but cannot appeal the rejection.
• Denial means the request was fully adjudicated and found to be ineligible. USCIS keeps the fee. The denial is appealable. And for most benefit types, the petitioner must complete an entirely new petition and pay a new filing fee to try again.

The difference between these two outcomes is significant. And until now, the regulations addressed only rejection for invalid signatures, not denial.

New Rule Implications

The IFR makes clear that if USCIS accepts a benefit request and later determines the signature is invalid, USCIS may, in its discretion, either reject or deny the request. USCIS officers now have explicit regulatory authority, not just policy-level guidance, to choose between the two outcomes based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Key elements of the new rule include the following:

• Denial is now codified. USCIS has operated under a 2018 policy memorandum stating that it would deny requests with deficient signatures discovered post-acceptance, and the IFR codifies this authority in regulation.
• Fee retention on denial means that when USCIS denies on signature grounds, it retains the filing fee as cost recovery for adjudicative resources already expended.
• Discretion determines the outcome, with adjudicating officers deciding whether to reject or deny based on factors such as how much time and effort has been spent on the case, whether the signature defect appears to be an inadvertent error versus a pattern of noncompliance, and the nature of the signature issue itself.

Importantly, no “cure” is permitted—USCIS reaffirms that it will not allow petitioners to correct or cure an invalid signature after filing. An officer may issue a request for evidence (RFE) or notice of intent to deny (NOID) to confirm signatory authority, but not to invite submission of a corrected signature. The Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600) and Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322 (Form N-600K) are exempt; given the unique procedural consequences of denial for citizenship certificate applications, those forms are carved out, and for those filings, USCIS may only reject, not deny, when the sole deficiency is an invalid signature.

The rule does not change the definition of a valid or invalid signature; those standards remain the same. What USCIS considers invalid includes: copy-pasted or image-affixed signatures, typewritten names used as a substitute for a handwritten mark, stamped signatures (except in specific enumerated circumstances), signatures by an unauthorized person (such as an attorney or preparer signing in place of the petitioner or beneficiary), and signatures created by signature software programs.

An important distinction is that a scanned, faxed, or photocopied version of an originally signed document is acceptable, but the copy must be of a document that was physically signed with a wet-ink signature.

USCIS’s Reasoning

USCIS points to a documented increase in invalid signatures in recent years, particularly signatures copied from other documents. Total denials on signature grounds rose from 300 in fiscal year (FY) 2021 to 2,953 in FY 2025. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) has adjudicated 758 appeals of denials related to copied signatures. The agency also notes that because intake procedures cannot catch many of these defects, officers must sometimes reopen and readjudicate cases after significant work has already been performed.

Electronic Filing

For petitions filed by mail or through PDFi (PDF intake), the valid signature is a handwritten one obtained on a printed copy of the form. For benefit requestors filing directly through USCIS’s guided e-filing system on myUSCIS, a secure electronic signature generated during the e-filing process is valid. Both of those pathways are limited to the requestor; they are not available for attorney-filed submissions. Attorneys filing via PDFi must still obtain a handwritten signature on a printed form, scan it, and upload that document.

Signature software programs, typed names, and stamped signatures are not valid under any filing method. As USCIS continues to expand its e-filing portfolio, the accepted signature method for a given form and filing channel should be verified, since requirements are not uniform across all form types.

Key Takeaways

• Reviewing signature workflows. Each petition must contain an original, individually obtained handwritten signature. Signatures replicated across multiple filings are among the defects the IFR specifically addresses.
• Building in verification steps. Where petition assembly involves non-attorney staff or automated workflows, consider making signature verification a defined step before submission.
• Confirming PDFi requirements. For attorney-filed PDFi submissions, electronic signatures are not accepted. Only a handwritten signature submitted via scan of the originally signed document is valid.
• Evaluating appeal rights on denials. Unlike rejections, denials on signature grounds are appealable via Form I-290B ($800 filing fee). Where a priority date or cap slot is at stake, that option may be worth considering.
• Accounting for processing timelines. Signature defects can be identified well into the adjudication process. Denials with fee retention remain possible even after extended wait times.
• This IFR does not introduce a new signature standard. It introduces real regulatory teeth for an existing one. For immigration practitioners, the appropriate response is not alarm but process review. Signature requirements have always been fundamental to proper filing. This rule makes the cost of ignoring them harder to walk back.

This IFR does not introduce a new signature standard. It introduces real regulatory teeth for an existing one. USCIS has operated under a denial-on-deficient-signature policy since 2018, but codifying that authority in the regulation, combined with explicit fee retention on denial, signals that the agency intends to enforce it more consistently and with greater consequences for noncompliance.

By its terms, the rule states that the “amendment applies to requests submitted on or after July 10, 2026.” Signature requirements have always been fundamental to proper filing; this rule raises the stakes for errors and omissions. For employers, HR professionals, and immigration practitioners, the appropriate response is not alarm but process review.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts