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

Quick Hits

• DHS has proposed a rule to eliminate the sixty-day grace period afforded to certain nonimmigrants, such as E, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, and TN visa holders and their dependents.
• The full text of the proposed rule has not yet been published, and its exact details remain unknown.
• The rule is undergoing review by OMB before being published in the Federal Register for notice and comment.

The sixty-day grace period was implemented in 2016 by regulation and formally went into effect in 2017. Prior to this regulation, no such grace period existed. The regulation creating the sixty-day grace period permits individuals in certain nonimmigrant visa status (e.g., E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, or TN) and their dependents to remain in a period of authorized stay for up to sixty days after their employment ends or until their I-94 record expires, whichever is earlier. Within the sixty days, they must either depart the United States or apply for a change of employer, change of status, adjustment of status, or a compelling circumstances employment authorization document (EAD). Individuals are eligible for one sixty-day grace period per petition validity period.

If the proposed rule is implemented, individuals whose employment ends before their petition expiration date would no longer be permitted to remain in the United States in a period of authorized stay. Instead, they would be required to depart the United States immediately and would likely be unable to change status or change employers unless USCIS authorizes the change through an exercise of favorable discretion.

The sixty-day grace period will remain in effect while the rule continues through the rulemaking process.

Next Steps

Once the OMB completes its review, the proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register and will be open to public comment for a period of thirty to sixty days. Following this period, there is a possibility that the agency may withdraw or abandon the proposal based on public comment. If the rule proceeds to final rulemaking, it will likely take several months to be finalized and take effect.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• California SB 1203 would increase required initial security guard training from thirty-two hours to forty-two hours and require sixty hours of annual training.
• The bill would require eight hours of initial and annual training to focus on practicing de-escalation skills through in-person, interactive training.
• Employers would be required to pay for required training and compensate security guards for time spent completing the training.
• The proposed requirements may also intersect with employers’ obligations to identify, evaluate, and correct workplace violence hazards and maintain an effective workplace violence prevention plan.
• SB 1203 would increase certain administrative penalties to as much as $10,000 per violation and require the IWC to develop a wage order specific to the security services industry.

Senate Bill (SB) 1203, the “Stand for Security: Security Industry Standards and Public Safety Act,” would increase initial and annual training requirements for private security guards, require in-person de-escalation training, increase potential penalties for violations, and require the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) to develop an industry-specific wage order.

The bill, authored by Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, remains pending in the California Legislature and has been amended several times during the legislative process.

Expanded Training and De-Escalation Requirements

Security guards in California are currently required to complete thirty-two hours of security officer skills training within six months of their initial registration, including sixteen hours within the first thirty days.

Beginning July 1, 2028, SB 1203 would increase that requirement to forty-two hours, with eighteen hours required within the first thirty days. The bill would also require the training to be conducted through traditional in-person classroom instruction rather than online instruction.

A significant focus of the legislation is de-escalation. Eight hours of the initial training would be dedicated to practicing de-escalation skills using in-person role-playing and interactive training methods. The training would be required to use evidence-based and trauma-informed techniques.

SB 1203 would also double the annual training requirement for security guards from eight to sixteen hours. At least eight of those hours would similarly be dedicated to practicing de-escalation skills.

The increased training requirements could create additional costs and logistical considerations for security employers. The bill would expressly require employers to ensure the required training occurs and to compensate employees for their time spent completing the training. Employers would also generally be responsible for the cost of the required training.

The Workplace Violence Prevention Connection

The proposed legislation also intersects with California employers’ existing workplace violence prevention obligations.

Labor Code section 6401.9 requires most California employers to establish, implement, and maintain an effective workplace violence prevention plan (WVPP). Among other requirements, employers must have procedures to identify, evaluate, and correct workplace violence hazards and procedures for responding to actual or potential workplace violence emergencies. Those emergency procedures must address how employees can obtain assistance from staff assigned to respond to workplace violence emergencies, security personnel, if any, and law enforcement.

For some employers, depending on the workplace violence hazards present, security personnel may play an important role in the overall workplace violence prevention strategy. For employers that rely on security officers as a control measure or as part of their response to workplace violence incidents, SB 1203’s emphasis on de-escalation and scenario-based training may warrant consideration as part of the employer’s broader WVPP.

Labor Code section 6401.9 also requires employers to coordinate implementation of their WVPP with other employers, when applicable. Accordingly, employers that contract with third-party security providers may want to consider how their security contractor’s policies, training, incident response procedures, and responsibilities fit within the employer’s own WVPP.

If SB 1203 is enacted, employers may want to consider the role assigned to security personnel in their WVPPs and confirm that their written plans, employee training, emergency response procedures, and security protocols are appropriately coordinated.

Increased Penalties and Potential Wage Requirements

SB 1203 would also increase potential penalties for violations of California’s private security laws. Among other changes, the bill would increase the maximum administrative fine for certain violations from $2,500 to $10,000 per violation.

In addition to its training provisions, SB 1203 could eventually result in new wage requirements for the security industry. The bill would require the IWC to convene by July 1, 2027, to examine wages, hours, and working conditions in the “property services industry,” which includes covered security employees, and issue an industry-specific wage order by June 30, 2028.

Notably, SB 1203 itself does not establish a specific minimum wage for security guards. Instead, it would require the IWC to develop a wage order addressing wages and working conditions in the industry.

Next Steps

SB 1203 remains pending and could be further amended as it moves through the legislative process. If enacted, many of its significant training requirements would become operative on July 1, 2028.

Employers that employ security personnel or utilize private security services may want to monitor the legislation and consider how the proposed requirements could affect both their security operations and their workplace violence prevention programs.

Ogletree Deakins’ California offices, Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group, and Workplace Violence Prevention Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the California, Workplace Safety and Health, and Workplace Violence Prevention blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On August 6, 2026, President Trump issued two executive orders aimed at limiting birthright citizenship under certain circumstances and ending “birth tourism.”
• The first executive order expands the recognized exceptions to birthright citizenship, narrowing who qualifies for U.S. citizenship at birth.
• The second executive order directs the State Department and DHS to deny or revoke nonimmigrant visas when there is reason to believe the purpose of travel is to give birth on U.S. soil.

Background

Birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has been a recurring issue in immigration policy. In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order that attempted to redefine who qualifies for citizenship at birth, excluding children of parents who were neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents. Immigration advocacy groups promptly challenged that order in federal court, and the Supreme Court of the United States ultimately struck it down in Trump v. Barbara, which reaffirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to virtually all persons born on U.S. soil while also recognizing narrow exceptions.

The New Executive Orders

Rather than revisiting the constitutional question directly, these new executive orders take a different approach. The first order sets out four categories of exceptions: children of “alien enem[ies],” including members of federally designated terrorist organizations; children of foreign government employees, a category that extends beyond ambassadors to embassy and consular staff who are foreign nationals; children born through “birth tourism” or surrogacy arrangements, including situations where individuals pay for or arrange a mother’s presence in the United States to give birth; and children born in certain U.S. territories where citizenship is not conferred by statute. Notably, exceptions for children of foreign diplomats already existed before this order under long-standing practice.

The second order targets so-called “birth tourism,” the practice of traveling to the United States for the primary purpose of giving birth so that a child will receive U.S. citizenship. The order directs the U.S. Department of State to strengthen visa screening procedures and identify applicants who intend to travel to the United States to give birth. The order instructs consular officers to deny nonimmigrant visa applications when they have reason to believe the applicant will engage in birth tourism. The order also calls on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  to coordinate with the State Department on enhanced screening at ports of entry.

Notably, the order does not attempt to revoke birthright citizenship itself; rather, it targets the visa process for nonimmigrant travelers who enter the country specifically to give birth. The administration has framed this as a measure to protect the integrity of the immigration system rather than a challenge to the Fourteenth Amendment.

Looking Ahead

The orders direct federal agencies to issue updated guidance, policies, and operational procedures, signaling that further changes to visa processing and enforcement practices are forthcoming. The practical impact of these orders will depend in large part on how the State Department and DHS translate their directives into operational procedures at consulates and ports of entry.

Immigration advocacy organizations have raised concerns that the broad language in the orders may lead to inconsistent enforcement and potential discrimination against pregnant travelers regardless of their visa category or intent. Several organizations have signaled they may pursue legal challenges.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicts below-normal hurricane activity for 2026 but emphasizes that employers should prepare before storms threaten.
• Federal wage and hour rules are not suspended during natural disasters.
• Airport closures, flight cancellations, and ground stops can strand traveling employees and trigger unexpected wage obligations.

Although NOAA forecasts a below-normal hurricane season—with a 55 percent chance of below-normal activity and only a 10 percent chance of above-normal activity—the outlook does not forecast how many storms could make landfall. NOAA cautions that it takes only one storm making landfall to create serious disruption for employers and their workforces. Even when tropical systems weaken or dissipate, tropical remnants can cause significant prolonged rainfall and flash flooding—equally if not more disruptive than the storm itself.

With hurricane season historically peaking between mid-September and October, now is the time for employers to review their preparedness plans.

Reviewing Disaster Response Plan

A well-crafted disaster response plan can protect both employees and business continuity. Employers may want to confirm that emergency contact lists, communication trees, and remote-work protocols are up to date. Effective plans address facility closures, evacuation procedures, and the transition to alternative work arrangements.

Some employees may have additional responsibilities—outside of the organization—as first responders. Several states provide job-protected time off for employees serving as first responders, volunteers, or members of emergency services during disasters. In some instances, the leave may be paid.

Additionally, while the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act regulations include a natural disaster exception, they still require covered employers to provide as much notice as practicable when a plant closing or mass layoff is a direct result of a hurricane or other natural disaster. The exception does not eliminate the notice obligation—it merely adjusts the timeline.

Keeping Wage and Hour Rules Front and Center

Hurricanes do not suspend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). As the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) makes clear in Fact Sheet #72, covered nonexempt employees must be paid at least the minimum wage and overtime for all hours actually worked—including during disaster response or recovery efforts. Conversely, the FLSA does not require employers to continue paying nonexempt workers if they are not required to work or are unable to work following a natural disaster, meaning employers do not have to pay nonexempt workers for hours they otherwise would have worked but for the disaster.

Exempt employees present a different issue. Under the salary-basis rule, an exempt employee who performs any work during a workweek must generally receive the full weekly salary. An employer may not deduct a day’s pay because the office was closed due to inclement weather—doing so is an improper deduction that can jeopardize the exemption. Employers may want to review their policies now to avoid costly missteps when a storm hits.

Workplace Safety Is Paramount

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reminds employers that each employer is responsible for worker safety and health and must protect workers from anticipated hazards associated with hurricane response and recovery operations. This obligation extends beyond the storm itself. Employers directing employees to return to damaged facilities or perform cleanup work may want to conduct hazard assessments, implement safe work practices, and provide appropriate personal protective equipment. Employers in hurricane-prone areas may wish to incorporate these OSHA requirements into their broader disaster plans before the peak of the season arrives.

Planning for Business Travel Disruption

Hurricanes do not just affect employees in a storm’s direct path. Hurricanes and severe storms can disrupt business travel nationwide. During natural disasters, airports may be closed to the public, flight paths may be rerouted, and flights may be affected nationwide. Ground stops, cancellations, and reroutes can strand employees far from home or prevent them from reaching scheduled meetings and conferences.

Employers may want to review their business travel policies, meeting schedules, and attendance expectations during peak hurricane months. Practical steps include building in scheduling flexibility, establishing protocols for when travel should be postponed or converted to remote participation, and monitoring Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) real-time airport delay information. Employers can also consider the wage-and-hour implications when nonexempt employees are stranded.

Next Steps

Although forecasters predict a quieter-than-average 2026 season, employers may not want to wait for a named storm before taking action. Reviewing disaster response plans, confirming wage-and-hour compliance protocols, addressing workplace safety obligations, and updating travel policies can position employers to respond swiftly and lawfully when—not if—the next storm threatens.

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Employment Law, Wage and Hour, and Workplace Safety and Health blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts