Quick Hits

• OFCCP finalized three rules rescinding and revising federal contractors’ and subcontractors’ affirmative action obligations following the 2025 revocation of EO 11246.
• The final rules significantly modify obligations under Section 503 by rescinding disability self-identification invitations and the 7 percent utilization goal, rescinding OFCCP’s race- and sex-based regulations, and making technical amendments to the VEVRAA regulations.
• The rules have varying effective dates, which means that contractors will need to pay close attention to when the adjustments may apply to their ongoing affirmative action programs (AAPs) and other compliance matters.

OFCCP’s final rules follow President Trump’s EO 14173, issued on January 21, 2025.

‘Rescission of Executive Order 11246 Implementing Regulations’

EO 14173 revoked EO 11246, which, for more than sixty years, had established the legal framework requiring federal contractors to maintain AAPs based on race and sex. The final rule, “Rescission of Executive Order 11246 Implementing Regulations,” completes the corresponding regulatory adjustments by rescinding parts of Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter 60, which was promulgated under EO 11246. Specifically, the rule rescinds CFR Parts 60-1, 60-2, 60-3, 60-4, 60-20, 60-40, 60-50, and 60-999, and removes components under EO 11246 in Part 60-30. Those regulations addressed contractors’ previous obligations to develop race- and sex-based AAPs, and provided for OFCCP’s related enforcement authority.

‘Modifications to the Regulations Implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as Amended’

The Section 503 final rule makes significant changes, most notably rescinding the requirement that contractors affirmatively invite applicants and employees to voluntarily self-identify a current or former disability (using the CC-305 form), eliminating the 7 percent utilization goal for individuals with disabilities, and removing data collection and utilization analysis requirements. The rule also updates the basic coverage threshold from $15,000 to $20,000 to reflect recent inflationary adjustments. Despite the many rescissions, the rule retains Section 503’s core disability nondiscrimination protections, reasonable accommodation requirements, outreach assessment obligations, and AAP requirements. The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) commentary notes that the disability self-identification framework conflicts with the plain text of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

‘Modifications to the Regulations Implementing the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as Amended’

The VEVRAA final rule makes technical changes to the VEVRAA regulations, removing cross-references to EO 11246 (relocating the administrative enforcement proceeding procedures from the former Part 60-30 and incorporating them directly into the VEVRAA regulations at 41 CFR Part 60-300), removes an unnecessary citation to Section 503 authority, and updates the jurisdictional coverage threshold from $150,000 to $200,000 in accordance with recent inflationary adjustments established by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council.

Next Steps

These final rules change the antidiscrimination requirements applicable to federal contractors or other employers. The rules do not eliminate prohibitions on employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or elsewhere under federal, state, and local antidiscrimination statutes.

The three final rules have different effective dates, so contractors should pay close attention to when the adjustments apply to their specific ongoing AAP cycles and other compliance matters. Contractors may wish to review their antidiscrimination policies to ensure continued compliance with Title VII and other federal, state, and local antidiscrimination laws. They may further wish to audit any prior activities that were previously driven solely by compliance with rescinded provisions of EO 11246, Section 503, or VEVRAA, and assess how changes can be legally implemented or updated to meet broader business purposes.

For more information on the DOL’s three final rules published by OFCCP, please join us for a webinar, “OFCCP’s Three Final Rules: A Reset for Federal Contractors,” on Wednesday, August 26, 2026, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EDT. The speakers will address which federal contractor requirements remain in effect and how to guide compliance efforts related to continuing obligations under Title VII, state and local laws, and relevant executive orders. Register here.

Ogletree Deakins’ Government Contracting and Compliance Practice Group and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will 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

• In a precedential decision, the Third Circuit held that the FCA’s anti-retaliation provisions protect employees from retaliation for their efforts to stop fraud against the government, but those efforts must be related to an alleged FCA violation.
• The court distinguished the legal standard applicable to claims under the FCA’s anti-retaliation provisions and the FCA’s qui tam provisions.
• The court held that claims of retaliation under the FCA must demonstrate both a subjective belief of fraud by the employee and an objectively reasonable belief of such conduct.
• The court found that concerns about regulatory violations alone, such as FDA compliance, were not enough to plead a FCA anti-retaliation claim under the FCA’s “other efforts” prong.

Background

In a precedential decision in Lisenby v. Olympus Corp. of the Americas, No. 25-1480, the Third Circuit held that Congress’s 2009–2010 FCA amendments protect whistleblowing employees who make “other efforts” to stop violations of the FCA only “when they are motivated by an objectively reasonable belief that the employer has submitted, or will submit, false or fraudulent claims for payment to the federal government.”

The holding comes in a case brought by a former employee of a Japanese-owned company that sells medical devices to the U.S. government (notably, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)), who alleged that his job was eliminated after he raised concerns regarding potential U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory violations.

The Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit claiming unlawful retaliation in violation of the FCA and state law, finding that the employee’s complaint lacked allegations supported by an “objectively reasonable belief that the employer ha[d] submitted, or [would] submit, false or fraudulent claims for payment to the federal government.”

No Heightened Pleading Requirements

The Third Circuit held that FCA retaliation claims are not subject to the heightened standard for pleading fraud under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires plaintiffs to allege fraud “with particularity.” The court noted that while FCA qui tam claims are subject to this heightened pleading standard because they allege false or fraudulent payments, “[r]etaliation claims under the FCA do not … involve allegations of fraud.” Accordingly, “an FCA retaliation claim need only satisfy Rule 8(a)’s notice pleading standard,” the Third Circuit stated.

‘Other Efforts’ Must Be Connected to FCA Violations

The FCA protects employees from retaliation for “lawful acts done … in furtherance of” either “an action [under the FCA]” or “other efforts to stop [one] or more violations of [the FCA].” The Third Circuit explained that it had not previously addressed the “other efforts” prong and set forth two central holdings with regard to what constitutes “other efforts.”

First, the court concluded that “a plaintiff’s actions must be connected to a violation of the FCA,” meaning that the “plaintiff’s conduct must be related to the submission of a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government for payment or approval.”

Second, the court held that “a plaintiff must, in good faith, have held an objectively reasonable belief that [the] employer was violating, or would violate, the FCA.” The Third Circuit explained that Congress’s addition of the “other efforts” prong in the 2009–2010 FCA amendments was intended to expand the scope of the FCA anti-retaliation provision to protect an employee’s efforts to prevent an FCA violation (or, in other words, stop it before it happens).

Regulatory Concerns Alone Are Insufficient

The Third Circuit held that the employee’s complaint failed to show that the employee reasonably believed the employer “was violating, or would soon violate, the FCA.” The court emphasized that the complaint focused on the employee’s concerns that the employer was violating FDA regulations, not on the employer’s alleged fraud on the government. Allegations that the employer was a federal contractor and had already sold allegedly non-FDA-compliant devices for use in medical procedures covered by Medicare and Medicaid were not sufficient because they suggested only that the employee was concerned with “FDA regulatory violations and the attendant risks to patient safety, not fraud committed against the government.”

Key Takeaways

The decision in Lisenby, underscores that employers may be subject to claims of unlawful retaliation by discharged employees who have allegedly attempted to stop potential fraud against the government. Notably, such claims are governed by Rule 8’s notice pleading standard, not Rule 9(b)’s heightened fraud-pleading standard.

Still, the decision emphasizes that, at least in the Third Circuit, retaliation claims under the FCA for “other efforts” are limited. The “other efforts” prong requires conduct motivated by an objectively reasonable belief that the employer submitted, or would submit, false or fraudulent claims for payment to the federal government.

Further, the court drew a sharp distinction between complaints about regulatory violations and complaints tied to false or fraudulent claims for government payment. Accordingly, the ruling suggests that in the Third Circuit an employee’s actions regarding product safety concerns or potential regulatory violations, absent an objectively reasonable connection to an FCA violation, are insufficient to trigger the FCA’s anti-retaliation protections.

Ogletree Deakins’ will continue to monitor developments and provide updates on the Ethics/Whistleblower, Government Contracting and Compliance, and Healthcare blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• San Francisco recently amended its Fair Chance Ordinance to prohibit employers from making adverse employment decisions based on out-of-state criminal convictions or arrests for abortion, miscarriage, gender-affirming care, and drag performances.
• If an employer sends notice to a candidate or employee regarding an intent to take adverse action based upon a criminal history and the candidate or employee timely responds, the employer must send a reply within fourteen days, confirming receipt.
• The amendments increased administrative penalties and potential liquidated damages for violations.
• The legislation took effect on August 10, 2026.

Employers in San Francisco must comply with both the statewide Fair Chance Act and the San Francisco Fair Chance Ordinance.

San Francisco’s Fair Chance Ordinance already prohibited employers in San Francisco with more than five employees anywhere from inquiring about prior arrests and convictions on job applications or before presenting a conditional job offer. The Fair Chance Ordinance applies to adverse employment actions, including refusing to hire, discharging, or refusing to promote an individual. The law covers full-time, part-time, temporary, seasonal, and contingent workers, as long as they work at least eight hours per week in San Francisco.

Under the new amendments, covered employers may not consider out-of-state convictions or arrests regarding conduct that is lawful under California law and:

• has the primary aim of seeking, performing, providing, receiving, or facilitating the services by or of a physician or other medical professional to terminate a pregnancy;
• is related to actions taken by a person regarding miscarriage or seeking, performing, providing, receiving, or facilitating the services by or of a physician or other medical professional related to miscarriage;
• is conduct related to a stillbirth;
• is related to seeking, performing, providing, receiving, or facilitating medical care, support, or advocacy for the purpose of addressing disparities between any person’s gender identity and their physiology or perceived gender identity, including hormone replacement therapy, surgical procedures, and changes to a person’s name or gender marker;
• is related to using a gendered facility that corresponds with one’s gender identity and/or playing on a sports team that corresponds with one’s gender identity;
• is related to a public, artistic performance characterized by exaggerated displays of femininity or masculinity, in some instances demonstrated by wearing clothing associated with a different gender than the person’s assigned gender at birth.

The city government or an individual may bring a civil action for violations. The amendments increased potential liquidated damages from $500 to $1,000 for each affected employee or applicant. The administrative penalty also increased from $500 to $1,000 for each affected employee or applicant for a first violation, from $1,000 to $2,000 for a second violation, and from $2,000 to $4,000 for subsequent violations.

The new amendments added a procedural requirement if the employer intends to take adverse action based upon a conviction history. The San Francisco ordinance already required an employer to make an individualized assessment of the information, send the report to the candidate, notify the candidate of the potential adverse action (pre-adverse action letter), and give the candidate seven days to respond. (Under California state law, the amount of time for the candidate to respond differs from San Francisco’s rule and depends on how the employer sends the notice.) Now, under the new San Francisco amendment, if the candidate does timely respond, the employer must reply within fourteen days to confirm receipt and reconsider the decision in light of the candidate’s response. Further, the amendment requires employers to send any final notice of adverse action (adverse action letter) within thirty days of receiving information from the candidate. If the candidate did not provide additional information, the employer must send the adverse action letter within thirty days of sending the pre-adverse action letter.

San Francisco’s amendments reflect the many ways in which California state law differs from laws in other states. For example, California state law protects the right to access abortion and contraception, prohibits insurers and healthcare providers from denying or restricting gender-affirming care, prohibits prosecution of people based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or pregnancy outcome, and prohibits prosecution of people based on their actions to aid or assist a pregnant person who is exercising their reproductive rights.

Next Steps

Employers in San Francisco may want to ensure compliance with both California state law and San Francisco’s amended Fair Chance Ordinance by reviewing job applications, background check procedures, and communications processes. Before declining a candidate based on criminal history, employers must conduct an individualized assessment, notify the candidate, provide a copy of the background check, give the candidate a certain amount of time to respond, and now in San Francisco, confirm receipt of any response. The employer must then reconsider based on evidence the candidate provides.

Ogletree Deakins’ Background Checks Practice Group and San Francisco office will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Background Checks and California blogs as more information becomes available.

California pre-adverse action letters, adverse action letters, and California and San Francisco law summaries (timing, arrests, convictions, pre-adverse action process, adverse action process) are available on the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal to Premium-level subscribers. For more information on the Client Portal or a Client Portal subscription, reach out to clientportal@ogletreedeakins.com.

Cara F. Barrick is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ San Francisco office.

Joel H. Kosh is of counsel in Ogletree Deakins’ San Francisco 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

• MSHA finalized a rule (effective July 27, 2026) eliminating obsolete blacksmith shop requirements for surface areas of underground metal/nonmetal mines, requiring no compliance action from most operators.
• Several other proposals relevant to surface metal/nonmetal operators remain pending but could be finalized relatively quickly given the administration’s deregulatory priorities.
• Pending proposals, if finalized, would simplify narrow regulatory obligations without fundamentally rewriting surface metal/nonmetal compliance programs.

For metal/nonmetal surface operators, the most relevant proposals involve surface drilling, aerial tramways, trolleys, and hazard communication (HAZCOM).

MSHA proposed eliminating blacksmith shop requirements for surface areas of underground metal/nonmetal mines, explaining that the standard had become obsolete. Further, the hazards associated with these types of fabricating and forging facilities were deemed to be covered by other regulations. That proposal has now been finalized and took effect July 27, 2026. Most operators will not need to take any compliance steps. The rule simply removes an obligation already irrelevant to modern operations.

That rule was one of four July 2025 proposals MSHA moved to final rule status. The other three involve underground coal standards for flame safety lamps, diesel particulate matter emission limits, and conveyor belts.

What Is Still Pending

Several other proposals remain pending but would matter to surface metal/nonmetal operators if finalized.

MSHA proposed rescinding certain drilling requirements—including drill equipment maintenance and pre-drilling inspections—on the grounds that those obligations are already covered in Part 56.

Currently, operators must inspect drilling areas before work begins and maintain drill equipment in safe operating condition under specific regulatory provisions. If finalized, those standalone requirements would be eliminated, though the underlying safety obligations would remain under other Part 56 standards.

The agency also proposed removing duplicative aerial tramway provisions and eliminating trolley-related standards, which it described as legacy requirements for transportation systems displaced by modern haulage practices.

A hazard communication proposal would allow operators to provide miners electronic access to HAZCOM materials at no cost. Under current rules, operators must maintain paper copies of safety datasheets and other HAZCOM materials at the mine site. The proposed change would let operators satisfy that obligation through electronic access, reducing paper-based compliance burdens while preserving miners’ access to chemical hazard information.

Based on the administration’s stated deregulatory priorities, final action on these proposals could come relatively quickly.

Where the Pushback Is

Since the initial comment periods closed, the public rulemaking record has shown a mixed response.

Several narrow proposals drew limited opposition, and MSHA has already finalized the blacksmith shop rule and several coal-specific measures.

Other proposals have drawn more scrutiny, especially those that would limit district manager authority over mine plans and training requirements.

The concerns raised in public comments center on whether removing MSHA district manager discretion could weaken site-specific safety oversight—particularly in situations where local conditions warrant additional protective measures beyond the baseline regulatory requirements. Those issues are more relevant to underground coal, but they signal where the industry is watching.

What to Watch

For metal/nonmetal operators, the deregulatory package is moving—but unevenly.

The drilling, aerial tramway, trolley, and HAZCOM proposals remain ones to watch. If finalized as proposed, those rules would not create a wholesale rewrite of surface metal/nonmetal compliance obligations. But they could simplify several narrow standards and give operators more flexibility in how they maintain records and provide required safety information.

In the meantime, operators do not need to change their compliance programs based on pending proposals. However, while operators continue to follow the current standards, they may want to monitor the Federal Register for final rule announcements so they can be prepared to update policies and training once the new rules take effect.

Given the pace of the administration’s deregulatory agenda, operators should not be surprised if final action on several of these proposals comes sooner rather than later.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

A version of this article was previously published in Pit & Quarry magazine.

Quick Hits

• Employers that wish to pursue an EPIP rather than participate in the FAMLI state plan must file a DOI between September 1 and November 15, 2026, in order to be exempt from making contributions to the state plan during the 2027 calendar year seeding period.
• The DOI process requires employer registration through the FAMLI Portal, a consultation with and attestation from a licensed insurance agent, and completion of an online DOI form with submission of the attestation through the portal.
• A DOI is not the same as an EPIP application; even if a DOI is accepted, the employer must still file a separate EPIP application no later than October 1, 2027, for implementation of a private plan at the time benefits commence in January 2028.
• While the process for filing a DOI is not yet fully detailed on the FAMLI website, Ogletree Deakins has obtained clarification from the Maryland FAMLI Division regarding how it will actually work. Here is a step-by-step breakdown of the process as we currently know it.

Step 1: Registering for a FAMLI Employer Account

The employer must register for a FAMLI account through the FAMLI Portal. Registration is now open.

The employer must identify an individual employee to act as its authorized officer. A third-party administrator (TPA) cannot be used for this purpose. The registration process requires the authorized officer to first register with the federal government website, Login.gov, which provides identity verification for individuals that can then be used with various federal and state agencies. The Login.gov registration requires the authorized officer to provide certain personal information, including proof of legal identity. This has been a source of concern for some employers, but it is a mandatory part of the process.

With Login.gov identity verification, along with the employer’s employer identification number (EIN) and contact information, the authorized officer may then register for an employer FAMLI account. Once registered, the authorized officer may grant access to other employees or a TPA who will actually manage parts or the whole of the FAMLI process for the employer (i.e., filing reports, remitting contribution payments, and managing employee leave claims).

Step 2: Consulting With a Licensed Insurance Agent

The employer will need to meet with a licensed insurance agent of its choice, who will walk through a specified agenda of information about FAMLI and private plan requirements. The consultation agenda covers fifteen required items, including escrow requirements, contribution rules, consequences if a private plan is not approved, and quarterly reporting obligations. Following the meeting, the agent will sign a Proof of Private Plan Consultation form, attesting that they have reviewed the agenda with the employer.

This consultation is required even if the employer intends to self-insure rather than purchase a commercial plan. Not all insurance agents will be fully versed in FAMLI, so employers should engage an agent who has at least a working understanding of the program.

Step 3: Uploading the Signed Form and Completing the DOI Online

Once the insurance agent consultation is complete, the employer will upload the signed “Proof of Private Plan Consultation” form through its FAMLI account and complete the DOI online. Note that this functionality is not yet available on the FAMLI Portal.

According to information provided to Ogletree from the FAMLI Division, the DOI itself will be a series of checkboxes that closely mirror the insurance agent consultation form, with two additional questions:

• whether the employer intends to use a commercial plan or self-insure; and
• approximately how many employees will be covered by the plan.

Step 4: Receiving DOI Acceptance Notification

The authorized officer will be notified by email within fifteen days if the DOI has been accepted.

Step 5:Collecting Contributions and Escrow Holding

If the DOI is accepted, the employer will begin collecting contributions starting January 1, 2027, but will not remit them to the state. Instead, the employer must hold the funds in an escrow account, pending submission and approval of an EPIP application.

Notably, if a private plan is not approved by the FAMLI Division before January 1, 2028, the employer will be required to remit to the state an amount equal to all unpaid employer and employee contributions (which should be the same as the funds in the escrow account), plus any interest and penalties for late payment.

Step 6: Filing the EPIP Application

The employer will need to file an EPIP application beginning in late summer 2027, but no later than October 1, 2027. It is critical to understand that the DOI is not the same as an EPIP application. Even if a DOI is accepted, the employer must still separately apply for EPIP approval.

The FAMLI Division will make the EPIP application forms available in the summer of 2027. All DOIs expire December 31, 2027. Failure to submit a private plan application by the October 1, 2027, deadline is grounds for termination of the DOI by the FAMLI Division.

Key Takeaways

The DOI process offers employers a meaningful opportunity to opt out of the state plan during the seeding period, but it requires careful planning and timely action. Employers should consider taking the following steps:

• identifying and preparing an authorized officer, including completing Login.gov identity verification;
• registering immediately through the FAMLI Portal if they have not already done so;
• consulting with a knowledgeable insurance agent well in advance of the November 15, 2026, deadline;
• submitting the DOI and agent consultation form no later than November 15, 2026;
• preparing for escrow obligations beginning January 1, 2027; and
• calendaring the October 1, 2027, EPIP application deadline as a critical follow-up to DOI acceptance.

Ogletree Deakins will provide more information about the EPIP application process once additional details are available from the FAMLI Division. The FAMLI Division has also set up a help center for employers. Employers may reach the FAMLI Customer Care Contact Center at (410) 525-4010 or paid.leave@maryland.gov, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.

The firm’s Baltimore office and Leaves of Absence/Reasonable Accommodation Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Leaves of Absence and Maryland blogs as additional information becomes available.

In addition, the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal provides subscribers with timely updates on state family and medical leave laws, including Maryland’s FAMLI program. Premium-level subscribers have access to comprehensive Law Summaries and updated policies; Snapshots and Updates are complimentary for all registered client users. For more information on the Client Portal or a Client Portal subscription, please email clientportal@ogletree.com.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Maryland’s Family and Medical Leave Insurance will soon take effect, with contributions commencing on January 1, 2027, and benefits starting no later than January 3, 2028.
• The MDOL’s FAMLI Division has released new guidance documents covering employer registration, equivalent private insurance plan (EPIP) options, and quarterly wage and hour reporting to help businesses prepare.
• Employers considering an EPIP must file a declaration of intent (DOI) between September 1 and November 15, 2026, in order to be exempt from contributions during the state fund seeding period.

Maryland’s FAMLI program—enacted by the Maryland General Assembly in 2022—will provide most Maryland employees with up to twelve weeks of paid leave for qualifying family and medical reasons, with a possible additional twelve weeks for parental bonding. The program is funded through employer and employee payroll contributions. The MDOL published final regulations implementing the program on March 30, 2026, which we discussed in a three-part article series: online accounts and notices (Part I), claims and paid leave benefits (Part II), and Equivalent Private Insurance Plans (EPIPs) and dispute resolution (Part III). Another article covers resources available through the MDOL’s revamped FAMLI website.

Several critical deadlines are fast approaching:

• September 1–November 15, 2026: Window to file a declaration of intent (DOI) for employers that will utilize an EPIP when the program commences. (Please see our article, “An Employer’s Guide to Filing a Declaration of Intent for a Maryland FAMLI Private Plan,” for additional information on filing a DOI.)
• December 2026: Deadline to provide employees with at least one pay period notice before contribution withholding commences
• January 1, 2027: Employer and employee contributions commence
• April 2027: First quarterly wage and hour reports (QWHRs) due
• Summer 2027: EPIP applications become available
• October 1, 2027: EPIP applications deadline for 2028
• January 3, 2028: FAMLI benefits become available to eligible employees

To aid employers in preparing for FAMLI, the MDOL’s FAMLI Division has been issuing guidance documents and providing training. Recently the FAMLI Division released a new suite of practical resources for employers, addressing registration logistics, private plan options, and required QWHRs, as further discussed below.

Register With FAMLI

The MDOL has opened FAMLI registration. Every employer with at least one employee working in Maryland must register with the program. Initial registration must be completed by an authorized officer, who is typically a business owner, officer, or designated representative authorized to act on behalf of the company.

As the MDOL explains in its registration resource, in order to register, the authorized officer must first create an account at Login.gov, which is a federal single sign-on service that allows registered users to access participating federal and state agency websites. In order to create a Login.gov account, the authorized officer must provide proof of legal identity (e.g., Social Security number and driver’s license or state ID card).

With the Login.gov identify verification, the authorized officer will then create an account through the FAMLI portal, which requires the company’s employer identification number (EIN) and contact information. Once registered, the authorized officer will be able to grant access to other individuals and also to register a third-party agent (TPA). With a signed power of attorney from the company, those individuals or entities (including payroll providers, professional employer organizations, certified public accountants, HR/benefits administrators, insurers, and leave management companies) will be able to manage FAMLI tasks such as filing quarterly reports, remitting payments, and managing employee leave. Note that the TPA may NOT register on behalf of client companies.

FAMLI State Plan vs. EPIPs

Once registered, all employers are automatically enrolled in the FAMLI state plan. However, employers have the option to apply for approval of an equivalent private insurance plan (EPIP) as an alternative. The MDOL has published a comprehensive guide to help employers understand their plan options.

There are two types of private plans:

• Commercial plans are purchased from an insurance company, which handles claims processing and benefit payments. Any employer can purchase a commercial plan.
• Self-insured plans are funded directly by the employer (or managed through a TPA). These are available to employers with fifty or more employees, with a limited exception for smaller employers that already have a FAMLI-compliant plan in place by July 31, 2026.

EPIPs must provide benefits and services that are equivalent to or exceed the benefits offered by the state plan. For employers choosing a private plan, it is important to note that even if an EPIP charges a higher rate overall to the employer, employee payroll deductions cannot exceed the amounts that employees would pay under the state plan. Employers must cover the difference.

Key Deadline: Employers that intend to apply for an EPIP in 2027 and wish to be exempt from making contributions during the state fund seeding period (January 1, 2027, to December 31, 2027), must submit a declaration of intent (DOI) to use a private plan between September 1 and November 15, 2026. The DOI process requires a completed proof of private plan consultation form signed by a licensed insurance agent, and an attestation by the employer’s authorized officer. The MDOL will inform the authorized officer whether or not the DOI is approved within fifteen business days.

If approved, the employer will collect contributions beginning in January 2027 and hold them in escrow during the actual EPIP application process. Following DOI approval, employers must then complete a private plan application. (They may also submit an application outside of the DOI period; however, they will not be exempt from contributions during the seeding period.) EPIP applications will become available in summer 2027 and, for the plan to be effective for the 2028 year, are due by October 1, 2027.

Application fees vary by plan type and employer size:

• Self-insured plans: $1,000 (all sizes)
• Commercial plans: $100 to $1,000, depending on the number of employees localized in Maryland

Filing the Quarterly Wage and Hour Report

All employers, regardless of plan type, must begin submitting QWHRs starting in April 2027. To help employers and TPAs prepare, the FAMLI Division has published a detailed PDF QWHR file guide (last updated July 29, 2026), which includes a downloadable sample template.

The QWHR can be submitted manually through MDOL’s online portal or uploaded as a CSV file (with certain specification requirements).

The guide also covers file rules, rules for currency formatting, what is included as wages, detailed report formatting, how to report zero wages for a quarter, how to indicate a final QWHR for employers ceasing operations, and how TPAs can file for multiple employers by submitting a single CSV. The guide also covers amendments to previously submitted data, which are allowed up to one year after the initial reporting due date.

FAMLI Webinars

The MDOL is hosting a series of free virtual webinars to walk employers through the FAMLI program. These “Introduction to FAMLI” sessions run approximately ninety minutes and cover program basics, employer responsibilities, and timelines. The department has been hosting these webinars on a monthly basis since early 2026, and upcoming sessions include:

• September 16, 2026: 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. ET
• October 21, 2026: 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. ET

Additional dates are expected to be posted as the program approaches its January 2027 contribution start date. Check the FAMLI events page to register for or find upcoming events.

For those that cannot make a scheduled webinar, the FAMLI Division offers private presentations. Employers may submit an event request form to invite the FAMLI Division to conduct a presentation about the program and answer questions directly.

Next Steps for Employers

With FAMLI’s upcoming deadlines, preparation includes the following:

• Registering with FAMLI immediately for those that have not already done so
• Evaluating plan options and determining whether the state plan or a private plan is the right fit
• Marking the DOI deadline of September 1–November 15, 2026, if pursuing a private plan
• Getting familiar with the QWHR format and sample template to ensure payroll systems are ready
• Attending a webinar to ask questions and hear directly from the FAMLI Division team
• Evaluating employer-provided paid leave benefits to determine if any adjustments need to be made to account for FAMLI benefits

The MDOL has also set up a help center for employers. Employers may reach the FAMLI Customer Care Contact Center at (410) 525-4010 or paid.leave@maryland.gov, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.

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

In addition, the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal provides subscribers with timely updates on state family and medical leave laws, including Maryland’s FAMLI program. Premium-level subscribers have access to comprehensive Law Summaries and updated policies; Snapshots and Updates are complimentary for all registered client users. For more information on the Client Portal or a Client Portal subscription, please email clientportal@ogletree.com.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

The bill was introduced in February 2026 by Assembly Member Liz Ortega (D–District 20), chair of the California State Assembly’s Committee on Labor and Employment, with Assembly Members Ash Kalra (D–District 25) and Alex Lee (D–District 24) signing on as coauthors. As introduced, the bill would have applied statewide, expanding the role of local district attorneys in investigating serious workplace injuries and fatalities across California.

Since then, the bill has moved steadily through both houses with revisions along the way. Now, AB 2321 joins the queue for floor votes during the legislature’s final push, which runs from August 17 through August 31. Because the bill has been amended in the Senate, a Senate floor passage would send it back to the Assembly for concurrence in those amendments before it reaches the governor’s desk.

Quick Hits

• AB 2321 calls for the creation of a five-year pilot program in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties. For workplace incidents resulting in death, the Alameda County or Santa Clara County District Attorney (depending on where an incident occurred) would take responsibility for investigating and preparing the case for prosecution, in place of the BOI. This provision would sunset on January 1, 2032, and would take effect only after the legislature appropriates funding for it.
• If enacted, AB 2321 would require immediate cross-notification to Alameda and Santa Clara County district attorneys. Cal/OSHA would have to immediately notify the relevant district attorney’s (DA) office of a qualifying incident and turn over initial incident reports, inspection reports, and any other records helpful to the DA’s investigation.
• The bill aims to tighten BOI case-handling procedures statewide. Outside the two-county pilot program, the bill would require the BOI to adopt written policies for deciding whether to investigate or refer a case for prosecution—including documenting its rationale whenever it declines to investigate or refer a case—and would require Cal/OSHA to set up a routine or automated process for flagging nonfatal-injury incidents for the BOI to review.
• The bill would increase the BOI’s annual reporting obligations. The BOI’s existing annual activity report would now have to go to the legislature (not just to the Division) and include information on job classifications and staffing vacancies within the bureau.
• Importantly, the bill would loosen the trade-secret confidentiality rule. Information Cal/OSHA collects during inspections that touches upon trade secrets is currently kept confidential except in limited circumstances. The bill would add a new exception allowing disclosure to law enforcement officers or prosecutors conducting an investigation or prosecution.
• A final legislative revision has added first responders to the notification chain. Fire and police agencies responding to a workplace death or serious injury would now have to notify the local district attorney’s office directly, in addition to the existing requirement to notify Cal/OSHA.

With the suspense file behind it, AB 2321 now heads to a floor vote in the Senate before the California Legislature’s August 31, 2026, adjournment deadline. If it passes the Senate as amended, it will return to the Assembly for concurrence before heading to Governor Newsom for enactment or veto. California employers should watch for the following:

• the outcome of the Senate floor vote and any further amendments;
• Assembly concurrence action, if the bill passes the Senate; and
• whether the governor signs, vetoes, or allows the bill to become law without signature, given the state’s typical late-September bill-signing deadline.

Ogletree Deakins’ California offices and Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group will continue to monitor AB 2321 as it moves through the final weeks of the 2025–26 California legislative session and will provide updates on the California and Workplace Safety and Health blogs regarding further amendments, floor votes, or gubernatorial action.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On August 14, 2026, Cal/OSHA released an updated draft of its heat illness regulations that aligns both the indoor and outdoor regulations to be more consistent in language and terminology.
• The draft outdoor regulation removes the exception which allowed industries other than agriculture, construction, landscaping, oil and gas extraction, and some transportation companies to be exempt from the high-heat procedures.
• The deadline for submitting comments is September 21, 2026.

The draft adds rhabdomyolysis to the list of medical conditions that are identified as “heat illness.” The draft notes that signs or symptoms of rhabdomyolysis include “[m]uscle cramps/pain; abnormally dark (tea or cola colored) urine; muscle weakness; exercise intolerance; [and] death”; and that rhabdomyolysis “can be asymptomatic.”

In the draft, the definition of “heat wave” moved in the outdoor heat regulation to make it consistent with the indoor regulation.

Personal risk factors for heat illness had added factors of “supplements and recreational drugs” that affect the body’s water retention or other physiological responses to heat.

Signs and symptoms of heat illness were added with expansive language.

The draft regulations have other formatting and structure adjustments intended to create consistency between the indoor and outdoor heat regulations.

Employers, particularly those in industries not currently subject to the high-heat procedures, may want to review the draft closely and submit comments to https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/doshreg/heat-illness/ by the September 21, 2026, deadline.

Ogletree Deakins’ California offices and Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group will continue to monitor this rulemaking and the comments submitted in order to fully evaluate the likely impact on California employers. Updates will be posted on the California and Workplace Safety and Health blogs.

In addition, the firm’s Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group offers a California Indoor Heat Illness Prevention Plan Template Package to help employers meet their compliance requirements. The package includes a model written plan, a training presentation, a hazard assessment form, an employee notice, and a stakeholder overview. If you are interested in purchasing this package, please contact the Ogletree Deakins attorney with whom you work for additional information.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The EEOC held a hearing that drew testimony from a broad range of stakeholders on the Commission’s proposal to rescind the EEO-1 through EEO-6 information collections and related recordkeeping and record preservation requirements.
• Both employer-side and employee-side speakers warned that eliminating standardized reporting may not reduce employers’ overall data obligations; the same information may still be sought through investigations, subpoenas, and litigation.
• Employer groups underscored that the proposal should not be read as a directive to stop lawful demographic-data analytics; the key compliance issue for employers is how workforce data is used, not whether it is collected.

Background: What the Proposal Would Change

The proposal, published in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on July 23, 2026, would rescind the EEO-1, EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5, and EEO-6 reporting requirements, along with report-specific recordkeeping and record preservation requirements. The EEOC has argued that the reports are inconsistent with equal employment opportunity law, are not narrowly tailored, and may raise constitutional concerns because they could encourage unlawful race- or sex-based preferences, including quotas, in response to observed disparities.

For private employers, the principal change would be the elimination of the annual EEO-1 report, which currently applies to those with at least one hundred employees. The EEO-1 requires workforce demographic data by job category, race or ethnicity, and sex.

The proposal would also rescind related demographic surveys for unions, state and local governments, and public elementary and secondary school systems, as well as EEO-2 and EEO-6 reporting requirements that the EEOC has not required since 1981 and 1993, respectively.

Key Themes From the Hearing

Employer associations, employee-side lawyers, civil rights organizations, researchers, and workforce data organizations warned that ending standardized annual reporting would not eliminate requests for the same information. The EEOC, state agencies, and private plaintiffs would still seek demographic and workforce data through investigations, subpoenas, and discovery, but without a uniform federal format, employers could face greater uncertainty over what data to retain, how to organize it, and how quickly to produce it. Several speakers also questioned whether the NPRM’s projected cost savings account for the downstream costs of reconstructing data, litigating production disputes, and losing historical comparability.

An employer association, the Institute of Workplace Equality, composed of large employers and federal contractors, urged the EEOC to modernize EEO-1 reporting rather than eliminate it, calling the data a key tool for detecting potential discrimination. The association disputed the premise that reporting has led employers to adopt quotas, noting that neither its members’ experience nor federal contractor audits had shown that result.

Civil rights and employee-advocacy organizations argued that EEO data places individual charges in context, reveals broader patterns of hiring, promotion, pay, or occupational-segregation concerns, and supports systemic enforcement, particularly where individual workers lack access to comparative information. Without standardized reporting, these groups warned, the burden of uncovering workplace patterns would fall more heavily on individual employees and applicants.

Researchers and economists argued that the surveys support charge processing, enforcement planning, outreach, and employer self-correction, and that multiple speakers urged modernization or more tailored collection rather than rescission.

Employer-side testimony drew a sharp line between using demographic data to make employment decisions and using it to test whether employment systems are operating lawfully. Notably, no speaker cited a documented instance in which the reporting requirement produced unlawful race- or sex-based decisions. A nonprofit employer compliance association explained that properly used demographic analyses do not dictate decisions or prove discrimination but identify patterns that warrant closer review, citing examples that included one employer using aggregate data to flag a referral program that may have produced an unduly narrow applicant pool, and another that used a privileged review of promotion data to discover that some managers had misunderstood internal policies. In both cases, the data helped the employers evaluate risk, correct practices, and reinforce that decisions must be based on merit, qualifications, and business needs.

A former EEOC official, testifying on behalf of a civil liberties organization and former agency leaders, noted that aggregate EEOC data helps employers compare their workforces with peers. A workforce analytics firm warned that voluntary disclosure is not a reliable substitute because it creates selection bias and reduces comparability across employers.

Several organizations testified in support of rescission, arguing that routine reporting pressures employers to focus on demographic outcomes, requires classification of employees into broad race and sex categories, and raises constitutional concerns, including the claim that the regime institutionalizes racial classifications without a compelling government interest. These speakers emphasized that existing nondiscrimination laws would continue to protect employees and that the EEOC retains authority to request tailored records in specific investigations.

Next Steps

The EEOC did not take formal action at the August 11, 2026, hearing. The agency is accepting written comments on the NPRM through August 24, 2026. As of the hearing date, the proposal had already drawn significant public comment, with nearly 1,500 comments submitted. A number of organizations have also pressed the EEOC to extend the comment period beyond the current thirty-day window.

Regardless of outcome, employers may wish to consider several practical steps:

• Watch for potential legal challenges to the final rule and for any interim EEOC guidance on recordkeeping or data-collection expectations during the transition.
• Existing data-collection, retention, and production protocols may need to be evaluated for sufficiency without EEO-1 as a backstop.
• Ensure that privileged analyses of workforce decisions are structured to reflect lawful, merit-based objectives.
• Consider how to evaluate workforce trends without standardized federal data.
• Those with multistate operations may also want to consider that state and local workforce data, pay data, or demographic disclosure obligations would remain in effect regardless of federal rescission.

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, Governmental Affairs, Government Contracting and Compliance, Multistate 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB), through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has renewed Form CC-305, which invites applicants and employees of covered contractors to identify their disability status through July 31, 2029.
• The renewal means covered contractors subject to Section 503 self-identification requirements should continue using the OMB-approved form bearing the new expiration date.

On July 16, 2026, OMB approved Form CC-305 (Voluntary Self-Identification of Disability) and extended it for use through July 31, 2029, without substantive changes to the previous version. The renewal comes after the approval of the prior form expired on April 30, 2026.

Disability Self-Identification

Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits covered contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against job applicants and employees with disabilities and requires those contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities. In 2014, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) introduced Form CC-305, which is used to invite job applicants and current employees to voluntarily and confidentially disclose their disability status. OMB must approve and renew the form every three years. The form was last updated in 2023.

Proposed Rescission

On July 1, 2025, OFCCP published a proposed rule to revise regulations implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act to align with Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” and Executive Order 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative.”

The proposed rule calls for rescission of the requirement that covered contractors (1) invite applicants and employees to self-identify their disability status under 41 C.F.R. § 60-741.42 and (2) analyze progress toward the 7 percent utilization goal for individuals with disabilities under 41 C.F.R. § 60-741.45. OFCCP extended the comment period on the proposed rule to September 17, 2025, and more than 650 comments were submitted. A final rule, however, has not been approved by the administration or published.

In August 2025, OFCCP followed up its proposal with a separate request for comment, titled, “Proposed Revision of Information Collection Request,” soliciting comments on its information collection, including whether OFCCP must collect information to carry out its functions.

Renewal of Form CC-305

The renewal of Form CC-305 for another three years, without substantive amendments, may indicate that the DOL has considered public comments opposing rescission of the data collection requirements and confirmed that Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act remains in full force and effect. However, contractors may want to note that the DOL/OFCCP could move forward with the rescission proposal at some point in the future.

Next Steps

Covered federal contractors must continue to invite applicants and employees to self-identify their disability status and should begin using the OMB-approved Form CC-305. OFCCP has published a copy of the form with the new expiration date for contractors to use, which can be downloaded in English and several other languages here.

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 will 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