In October 2025, Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker signed amendments to the FCRSSO, effective January 6, 2026. As enacted, the amendments authorized, but did not require, the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations to create a form of required pre-adverse action notice, an updated summary of rights, and a statement concerning evidence of error or rehabilitation. The Commission has now published a document, titled, “Notice: 2026 amendments to Fair Chance Hiring Law,” but has not clarified how this document relates to these requirements.

Quick Hits

• The Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations published its “Notice: 2026 amendments to Fair Chance Hiring Law” regarding the FCRSSO, but has not yet clarified its significance.
• The notice follows amendments that went into effect on January 6, 2026, which narrowed the conviction records employers may consider, defined ambiguous terms, and confirmed that an individual must be allowed to respond with evidence of criminal record inaccuracy or provide an explanation before any final adverse decision.
• Because the FCRSSO applies to all criminal history information, overlaps with federal and state requirements when a consumer reporting agency is involved, and provides a private right of action, employers should consider that a summary of rights is only one element of a broader compliance review.

Summary of the 2026 Amendments

The amendments resolved long-standing ambiguities while imposing additional restrictions.

For instance, Philadelphia defined “felony,” “misdemeanor,” “summary offense,” and “incarceration”; expanded the definition of “adverse action”; and confirmed that job advertisements fall within the definition of “employment process,” meaning that any advertisement referencing a background check must disclose that an individualized assessment will occur. The amendments also established that an individual must be allowed to dispute or explain a criminal record before a final adverse decision.

Absent a contrary requirement of state or federal law, employers may not consider misdemeanor convictions more than four years old, measured from the later of the date of arrest or release from incarceration, and may not consider summary offenses. Employers must also disregard records known to be sealed or expunged. Before taking adverse action, employers must provide an employee or applicant with a summary of rights and an affirmative statement that they will consider evidence of error, rehabilitation, or mitigation, and they must furnish instructions for submitting that information. The amendments also require a defined response when an individual files a complaint and adds retaliation protections.

As before, employers must post a summary of the ordinance requirements in a conspicuous location both on the employer’s website and its premises.

Additional Considerations for Employers

The FCRSSO should be implemented in conjunction with other applicable state and federal laws. It is important to note that the FCRSSO requirements apply to all criminal history, irrespective of the source. Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act limits employers to felony and misdemeanor convictions that relate to job suitability; the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act imposes its own disclosure, pre-adverse, and adverse action requirements when the information is obtained from a consumer reporting agency.

Providing an FCRSSO summary of rights satisfies only one component of these obligations. Because the amendments require that an opportunity to respond be provided before a final adverse decision, the sequencing and documentation of notices is now central to defending potential litigation. Absent further guidance from the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, employers should not assume the “Notice: 2026 amendments to Fair Chance Hiring Law” constitutes the required summary of rights. Ogletree Deakins has sought clarification from the Commission but has not yet received a response.

Next Steps

Employers with operations in Philadelphia should consider taking the following actions:

• Utilize the FCRSSO process for all criminal history information when used as a basis for an employment decision.
• Review job advertisements and application materials for impermissible criminal-history inquiry requirements and ensure any background check reference discloses the individualized assessment.
• Revise the scope of the search history to exclude misdemeanor convictions more than four years old and to disregard summary offenses.
• Confirm the notice sequence affords an employee or applicant an opportunity to respond before any final adverse decision, and document timing accordingly.
• Consider a broader, privileged assessment of screening practices across all jurisdictions where the company hires.

Philadelphia pre-adverse action letters, adverse action letters, and law summaries are available on the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal to Advanced– and Premium-level subscribers. For more information on the Client Portal or a Client Portal subscription, please contact clientportal@ogletree.com.

Ogletree Deakins’ Philadelphia office, Background Checks Practice Group, and Retail Industry Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Background Checks, Retail, and Pennsylvania blogs as additional information becomes available.

Brandon R. Sher is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Philadelphia office and co-chair of the firm’s Retail Industry Group.

Jennifer L. Pacicco is an associate in Ogletree Deakins’ Philadelphia office.

Jake H. Weintraub, a law student currently participating in the summer associate program in the Philadelphia office of Ogletree Deakins, contributed to this article.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On June 8, 2026, a Massachusetts federal district court vacated the Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1B fee requirement.
• On June 11, 2026, the administration filed an appeal of the district court’s decision and on June 12, 2026, asked the district court to stay its decision.
• With multiple pending challenges in different circuits, the Supreme Court will likely weigh in.

Background

On September 19, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Proclamation 10973 which imposed a $100,000 fee for new H-1B petitions filed for beneficiaries located outside of the United States. The administration stated that the fee was intended to address perceived abuse of the H-1B program, and protect U.S. workers, specifically focusing on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) occupations. The fee became effective September 21, 2025, and applied to new H-1B petitions for beneficiaries subject to consular processing.

The fee was subsequently challenged in multiple federal courts.

Analysis and Impact

In State of California v. Noem, twenty Democratic state attorneys general challenged the fee proclamation, arguing that the proclamation exceeded the president’s statutory authority and that the agency guidance implementing the fee violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). On June 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of the states on all claims (constitutional tax authority, APA violation, and statutory authority) and vacated the policy implementing the fee in its entirety.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that the $100,000 fee proclamation was not an immigration restriction, but rather a tax, which the president lacked authority to impose. Additionally, the court determined that the fee proclamation violated the APA as the agency’s implementation of the fee failed to follow statutory procedures.

On June 11, 2026, the Trump administration filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Then, on June 12, 2026, the administration sought a stay of the district court’s order pending appeal which the court granted.

Notably, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’s holding starkly contradicts a conclusion reached in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which upheld the fee proclamation in a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities. The decision in that case is currently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which held oral argument in March 2026. Meanwhile, a lawsuit challenging the fees was also brought by healthcare organizations, labor unions, and educational institutions remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of California. The government’s appeal of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’s decision adds to a potential circuit split which could end up in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Key Takeaways

• The precise scope of the stay issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts is unclear and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has not issued guidance about whether it intends to continue collecting the fee.
• As remaining lawsuits challenging the proclamation continue, the rules surrounding the fee proclamation are subject to change.
• The ultimate outcome of the rule will likely be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.

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

For additional insights into this development, Ogletree Deakins’ Immigration Practice Group will hold a webinar entitled “Federal Court Blocks $100,000 H-1B Fee: Key Takeaways and Next Steps,” on June 17, 2026, from 2:00 p.m. – 2:30 EDT. Register here.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• ILO Convention No. 193 is the first international labor standard specifically designed for platform and gig economy work.
• Under the Convention, core protections including minimum wage, social protection, and occupational safety and health (OSH) rights apply to all platform work, regardless of a platform worker’s formal employment classification (e.g., “independent contractor” or “employee”).
• Algorithmic management is addressed in a binding international instrument for the first time: platforms must disclose automated decision-making and provide human-review mechanisms.
• The Convention is not self-executing. Countries must now decide whether to ratify it and, if ratified, must implement it through their domestic law.
• The United States voted against adoption and is unlikely to ratify. However, U.S.-headquartered companies will still feel the Convention’s effect if they retain platform workers in countries where it has been ratified and implemented into domestic law.

What Happened

At its 114th session in Geneva, the International Labour Organization (ILO) formally adopted Convention No. 193, capping a multiyear standard-setting process that launched in 2024. The delegate vote was 406-to-8, with 36 abstentions. The United States and New Zealand government delegates voted against while the United Kingdom and India government delegates abstained, which serves as a reminder that ratification will be uneven. The new Convention is supplemented by a Recommendation that provides additional (nonbinding) guidance.

Convention No. 193 is the first instrument built specifically for the platform economy, with provisions tailored to algorithmic management, cross-border platform structures, and the classification problems unique to gig work.

The scope is broad. The Convention applies to all digital labor platforms. A “digital labor platform” is defined as a company or individual that “(i) organizes and/or facilitates work performed by persons for remuneration or payment, for the provision of service, upon request of the recipient or requestor; (ii) regardless of whether that work is performed online or in a specific geographic location.” In other words, it applies to much more than ride-hailing and food-delivery services.

In addition, the Convention applies regardless of a platform worker’s formal employment classification. The Convention does not require countries to classify gig workers as employees, but it requires that core protections apply regardless of classification.

The Key Provisions

Classification

The Convention does not mandate a single classification model, but it does require governments to ensure workers are correctly classified based on how work is actually performed, not merely on how the parties have labeled the relationship. This reaffirms the substance-over-form standard that exists in most countries. However, unless ratifying countries expressly provide that satisfying the Convention’s requirements will not, in itself, create an employment relationship, compliance (e.g., wage floors, expense reimbursement, structured oversight, and employment termination protections) may generate circumstances that trigger employee status under existing domestic law.

Minimum Wage, Timely Payment, and Expense Coverage

The Convention requires payment in full and on time, compliance with applicable minimum wage standards, and reimbursement of work-related expenses. The classification risk identified above applies with particular force here.

Algorithmic Management

For the first time in any ILO Convention, algorithmic management has been addressed directly. Under the Convention, platforms must inform workers and their representatives how automated systems are used for monitoring and decision-making, and must provide written explanations and human review for decisions affecting pay, suspension, deactivation, or terminations of employment. A human in the loop is required. Foundational principles of the EU AI Act and the EU Platform Work Directive will, through ratification, now begin reaching markets beyond Europe.

Social Protection, OSH, and Termination

Platform workers are typically excluded from statutory social insurance schemes, such as pension contributions, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation, because contractor classification puts them outside the employer-employee relationship that those schemes assume. The Convention requires ratifying countries to close that gap. The Convention also provides baseline protections for occupational injuries and protections against unjustified deactivation or employment termination.

Fundamental Rights

The Convention extends freedom of association, collective bargaining, and access to dispute resolution to platform workers regardless of classification.

Data Protection

The Convention includes safeguards on the collection and use of personal data in the platform context.

What It Does Not Do (Yet)

The Convention is not self-executing. Like all ILO conventions, it binds only those member states that ratify it, and even ratifying states must pass implementing legislation before the provisions have domestic legal force. Member states are constitutionally required to submit the Convention to their respective competent national authorities within twelve months for ratification consideration, but submission is not ratification. If the delegate votes are any indication of what is to come, ratification is likely to be uneven, which can create a complex compliance landscape for multinational employers.

Next Steps

Companies with platform-based or contractor-heavy workforce models in multiple jurisdictions should consider prioritizing the following action items:

• auditing current classification practices against the standards the Convention is expected to influence;
• assessing algorithmic management systems for disclosure and human-review readiness; and
• mapping which operating jurisdictions are likely to ratify quickly and what that means for existing contractor relationships.

Ogletree Deakins’ Cross-Border Practice Group will monitor ratification developments and the interaction between the Convention and domestic legislation across key markets., and will provide updates on the Cross-Border, Cybersecurity and Privacy, Employment Law, Technology, Wage and Hour, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

President Trump Signs Immigration Enforcement Funding Bill Into Law. On June 10, 2026, President Donald Trump signed into law legislation providing $70 billion in funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which will ensure the agencies’ operations for the remainder of President Trump’s term. While this means that funding for ICE and CBP will no longer be an issue as part of the broader negotiations for funding the federal government, it does not mean that the appropriations process will instantly become an easy exercise. With current government funding set to expire approximately one month prior to the midterm elections, the process may turn into another political flashpoint.

House Passes Bill to Speed Collective Bargaining and Force Contract Terms. On June 9, 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA). The bill sets artificial timelines for collective bargaining and allows government officials to dictate workers’ terms and conditions of employment. Representative Tim Walberg (R-MI), chairman of the House Committee on Education & Workforce, spoke in opposition to the bill on the House floor, saying, “Simply put, the FLCA is not pro‑worker. It is an ideological Trojan horse that harms the very people it claims to help, empowers bureaucrats over workers, and undermines the collaborative process that has long defined American labor relations.” The bill now heads to the U.S. Senate, where its champion, Josh Hawley (R-MO), applauded its passage in the House during a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)–related hearing this week (more on the hearing below). James J. Plunkett and Ryan T. Sears have the details.

Federal Court Vacates President Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Proclamation. On June 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated President Trump’s $100,000 H-1B proclamation in a legal challenge filed by twenty state attorneys general. The court found that while the Immigration and Nationality Act provides the president with “broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States,” it does not confer upon him the authority to impose taxes, as the proclamation does. The court writes, “[T]he Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress.” The court also found that the issuance of the proclamation and its supporting materials (e.g., memoranda and FAQs) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), in part because the administration did not make the materials available for public notice-and-comment. Because the court vacated the proclamation in its entirety pursuant to the APA, the ruling would appear to prohibit the administration from collecting the fee, but the case continues to be litigated at the federal district court and appellate levels.

Two other legal challenges are pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Marquita L. Capers has more.

Additional Immigration Policy News.

• Jennifer M. Cofer and Anabella Lojpur have the details on a U.S. Department of State temporary final rule that permits B-1 business visitor and B-2 tourist visa applicants to secure expedited interview appointments at consular posts upon the payment of a $750 fee. The rule is effective from July 1, 2026, through December 31, 2026.
• Nicole Fink and Philip K. Sholts have the scoop on a June 5, 2026, decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island that invalidates four U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies emanating from President Trump’s “travel ban” executive order and proclamations. The court determined that USCIS “has violated the very immigration laws that Congress has charged it with administering, as well as the administrative laws that govern the agency’s actions.”

Senate Committee Holds Confirmation Hearing on NLRB Nominations. On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) held a hearing on the nominations of James Macy and David Prouty to serve as members of the NLRB. (Prouty’s nomination is for a second term, as his current term is set to expire on August 27, 2026. Macy has been a management-side labor and employment attorney for decades and has served in several roles within the current U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), including as director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs.) If confirmed, Macy would provide current Republican Board members, Scott Mayer and Chair James Murphy, with the potential necessary third vote required by Board tradition to overturn current Board law. A vote in the Senate HELP Committee is expected shortly.

DOJ Opinion Letter Questions Disparate-Impact Discrimination. On June 9, 2026, in response to a request from U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Chair Andrea Lucas, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion letter stating the EEOC’s interpretations of federal case law and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 relating to disparate impact discrimination “embrace an unconstitutional reading” of federal law. In contrast to disparate treatment or intentional discrimination, disparate impact allows for a finding of discrimination when an otherwise neutral policy, such as a criminal background check, has an adverse effect on protected groups. The opinion letter maintains that disparate-impact analysis unlawfully and unconstitutionally “functions as a qualified racial-proportionality mandate and spurs employers to engage in race-based decisionmaking to avoid liability.” (Regarding liability, Title VII does not allow for the recovery of punitive or compensatory damages in disparate impact claims.) The opinion letter specifically characterizes the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (jointly adopted by the EEOC, the DOL, and the DOJ) and the EEOC’s Affirmative Action Guidelines as contrary to Title VII and unconstitutional.

The opinion letter does not amend federal law, which still provides for disparate-impact causes of action. Nor does it change decades of case law that has expounded on disparate-impact discrimination. Accordingly, this theory of discrimination is still available to plaintiffs. However, the opinion buttresses both the White House’s and EEOC’s policy positions that deemphasize disparate-impact discrimination (as outlined in the EEOC’s National Enforcement Plan).

Proposed Federal Grant Requirements Mandate E-Verify, Codify White House EOs. The White House Office of Management and Budget, along with dozens of federal agencies, has proposed changes to the regulations governing the issuance of federal grants and financial assistance. The proposal would impact applicants and recipients (including their subrecipients and contractors) in the following ways:

• Disparate-impact discrimination. The proposal would codify the administration’s position on disparate-impact discrimination “to ensure that awards are administered in a manner that does not promote or support theories of disparate-impact liability, including by not issuing terms, conditions, or guidance that would advance theories of disparate-impact liability.”
• Protected groups. The proposal further removes the current nondiscrimination language that references Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), and adds a new provision expressly prohibiting discrimination against a grant applicant on the basis of the organization’s religious affiliation.
• Codification of executive orders (EOs). Agencies and recipients must ensure that federal funds are “not used to fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate”: (1) “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” as defined in EO 14173; (2) gender ideology as defined in EO 14168; or (3) the transition of individuals under nineteen years of age pursuant to EO 14187.
• E-Verify. The proposal would require all federal grant recipients to enroll in E-Verify “to confirm the employment eligibility of all employees and contractors hired in or performing work in the United States under a Federal award.”

Comments on the proposal are due by July 13, 2026.

Seersucker Summer Returns. Pursuant to a bipartisan resolution (S.Res.757) introduced by Senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Raphael Warnock (D-GA) and agreed to by unanimous consent of the Senate, June 11, 2026, was designated “National Seersucker Day,” and June 2026 was designated “Seersucker Appreciation Month.” Seersucker is a lightweight fabric that is purposely designed to be puckered and wrinkled so as not to sit directly on the skin, making it more breathable in the summer months. (The Buzz wrote about the history of “Seersucker Thursday” several years ago.) Pursuant to the resolution, “every subsequent Thursday through the last Thursday in August 2026” has been designated as “Seersucker Thursday.” The resolution further invited “the people of the United States to don their warm weather finest on National Seersucker Day and every Seersucker Thursday.”

Next week’s edition of the Buzz will be published on Thursday, June 18, 2026.

Quick Hits

• Governor Jared Polis recently signed legislation that requires employers in Colorado to provide EEO-1 data to the Colorado secretary of state beginning July 1, 2027, even if federal EEO-1 reporting is repealed or discontinued.
• The new Colorado law may signal a broader trend of state-level action to preserve demographic reporting obligations as the EEOC proposes to eliminate federal EEO-1 reporting.
• The elimination of federal EEO-1 reporting would create ripple effects across numerous state and local jurisdictions that currently rely on EEO-1 data or report categories.

The Colorado reporting requirement bears some similarities to the requirement for Illinois employers to provide Section D of the EEO-1 report as part of their annual Domestic Corporation Annual Report. Significantly, the new Colorado law states that employers “shall provide the EEO-1 data required” even if the federal EEO-1 reporting requirement is repealed or discontinued. This provision is timely in light of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) proposal to eliminate EEO-1 reporting. The law does not explain how the required demographic data will be collected or if Colorado will create a standard reporting system, but it makes it clear that federal action will not end the requirement to report demographic data to the Colorado secretary of state.

While there are open questions about how this new law will operate if the federal EEO-1 reporting requirement ends, its passage may be an early warning sign of a series of actions by states in reaction to the scaling back of federal EEO-1 reporting. While the EEOC’s effort to end EEO-1 reporting has not been completed, that effort if finalized will impact several states’ reporting requirements. For instance, Massachusetts’s pay/demographic reporting requirement for EEO-1 filers due each year by February 1 is dependent on the EEO-1 reports. To satisfy their reporting obligation, covered employers provide Massachusetts with their most recently filed EEO-1 report. It is unclear what employers will provide to Massachusetts in 2027, if no EEO-1 reports are collected in 2026. Likewise, employers may soon face a question of what to provide to the Illinois secretary of state in support of their annual Domestic Corporation Annual Report if federal EEO-1 reporting ends.

These broader state reporting questions do not begin to address other state and local requirements for employers to provide copies of their EEO-1 reports or collected EEO-1 data. The ripple effect of the elimination of the EEO-1 report would be expected to spread throughout the nation’s compliance reporting system. In addition to Colorado’s proactive approach, it is interesting to note that beginning during California’s pay data filing cycle next year reporting employers will no longer use EEO-1 categories to categorize their employees but will change to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) coding. While this earlier change may have been focused on providing more granular job category information, it could have been based in part on a feeling that federal demographic reporting was under threat.

In light of the proposed rescission of the EEO-1 reporting requirement and the expected effects on compliance requirements beginning with Colorado, employers may want to pay special attention to this area to continue to understand their compliance reporting requirements.

Ogletree Deakins’ Denver office, 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 will post updates on the Colorado, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Government Contracting and Compliance, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Effective January 1, 2027, private employers in Alabama may voluntarily adopt written hiring and promotion preference policies for veterans, spouses of veterans, and spouses of active-duty service members.
• Employers that implement such policies must notify the Alabama Department of Workforce.
• The Alabama law’s definitions of veterans and active-duty service members may be narrower than those under USERRA.

HB 307

On April 16, 2026, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed into law House Bill (HB) 307, Act No 2026-574, titled, “Expanding Employment Opportunities for Military Families in Alabama,” along with a broader package of legislation intended to assist military families. HB 307 replaces former Alabama Code Section 36-226-15 and takes effect on January 1, 2027.

While the new law primarily applies to access to state employment for uniformed service personnel, Section 3 of the law permits private employers to adopt voluntary hiring preference policies for veterans, spouses of veterans, and spouses of active-duty service members.

Any such voluntary policy must be in writing and uniformly applied to the hiring and promotion decisions of the employer. HB 307 also provides that any such policy will apply to veterans who can provide proof of service and honorable discharge via DD 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) forms, spouses of veterans who can provide relevant DD 214s and proof of marriage to eligible veterans, and spouses of active-duty service members who can provide proof of the active-duty status and proof of marriage to the active-duty service members. Any preference afforded to the spouse of an active-duty service member is “limited to the time during which the service member remains on active duty and up to 180 days after the service member’s discharge or separation from service.” The statute provides no details on how the hiring preferences in these voluntary programs should be structured.

Any private employer that voluntarily implements such a policy must notify the Alabama Department of Workforce (ADOW), which is directed to use that information to create a registry of employers that have voluntary veterans’ preference employment policies. ADOW is required by HB 307 to make this registry publicly available on its website, and to establish and maintain a page on its website through which employers may provide this information. Any such voluntary veterans’ preference policy shall not be considered a violation of “any state or local law.” Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides a carveout for veterans’ hiring preferences, so implementing such a policy is unlikely to constitute a violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-11 (1982).

HB 307 and USERRA

Interestingly, HB 307’s application to veterans and active-duty service members may be more limited than as defined by the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). HB 307 defines an “active-duty service member” as “[a]n individual who is on active duty as a member of the National Guard or a reserve or active component of the Armed Forces of the United States.” Likewise, HB 307 defines an “eligible veteran” as “[a]n individual who has ever served in the National Guard or a reserve or active component of the Armed Forces of the United States and been honorably discharged.” By contrast, USERRA broadly defines “service in the uniformed services” to encompass HB 307’s definitions, as well as service in State active duty, the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency under certain circumstances.

Staying Informed

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), companies with twenty or more employees in Ontario must file an accessibility compliance report by December 31, 2026.
• The AODA applies to provincially regulated organizations in the Province of Ontario, Canada.
• Failure to submit the report may lead to potential enforcement action.

Background Facts

Enacted in 2005, the AODA is Canada’s oldest and most fulsome accessibility legislation.

Provincially regulated organizations are required to meet the standards set out in the AODA and its regulations if they operate in Ontario.

Organizations will be considered to operate in Ontario if they provide goods, services, or facilities; employ people; offer accommodation; own or occupy a building, structure, or premises; or are engaged in business in Ontario.

Preparing for Compliance

Every three years, organizations covered by the AODA that have twenty or more Ontario employees (including full-time, part-time, seasonal, and fixed-term contract employees) must submit a report regarding their compliance to the Ontario Ministry of Seniors and Accessibility via the Accessibility Compliance Portal.

Failure to submit the report may lead to potential enforcement action.

To prepare, employers should access the Accessibility Compliance Portal to update their organization profile and review the questions that the organization will be required to answer.  The questions track closely with the requirements set out in the Integrated Accessibility Standards (Ontario Regulation 191/11). Once the organization is satisfied with its answers to the questions set out in the accessibility compliance report, the organization can finalize and submit the report.

Ogletree Deakins’ Toronto office and Disability Access Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Canada, Cross-Border, and Disability Access blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Twenty states and the District of Columbia, acting in their capacity as federal contractors, have filed suit challenging the FAR Council’s implementing actions for EO 14398, arguing those actions exceed the agency’s statutory authority and were issued without the notice-and-comment process required under federal procurement policy requirements.
• The state coalition targets the agency implementing actions under the APA, arguing they are procedurally defective and the resulting contract terms too vague to enforce.
• Another lawsuit challenges the executive order on First Amendment grounds and alleges the FCA materiality provision exceeds presidential authority under the Procurement Act.

The lawsuit, Maryland v. Hegseth, does not challenge the executive order itself. Rather, it takes direct aim at the federal agency actions implementing the order, arguing those actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by exceeding statutory authority, bypassing mandatory notice-and-comment procedures, and producing contract terms so vague as to be arbitrary and capricious. For federal contractors and subcontractors currently navigating compliance with EO 14398, the lawsuit raises the possibility of court intervention before the July 24, 2026, deadline for bilateral modification of existing contracts.

Background: EO 14398 and Its Implementation

EO 14398, titled “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors,” requires federal agencies to insert a mandatory contract clause into all contracts, subcontracts, and “contract-like instruments” prohibiting contractors from engaging in “racially discriminatory DEI activities,” defined as disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in recruitment, employment, contracting, program participation, or the allocation or deployment of an entity’s resources. Noncompliance risks include contract cancellation, debarment from future federal contracts, and potential liability under the False Claims Act.

Pursuant to EO 14398, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) issued a memorandum dated April 17, 2026, directing agencies to adopt Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) deviations incorporating the new contract clause, designated as FAR 52.222-90. The memorandum set an April 27, 2026, deadline for agencies to adopt those deviations and instructed agencies to make every effort to bilaterally modify existing contracts by July 24, 2026. Multiple agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the National Science Foundation, moved to adopt class deviations consistent with the FAR Council’s instructions.

The plaintiff states span twenty jurisdictions, from California and Illinois to Virginia and Wisconsin, and collectively hold hundreds of federal contracts worth billions of dollars annually. The complaint alleges that the “abrupt and unlawful rollout of Executive Order No. 14398 and its implementation threatens grave and irreparable harm to the States’ economic interests and their ability to serve the public.”

Legal Grounds Challenging the Agency Actions

The complaint brings two counts, both under the APA. The lawsuit targets agency-level implementing actions rather than the executive order itself and does not raise claims under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or other constitutional claims.

Count I: Procedural Violations and Excess of Statutory Authority

The states allege the FAR Council and other federal agencies exceeded their statutory authority and violated mandatory procedural requirements. Specifically, the complaint alleges:

• The new contract terms and policies have a significant effect on contractors and impose significant compliance costs, and thus were required to be published for public comment in the Federal Register at least sixty days before taking effect under 41 U.S.C. § 1707, the statute governing federal procurement policy. Neither the FAR Council nor any agency complied with that requirement, and no valid waiver was invoked.
• The FAR Council’s April 2026 memorandum exceeded the authority granted to it under 41 U.S.C. § 1303, which authorizes the FAR Council to manage and coordinate the FAR, not to prescribe agency deviations, direct agency procurement activities, or set mandatory deadlines for bilateral modification of existing contracts.
• The agency class deviations are unauthorized under the FAR’s own provisions, which permit deviations only “‘when necessary to meet the specific needs’” of an individual agency and do not permit deviations to implement a new governmentwide policy.
• The False Claims Act (FCA) materiality clause in FAR 52.222-90 is contrary to law. The provision purports to make compliance with the clause “material” under the FCA, but under controlling Supreme Court of the United States precedent, “[m]erely labeling a clause ‘material’ does not make it so.” This matters for contractors and subcontractors because the clause, as drafted, purports to expose them to FCA liability for noncompliance with contract terms that the states argue have not been lawfully adopted.
• The agencies also violated the Paperwork Reduction Act by imposing reporting and recordkeeping requirements without first completing the required notice-and-comment process and obtaining Office of Management and Budget approval.

Count II: Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action (APA)

The states separately allege the implementing actions are arbitrary and capricious because the agencies failed to adequately explain what the new contract terms mean or require and failed to explain how they differ from antidiscrimination requirements previously and currently applicable to federal contractors. The complaint identifies several ways this vagueness causes concrete harm:

• Contractors are left to guess whether common antidiscrimination and outreach activities might constitute prohibited “disparate treatment” in recruitment or resource allocation. The complaint offers concrete examples: forwarding a job listing to an associate at a historically Black college, attending a job fair in a predominantly white rural community, or responding to workplace incidents of antisemitism by training employees and distributing educational materials. It is unclear under the current contract terms whether any of these activities would be prohibited.
• The definition of “racially discriminatory DEI activities” echoes existing prohibitions on discrimination based on race or ethnicity but provides no meaningful guidance on whether, or how, it imposes requirements beyond those already applicable under Executive Order No. 11246 (rescinded) or its successor, Executive Order No. 14173.
• The vagueness is compounded by the ancillary requirements attached to FAR 52.222-90: broad records-access requirements, obligations to report possible subcontractor violations, and the threat of FCA liability. The complaint argues “[i]t is unreasonable to demand that contractors identify possible violations of a requirement that itself has not been defined clearly.” (Emphasis in original.)
• The agencies failed to account for the reliance interests of federal contractors and subcontractors that have designed their employment, subcontracting, and compliance policies and practices based on federal statutes and controlling decisional law in effect for decades.

Relationship to the April 2026 Constitutional Challenge

Federal contractors and subcontractors now face a litigation environment in which EO 14398 is being challenged on two independent fronts. Either case could produce injunctive relief affecting contract compliance obligations.

The April 2026 constitutional challenge filed by the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) and a coalition of higher education and minority trade associations focused on First Amendment violations, alleging the order chills protected speech and association, imposes unconstitutionally overbroad and content-based restrictions on contractors, and that the EO’s FCA materiality provision exceeds presidential authority under the Procurement Act.

The state coalition’s APA lawsuit operates independently and on different legal footing. By targeting agency-level implementing actions rather than the executive order itself and relying exclusively on APA grounds, the states position themselves to seek vacatur of the FAR Council’s April 2026 memorandum and the agencies’ class deviations without the court needing to reach constitutional questions. The complaint also introduces a procedural angle not present in the NADOHE case: the argument that the FAR Council and agencies were required to conduct public notice and comment before implementing these contract terms and failed to do so.

Next Steps

Maryland v. Hegseth is the latest challenge to the Trump administration’s executive orders seeking to eliminate DEI programs among federal contractors, and sets the stage for additional potential court orders affecting implementation of EO 14398. While the requested injunction is limited to the plaintiff states, a court order vacating the FAR Council memorandum and agency class deviations would have governmentwide effect. All federal contractors and subcontractors, not only those in plaintiff jurisdictions, have reason to monitor this litigation closely. Given the evolving litigation landscape, federal contractors and subcontractors may wish to assess their current posture and consider the following steps:

Bilateral modification requests. Contractors and subcontractors that have received or anticipate receiving requests from contracting officers to execute bilateral modifications incorporating FAR 52.222-90 may wish to consider the legal ramifications in advance of the July 24, 2026, deadline, particularly given the pendency of this litigation. The potential contract consequences of declining to agree to a modification are among the considerations that may warrant early legal guidance.

Consider a qualitative and quantitative privileged review of workforce programs. Contractors and subcontractors may wish to conduct a privileged review of existing antidiscrimination, outreach, recruiting, and workforce compliance programs, including privileged workforce analytics for legal risk mitigation. The complaint itself identifies uncertainty about whether common activities such as targeted recruiting outreach and workplace antisemitism training fall within the scope of FAR 52.222-90. Recent enforcement actions have demonstrated that the government conducts its own workforce analytics using employers’ raw data; organizations that have conducted their own privileged analysis in advance are better positioned to provide context and explanations if questions arise.

Understand the FCA compliance certification risk. FAR 52.222-90 includes a materiality clause representing that compliance is material to the government’s payment decisions under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(4). Under the FCA, “knowingly” includes acting in “deliberate ignorance” or “reckless disregard” of the truth. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(1). Contractors and subcontractors may wish to assess how their existing compliance programs relate to the certifications being made on each invoice submitted under a covered contract.

Consider preserving documentation of existing compliance practices. Contractors and subcontractors may also wish to consider how their existing employment and compliance programs are documented in relation to federal antidiscrimination statutes and controlling case law. The states’ reliance-interest argument in this lawsuit suggests that the history of how compliance programs were designed and grounded in existing law may be relevant both to any litigation outcome and to agency compliance reviews.

Records-access considerations. FAR 52.222-90 requires contractors to provide broad access to books, records, and accounts for compliance review. Given the clause’s vague scope, contractors and subcontractors may wish to consult with counsel regarding what records could be subject to demand and how workforce analytics and compliance documentation is currently structured.

Monitor both active challenges. Track developments in both Maryland v. Hegseth and the NADOHE constitutional challenge rulings on both the preliminary injunction, which is limited to the plaintiff states, and any vacatur of the FAR Council memorandum and agency class deviations, which would have governmentwide effect on the July 24, 2026, compliance deadline.

Ogletree Deakins’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Government Contracting and Compliance, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance practice groups will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Employment Law, 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

• An injury sustained during a soccer tournament organized by the employer is not a work-related accident.
• Coverage under statutory accident insurance may apply, in particular, if the event constitutes a company-sponsored social gathering.
• Events aimed exclusively at a specific group of people do not meet this requirement.
• Supporting activities, catering, or spectator attendance do not alter this classification.

The Case—Final Match With a Torn Cruciate Ligament

The employee’s (plaintiff’s) employer—a company with approximately 3,900 employees—organized a soccer tournament featuring preliminary rounds, a final, and an evening event. A maximum of approximately 1,500 people could participate in the preliminary rounds. On the day of the final, about 315 employees actively participated. The employee injured her left knee during the final match. Among other things, she was diagnosed with a torn cruciate ligament. The responsible workers’ compensation association refused to recognize the injury as a work-related accident. The employee’s lawsuit before the Hanover Social Court was unsuccessful.

The Decision—No Insurance Coverage for a Selective Sports Tournament

The court ruled that it was not a work-related accident under Section 8 of Book VII of the Social Code (Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB VII)). Playing soccer was not objectively related to the insured activity. While company-sponsored social events may be covered by insurance, SGB VII, Section 8 requires that they are in the company’s interest, sponsored by management, and designed for the participation of the entire workforce. This was lacking in this case, because the tournament format appealed from the outset only to a limited, athletically active portion of the workforce. The supporting program, spectator participation, and evening event were insufficient to make the event a company-sponsored social gathering.

Key Takeaways

The distinction between work-related and private accidents is a regular topic of discussion in the German courts. We have already published articles on this subject, including an incident of choking on coffee that was considered a workplace accident, and escaping an explosion while working remotely at home that did not qualify as a workplace accident. The ruling by the Hanover Social Court aligns with this line of reasoning: Sports-related corporate events must be legally assessed differently from traditional company parties. For employers, this means that the decisive factors are the concept, the objectives, and the actual opportunities for participation—not merely the role of the organizer or a supporting program.

The decisive factor is whether the event can be classified as a company social event within the meaning of SGB VII, Section 8. This requires a format that is objectively designed for the participation of the entire workforce, or at least the majority of it, and that promotes team spirit. Competitive sports tournaments with a selective group of participants generally do not meet these requirements. The presence of spectators, social elements, or an evening event do not alter the assessment as long as the core element remains a sporting competition.

Employers may therefore want to document the event’s purpose and target audience in the invitation and program. The following applies: The invitation must be addressed to the entire workforce or a defined segment of the workforce, and participation must be objectively possible for everyone. Open, inclusive formats with a mandatory communal program are more likely to qualify for insurance coverage than selective competitions. For sporting events, employers may want to offer an alternative program for employees who are not interested in sports. Events associated with particular risks—such as a hot-air balloon ride—are, however, difficult to classify as open, inclusive formats. It is easier to conduct a case-by-case review when the objectives, schedule, timing, location, and opportunities for participation are consistently aligned

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

Karl Melzer is an associate in the Berlin office of Ogletree Deakins.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• FIFA has introduced mandatory hydration breaks during all matches at the 2026 World Cup to prioritize player welfare amid hot and humid conditions.
• The hydration breaks may also serve as a reminder for U.S. employers of their legal obligations to prevent heat-related illnesses in outdoor workers, particularly as OSHA increases enforcement efforts.
• OSHA’s renewed emphasis on heat-hazard prevention suggests increased inspections into heat-related hazards in outdoor and indoor work environments, particularly during “heat priority days” or following heat-related injuries.

FIFA, the international governing body for the sport of soccer, has mandated that all 104 matches at the 2026 World Cup take a three-minute hydration break midway through each half to prioritize “player welfare.” But while FIFA has instituted hydration breaks in past tournaments, the 2026 World Cup marks the first time they are required at every match, regardless of weather conditions or whether the match is played in an indoor stadium.

Soccer fans and pundits are debating how these changes will impact play and strategy in matches, as matches have traditionally used a continuously running ninety-minute clock, split into two forty-five–minute halves, with no formal clock stoppages other than the halftime and full-time whistles. Regardless, the hydration breaks address a real risk to player safety in hot, humid summer conditions, which are likely to exist in many host cities across North America.

More broadly, the World Cup’s hydration breaks may serve as a reminder of such heat-related risks for all workers laboring outdoors, and U.S. employers’ legal obligations to address them—including providing hydration breaks on hot days—as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ramps up enforcement of outdoor and indoor heat-hazard prevention obligations.

Heat-Related Risks

OSHA has warned that physical activity in high temperatures, humidity, and sun exposure, together with limited air movement, can increase the risk of heat-related illnesses, such as dehydration, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke. Those risks are increased for individuals who are pregnant or who have obesity or heart disease. Data from the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) indicates that between 2021 and 2024, environmental heat exposure resulted in an average of forty-eight worker fatalities per year. However, these statistics likely do not capture the true magnitude and prevalence of heat-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities.

Further, dangerous outdoor heat levels may be lower than some employers might expect. OSHA emphasizes that when the heat index reaches 80°F or higher, as measured by the National Weather Service (NWS), “serious occupational heat-related illnesses and injuries become more frequent.” Risks can be exacerbated by the type of labor with intense, strenuous work, such as lifting, carrying heavy loads, or digging.

Compliance Obligations and Shifting U.S. Regulations

In recent years, OSHA has increased its focus on the risks associated with heat exposure. OSHA has pursued rulemaking to establish a permanent federal standard for heat injury and illness prevention, most recently publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking in August 2024. While that rulemaking effort has stalled, OSHA has continued to emphasize employers’ obligations to prevent outdoor and indoor heat hazards under the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act. Between calendar years 2022 and 2025, Federal OSHA conducted on average approximately 2,400 heat-related hazard inspections each year.

In April 2026, OSHA updated and renewed its National Emphasis Program (NEP) for outdoor and indoor heat-hazard prevention, replacing its expiring program with a new, aggressive directive that will be operative “for no more than five years” from its effective date (April 10, 2026) and will likely run until April 2031. The NEP notes that heat-related inspections accounted for 6 percent of all federal occupational safety and health inspections during the last five years, and targets fifty-five high-risk industries and worksites with heat-related hazards.

The NEP introduces the concept of “heat priority days,” which occur when the heat index is expected to reach 80°F or higher. On such days, area officers are directed to assess the potential for serious heat-related illnesses at both outdoor and indoor worksites. That means an inspector already present at an employer’s facility for an unrelated matter may expand the scope of that inspection if heat hazards are visible or alleged. Moreover, “programmed inspections shall occur on any day that the NWS has announced a heat warning or advisory for the local area.”

Employers that have previously been cited for heat-related violations face heightened scrutiny under the revised NEP. Initial follow-up inspections must be conducted for establishments cited following a heat-related fatality to verify that abatement has been implemented. Additional follow-up inspections are required for any establishment that received serious violations for heat-related hazards.

Key Takeaways

The NEP’s Appendix I provides a checklist that OSHA compliance safety and health officers (CSHOs) will use to evaluate employer heat programs during each inspection and that employers may want to note to help prevent and mitigate heat illnesses and injuries. The checklist’s areas of inquiry and emphasis suggest an approach for employers.

• Establish a written heat illness plan. The NEP states that inspectors will ask whether an employer has a written or verbal heat program and whether it has been effectively communicated to employees.
• Designate a heat safety representative. OSHA inspectors will specifically ask whether the heat program is “properly implemented and managed by a designated heat safety representative.”
• Implement water, rest, shade, and acclimatization measures. The NEP states that inspectors will examine whether “sufficient amounts of cool water [were] easily accessible” to workers, whether hydration and rest breaks were provided, whether shaded or cool areas were available, and whether workers were given periods to acclimate to the heat.
• Train staff. The NEP suggests that workers must be educated on recognizing and reporting the signs and symptoms of heat exhaustion and heat stroke, as well as on rendering basic first aid.
• Monitor conditions. The NEP indicates that inspectors will look at how an employer monitored ambient temperatures and levels of work exertion at the worksite.

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

In addition, the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal covers heat illness prevention updates. It will soon feature new heat illness prevention templates that reflect Federal OSHA’s updated National Emphasis Program, available to Advanced and Premium subscribers on the Client Portal’s Federal Heat Illness Prevention and Wildfire Smoke Exposure page. For more information on the Client Portal or a Client Portal subscription, please reach out to clientportal@ogletree.com.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts