Quick Hits

• The State Department is coordinating with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to review and revoke B-1 and B-2 visas issued to foreign nationals between 2016 and 2026 who applied for asylum following their entry into the United States as visitors.
• Visa revocation generally does not affect the immigration status of an individual currently in the United States, but it will typically prevent reentry into the country with thatvisa.

The Overarching Plan

According to announcements from the White House and the State Department, the Trump administration plans to revoke the B-1 and B-2 visitor visas of foreign nationals who entered the United States as temporary business or tourist visitors and subsequently filed asylum applications. A State Department spokesperson confirmed that the department is coordinating with DHS to identify these individuals and that visa revocations will occur on a rolling basis.

B-1 visas are typically issued for temporary business-related travel, while B-2 visas are typically issued for short-term tourism, family visits, and certain medical treatment purposes. B-1 and B-2 visa applicants are typically asked to affirm that they do not intend to apply for asylum, and visa eligibility generally requires that foreign national visitors demonstrate strong ties to their home countries and an intent to depart the United States after their visits.

While revocation of a visa can have a significant impact on the visa holder, revocation of a visa for an individual already present in the United States does not typically affect that individual’s immigration status. Because a visa is a travel document, revocation generally affects the individual’s ability to use that visa for future travel and reentry into the United States. Additionally, individuals with pending asylum applications may already face limited or restricted travel on B-1 or B-2 visas due to the nature of their pending applications.

Next Steps

Individuals who applied for asylum, or employers aware of employees who applied for asylum, may want to closely review the immigration documentation and the circumstances of these individuals’ entries into the United States. While the government has indicated the process is ongoing, individuals who believe they meet the State Department’s criteria may wish to prepare for and understand what a visa revocation could mean for their cases.

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

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

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

• USCIS will require employment-based adjustment of status (“green card”) applicants to use the Visa Bulletin’s Final Action Dates chart in September 2026.
• Final action dates for EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, and EB-5 remain unchanged from August 2026; EB-2 India continues to be unavailable.
• The State Department warns that EB-1 India, EB-2 (all countries), and EB-5 Unreserved categories may retrogress or become unavailable before the fiscal year closes on September 30, 2026.

While final action dates did not change in the EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, or EB-5 employment-based preference categories and EB-2 immigrant visas remain unauthorized (unavailable) for individuals born in India, the State Department notably indicated that EB-1 India, EB-2, and EB-5 Unreserved categories may also become unavailable in the coming weeks.

Employment-Based Final Action Dates for September 2026

The September 2026 Visa Bulletin Final Action Dates chart indicates no changes from August 2026 in the EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, and EB-5 categories. EB-2 India, however, remains “Unauthorized” (unavailable), and other categories flagged by the State Department could move to unavailability before the fiscal year (FY) ends:

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

Despite the unchanged final action dates, the State Department’s September 2026 Visa Bulletin advises that several categories may become unavailable before the end of September 30, 2026. For EB-1 India, high demand and number usage may cause unavailability, delaying further approvals until new visa numbers become available in FY2027, which begins on October 1, 2026. For EB-2 across all countries, increased demand and number usage may cause retrogression of the final action date or temporary unavailability before fiscal year-end, potentially delaying immigrant visa and adjustment of status approvals. The EB-5 Unreserved category may face similar constraints if demand and usage exceed supply before September 30.

Key Takeaways

Although final action dates remain unchanged for September 2026, the State Department’s warnings highlight the importance of closely monitoring the Visa Bulletin and announcements from USCIS and the State Department. Employers and employees with pending cases in the EB-1 India, EB-2, or EB-5 Unreserved categories should watch for announcements that could affect visa availability as the fiscal year closes on September 30, 2026. Given the risk of retrogression or unavailability, eligible applicants may want to consider filing sooner rather than later, particularly in light of USCIS form changes due to the new public charge standard taking effect on September 18, 2026. Employers and employees may also want to note that the State Department is temporarily pausing immigrant visa interview appointments worldwide while providing training for consular officers on the public charge screening guidance.

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

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The State Department has paused immigrant visa interview appointments at consulates and embassies worldwide so that its officers can undergo training on new public charge screening guidance.
• Nonimmigrant visa categories—including tourist, student, and temporary work visas—are currently not impacted by the pause.
• The pause in appointments appears temporary, though a specific timeline has not been announced.
• The postponement of immigrant visa interviews comes after DHS policy changes affecting public charge standards and a federal district court ruling that vacated the State Department’s earlier pause on issuing immigrant visas to foreign nationals from seventy-five countries.

The State Department has temporarily paused immigrant visa interviews at U.S. embassies and consulates around the world while consular officers complete enhanced training on the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Securing an immigrant visa allows a foreign national to request admission into the United States as a permanent resident (“green card” holder). The pause affects applicants for immigrant visas in family-based, employment-based, and Diversity Visa categories, but does not impact nonimmigrant visas such as H-1B, L-1, F-1, B-1/B-2 visas, or pending adjustment of status applications.

Press reports indicate applicants with previously scheduled interviews are receiving email notifications that their appointments are postponed and will be rescheduled, although the State Department has not yet provided a timeline for when interviews will resume or how quickly cases will be rebooked.

Under existing immigration law, consular officers may deny an immigrant visa if an applicant is deemed likely to become a public charge, meaning dependent on government or public benefits. In making that determination, officers consider factors including age, health, family circumstances, financial resources, education, skills, employment prospects, and English proficiency. The State Department has also begun testing public charge bonds in certain cases, but has not released details about the new training materials or how adjudications may change.

The State Department’s immigrant visa interview pause and public charge training initiative follows several recent events affecting the Trump administration’s policies surrounding public charge, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s rescission of the Biden-era public charge policy on July 20, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’s release of new public charge standards on August 18, and a federal district court ruling on August 21 vacating the State Department’s earlier suspension of immigrant visa issuance to applicants from seventy-five countries.

The immigrant visa interview pause also comes amid a series of recent immigration policy changes, including expanded screening measures, visa revocations, and restrictions on adjustment of status. As more applicants may be required to complete consular processing abroad, the impact of immigrant interview postponement may increase.

Next Steps

Employers and individuals with pending immigrant visa applications or appointments should monitor consular communications closely, as interview delays or rescheduled appointments may affect overall case timelines and travel plans. Those with time-sensitive matters may want to assess potential impacts and evaluate available options.

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

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Because FAMLI allows an employer to choose to cover an employee’s portion of the contribution, a unionized employer that implements FAMLI’s default 50/50 contribution split without first providing the union with advance notice and an opportunity to request bargaining may risk an unfair labor practice charge.
• Since employers must already bargain over the contribution split, they could include notice of whether they will implement an Equivalent Private Insurance Plan or the state plan at the same time.
• Because contributions will begin on January 1, 2027, unionized employers may wish to act promptly to satisfy their bargaining obligations.

Where FAMLI and the National Labor Relations Act Meet

FAMLI is Maryland’s forthcoming state-mandated paid family and medical leave insurance program. Employers and employees share the cost of contributions that will fund paid leave benefits for certain qualifying events (i.e., the employee’s own or a family member’s serious health condition, bonding with a new child, or addressing military deployment–related needs). The contribution rate is capped at 1.2 percent of wages, up to the Social Security wage cap, with the actual rate adjusted annually and currently set at 0.9 percent. Contributions begin on January 1, 2027, with benefits commencing in January 2028.

Employers may implement an approved equivalent private insurance plan (EPIP) in lieu of participating in the state plan. We have discussed FAMLI in detail in prior articles, including our most recent one on new compliance resources from the Maryland Department of Labor to assist with employer implementation, as well as one on the EPIP pre-application process for filing a Declaration of Intent (DOI).

Both the contribution and EPIP provisions may trigger bargaining or notice obligations for unionized employers. Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act requires employers to engage in good-faith negotiations with unions regarding employees’ wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, including benefits.

The Discretionary Split and Why It Matters

FAMLI defaults to a 50/50 split of the contribution, meaning that the employer and employee will each be responsible for 0.45 percent of the current 0.9 percent. Critically, the law provides that employers may pay the employee’s share in part or in full. That discretion gives rise to a labor relations issue: under Section 8(a)(5), implementing the employee payroll deduction without first providing the union advance notice and an opportunity to bargain may create risk of an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge.

It is likely that unions will want the employer to pay some or all of the employee share of the full contribution. Therefore, employers that implement the 50/50 split deduction without having provided the union with notice and the opportunity to request bargaining face a possible Section 8(a)(5) ULP finding. The remedy is costly: refunds to all affected employees until the violation is cured, effectively making the employer bear 100 percent of the contribution retroactively.

The Choice of an EPIP

Under the FAMLI statute, an EPIP must provide employees with all the same benefits and rights as the state plan. Given that, it is unclear whether the choice of an EPIP or the state plan will technically impact a term or condition of employment. Nonetheless, since employers will need to provide notice and an opportunity to bargain with regard to the contribution split, it is quite simple for them to include a reference to the plan they will implement at the same time.

Key Takeaways

There are several critical takeaways for unionized employers, who may wish to consider doing the following:

• providing advance written notice to unions of the intent to implement the 50/50 split and, if applicable, a proposed EPIP implementation, with sufficient lead time for a bargaining request;
• if a request for bargaining is made by the union, bargaining over the contribution allocation and/or its effects (there is no obligation to agree with the union’s position, but upon request from the union, the employer must give the union an opportunity to advocate for its position on the issue);
• not unilaterally implementing the payroll deduction without satisfying bargaining obligations;
• preparing for grievances characterizing the deduction as an unauthorized wage reduction; and
• calendaring critical dates: contributions begin January 1, 2027, and the deadline for filing a DOI for an EPIP is November 15, 2026.

Ogletree Deakins’ Baltimore office, Traditional Labor Relations Practice Group, and Leaves of Absence/Reasonable Accommodation Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Leaves of Absence, Traditional Labor Relations, 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

• The Colorado Attorney General’s Office will hold a rulemaking hearing on October 26, 2026, to gather input on new regulations for AI-driven employment tools before they take effect on January 1, 2027.
• The attorney general’s office is seeking input on how to define when a covered AI tool “materially influence[s]” a decision, thereby triggering obligations under the state’s new AI law, how to allocate responsibilities when deployers rely on tools operated by third-party vendors, and whether the rules should detail requirements for developer disclosures about known limitations of AI tools.

On August 11, 2026, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office Department filed proposed rules, titled “Automated Decision-Making Technology and Conversational Artificial Intelligence Service Rules.” The proposed rules seek to implement and clarify the compliance obligations under Colorado Senate Bill (SB) 26-189, the Automated Decision-Making Technology in Consequential Decisions (ADMT) Act, and House Bill (HB) 26-1263, the Chatbot Safety Act, both of which were signed into law by Governor Jared Polis in May 2026 and take effect on January 1, 2027.

According to the hearing notice, the attorney general’s office is seeking input about specific issues that were not fleshed out in the proposed rules that could have a particular impact on compliance obligations for employers. Specifically, the office is seeking input on the standard for “materially influence” in a consequential decision, the threshold that triggers obligations under the ADMT Act, multiparty arrangements with automated decision-making technology (ADMT) vendors, which are not explicitly contemplated by the act despite being typical in the employment context, and the amount of detail that developers should be required to provide to employers about known risks of AI tools.

‘Materially Influence’ Standard

The ADMT Act repealed and replaced the state’s landmark 2024 AI law, and will impose a new multistage notice framework and rights for affected “consumers,” including employees and job applicants, to seek information about the tool and “meaningful human review.” The act’s obligations are triggered when an ADMT “is used to materially influence a consequential decision” such as a hiring, promotion, or termination decision. The act defines “materially influence” to mean the ADMT output is “a non-de minimis factor” affecting the outcome of the consequential decision, “including by constraining, ranking, scoring, recommending, classifying, or otherwise meaningfully altering how a consequential decision is made.”

However, the attorney general’s office is seeking additional input on how to clarify this “materially influence” standard, specifically what would constitute “a non-de minimis factor.” The attorney general’s office is considering two competing standards and specifically asking which one to adopt.

Standard 1: The Lower Threshold

Under this standard, a “de minimis factor” is one that has only a “trifling, trivial, or incidental” impact on the outcome. Critically, a factor would not be deemed de minimis simply because other factors played a more significant role. The standard would create a rebuttable presumption of material influence whenever the ADMT output pertains to the individual, is reviewed by (or screens data for) the decision-maker, and is consistent with the outcome.

Employers would be able to rebut the presumption with evidence that the decision-maker recorded an independent judgment before seeing the ADMT output, did not view the output, made a decision inconsistent with the output, or relied on other previously documented and consistently applied dispositive factors.

Standard 2: The Higher Threshold

Under this standard, a “de minimis factor” would be one that is “not a substantial factor” in the consequential decision. A factor could be de minimis if other relevant factors independent of the ADMT output played a “significantly larger role.” The presumption of material influence uses the same trigger—that the output pertains to the individual, is reviewed by, or screens for the decision-maker, and is consistent with the outcome.

But the rebuttal standard is notably different. Under Standard 2, rebuttal requires showing that the decision-maker conducted an independent review of “substantial information” other than the ADMT output, that the outcome was consistent with that other information, that the decision-maker had authority to decide based on independent review, and that the decision-maker had the subject matter understanding necessary to review and understand the substantial relevant information.

Under the act, “materially influence” does include “incidental, trivial, or clerical uses.” As a practical matter, however, adoption of the lower threshold seemingly would bring a large percentage of use cases of ADMTs in the employment context within scope of the act.

Multiparty Arrangements and ADMT Vendors

The ADMT Act does not explicitly contemplate scenarios in which deployers (i.e., employers) do not directly operate the ADMT that materially influences their decisions, yet some employers rely upon ADMT tools operated by third-party vendors. The attorney general is asking:

• Should rules clarify that a deployer may run an ADMT through a vendor?
• Should rules mandate that deployers remain responsible for fulfilling all deployer obligations regardless of vendor involvement?
• Should ADMT vendors be required to assist deployers in responding to consumer requests for personal data and correction?
• In the staffing agency scenario—where the agency operates the ADMT and the employer relies on its output—which party bears deployer obligations?
• Should vendor obligations be modeled on processor obligations under the Colorado Privacy Act?

These questions are crucial to regulating the procurement and use of AI in the employment context. The allocation of compliance responsibility between the employer-deployer and the vendor will be a major factor in cost, contracting, and risk.

ADMT Developer Obligations

The ADMT Act requires developers to make certain information available to deployers (i.e., employers), but the attorney general is seeking input about whether the rules should incorporate greater specificity about the content of these disclosures. With respect to this issue, the attorney general is seeking input about the following topics:

• Should rules require a developer to disclose any testing performed, how the testing was performed and the results of such testing?
• With what level of specificity should developers be required to disclose the categories of data used to train the ADMT?
• Should the rules specify the form for developers to provide information or the channels through which such information is provided, if rules are adopted to require more detail about known limitations on the ADMT?

Because employers rely upon information provided by developers in making procurement decisions, the adoption of rules imposing more robust disclosure requirements on developers doing business in Colorado could aid employers in evaluating which tools to purchase.

Next Steps

The public hearing is scheduled for October 26, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. According to the hearing notice, comments must be submitted by September 4, 2026, to be considered in a second proposed draft to be circulated by September 23, 2026, and discussed at the hearing. However, any written comments received on or before 11:59 p.m. on October 26, 2026, will be considered in the final set of rules. If the rulemaking hearing continues beyond October 26, 2026, the attorney general will consider any written comments received before 11:59 p.m. MT on the last day of the formal rulemaking hearing.

The Colorado ADMT proposed rules are the latest in a growing trend of state regulations impacting employers’ use of AI in the workplace to make, facilitate, or influence hiring, promotion, and termination decisions about individual employees or job applicants. Although some modifications to the initial draft may be made, these proposed rules provide some indication of the requirements that will apply to employers doing business in Colorado that use ADMTs to evaluate job applicants or employees residing in Colorado.

Employers in Colorado and other stakeholders may want to consider attending and/or testifying at the hearing and consider submitting formal written comments on the proposed rules.

Ogletree Deakins’ Artificial Intelligence and Innovation Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Artificial Intelligence and Innovation, Colorado, Cybersecurity and Privacy, and Employment Law blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

USCIS Proposes $103,265 Fee for H-1B Petitions. On August 25, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services published in the Federal Register a proposed rule, “Fee for Certain H-1B Petitions,” that would require employers to include a $103,265 fee with all H-1B cap-subject petitions. According to the proposal, the fee is intended to cover not just the costs that USCIS incurs in processing petitions, but also costs “incurred by multiple Federal agencies in processing, adjudicating, and supporting the lawful immigration system, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in [the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)], [and the] Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in [the U.S. Department of Justice], [the U.S. Department of State], and [the U.S. Department of Labor].” USCIS maintains that the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes it to set “fees for providing adjudication and naturalization services … at a level that will ensure recovery of the full costs of providing all such services.” The proposal is another attempt by the Trump administration—along with the $100,000 entry fee for H-1B visa holders that is currently enjoined—to place restrictions on the H-1B program. Comments on the proposal are due by September 24, 2026. Andrew G. Drozdowski has more.

OPT, H-1B Regulatory Proposals Advance. In addition to the proposed fee for H-1B petitions, DHS is moving forward with two additional regulatory proposals that will impact high-skilled employment-based immigration:

• On August 20, 2026, ICE sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) a regulatory proposal titled, “Optional Practical Training Fees.” The regulation identifier number for this proposal is different from ICE’s pending proposal to make changes to the OPT program, which is not scheduled to be issued until February 2027. Thus, these are separate initiatives. There is no publicly available information for the “Optional Training Fees” proposal (it was not included as part of the July 3, 2026, Spring Regulatory Agenda), but its title clearly suggests the attachment of some fee as a prerequisite to foreign nationals’ participation in the OPT program—perhaps upwards of $100,000, as some media outlets have reported.
• On August 24, 2026, USCIS submitted to OIRA a proposal titled, “Reforming the H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa Classification Program.” According to the abstract in the Regulatory Agenda, this proposal would make changes to the H-1B program “by revising eligibility for cap exemptions, providing greater scrutiny for employers that have violated program requirements, and increasing oversight over third party placements, among other provisions.”

After OIRA completes its review of these proposals, the respective agencies will make them available for public comment prior to issuing final rules. This process could take months.

NLRB General Counsel Sets Forth Case Priorities. On August 26, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) general counsel, Crystal Carey, issued a memorandum outlining the cases for which she has requested or intends to request the Board revisit existing precedent. According to the memo, General Counsel Carey has already taken the position that existing cases involving severance agreements, workplace rules, mandatory meetings, and predictions on the impact of unionization, among others, should be overruled. Accordingly, these are cases that the Board’s Republican majority will likely address in the near future. Perhaps a little farther down the docket for Board review are precedents that General Counsel Carey intends to challenge, “if the opportunity arises.” These include cases concerning bargaining orders, enhanced remedies, objector representation fees, and offensive conduct.

New Board Member Taps Labor Veteran for Top Counsel Post. Recently sworn-in NLRB member James R. Macy has named William B. Cowen as his chief counsel. If that name sounds familiar, it is because Mr. Cowen is a longtime NLRB official, having recently served as acting general counsel of the Board for much of 2025. Cowen has served in many positions at the NLRB over the years, including a brief stint as a member in 2002.

Group(er)think. On August 23, 2007, John Yates, a commercial fisherman, tossed some undersized red grouper back into the ocean and was subsequently prosecuted under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. During a routine inspection of Yates’s boat, a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officer (deputized as a federal agent by the National Marine Fisheries Service) found that Yates had caught and retained seventy-two red grouper that were smaller than the federal size standard (twenty inches) and ordered the fish segregated until the boat reached port. Back at port, the fish in question didn’t measure the same, and a crew member eventually admitted that Yates had ordered him to toss the undersized fish overboard and replace them with larger fish from the rest of the catch.

More than three years later, Yates was prosecuted for violating a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that criminalizes the intentional destruction or concealment of “any record, document, or tangible object” for the purpose of obstructing or influencing a federal investigation. The government argued that the term “tangible object” included fish. A jury found Yates guilty, and he was sentenced to thirty days in prison. Yates filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 2015 plurality opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court sided with Yates, holding that the phrase “‘tangible object’ … is better read to cover only objects one can use to record or preserve information, not all objects in the physical world.” Justice Kagan dissented, writing, “A fish is, of course, a discrete thing that possesses physical form.” Kagan’s citation to authority for that proposition was the 1960 children’s book One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish by Dr. Seuss.

Quick Hits

• Colorado’s proposed AI regulations require employers to disclose the use of automated decision-making technology when making significant employment decisions starting January 1, 2027.
• Employers would need to explain how AI influenced decisions and provide detailed information about the data sources used if an adverse outcome occurs.
• The proposed rules emphasize transparency and consumer rights and would mandate clear disclosures and technical requirements for request mechanisms for affected employees.
• The rules would further expand what constitutes an affected employee or job applicant’s right to a meaningful human review, reinforcing independence of the review process and authority to override AI-driven adverse outcomes.

On August 11, 2026, the Colorado attorney general’s Office Department of Law filed the proposed “Automated Decision-Making Technology and Conversational Artificial Intelligence Service rules” with the Colorado secretary of state. The proposed draft rules seek to implement and clarify two new Colorado laws regulating AI signed into law by Governor Jared Polis in May 2026: the Automated Decision-Making Technology in Consequential Decisions (ADMT) Act, Senate Bill (SB) 26-189, and the Chatbot Safety Act, House Bill (HB) 26-1263. Both laws are set to take effect on January 1, 2027.

The proposed rules, which would also take effect January 1, 2027, are an initial set of draft rules released for comment and are part of the evolving rulemaking process. While the rules are not final, they highlight potential new compliance obligations for employers seeking to use AI-powered tools to make employment decisions.

Of particular concern to employers, the proposed rules clarify and would expand the requirements under SB 26-189, which repealed and replaced the state’s landmark 2024 AI law. SB 26-189 mandates that “deployers,” including employers, disclose the use of ADMT before making a “consequential decision,” such as hiring or termination, affecting a “consumer,” including employees and job applicants. When an ADMT results in an “adverse outcome,” the law allows affected consumers to request that their personal data be corrected and that the decision be subjected to meaningful human review and reconsideration.

Adverse Outcome Disclosure

When notifying an affected employee or applicant of an adverse outcome from an ADMT-driven decision, Rule 6.4 of the proposed rules would require employers to describe the “specific purpose” for which they used a covered ADMT, “the role” the ADMT played in making a consequential decision, and “the role of any human reviewer(s) and other ADMT or similar systems.” In addition, employers must describe the principal reasons for the adverse outcome “with specificity” and in a manner that avoids language “that is overly broad or vague.” The proposed rules specify an example of an employer disclosing to an “unsuccessful candidate for employment” that it used an “automated system to produce a score, and that score is equally weighed along with the scores created by company employees that interviewed the unsuccessful candidate.”

Of note, the proposed rules explicitly state that a deployer would not comply if it cannot explain how the ADMT materially influenced the decision or how the ADMT used a consumer’s personal data in connection with a decision or if it cannot accurately explain the principal reasons for the adverse outcome. Colorado employers that are currently using ADMTs may wish to ensure that they have the necessary understanding of how these tools are used in order to be prepared to provide compliant notifications to employees and job applicants once the law takes effect.

Responding to Consumer Requests for ADMT Information

If an affected employee or job applicant requests additional information about a covered ADMT, Rule 6.6 of the proposed rules would require employers to describe the “types and categories” of information sufficiently so that the employee or job applicant can meaningfully understand the information the ADMT considered, such as “credit score,” “medical or health information,” and “criminal history.” Second, and more demanding, each source of personal data must be identified by name—specific data brokers, databases, social media companies, schools, and employers.

If the employer obtained personal data through a third-party aggregator, the disclosure would need to trace the chain back to the original source and identify every intermediary. This could require employers that rely on third-party assessment platforms, background check providers, or data aggregators to ensure that vendor contracts include access to such information.

Submitting Rights Requests Post-Adverse Outcome

The ADMT law requires that deployers provide an explanation of ADMT consumer rights and how to exercise them. Rule 7.2 of the proposed rules would specify that an outcome disclosure must include a clearly labeled link that leads directly to the request mechanism, as well as a mailing address or toll-free number.

Employers would be required to offer two or more designated methods for submitting requests, taking into account how they typically interact with employees and job applicants. Those methods would need to be regularly monitored by someone with the knowledge and ability to process the request. Affected consumers would also need to be able to submit requests at any time—not just during business hours—and the process must require as few steps as possible.

Clarifying Rights to Request Personal Data and Make Corrections

Rule 7.3 of the proposed rules would entitle employees and applicants to specific pieces of personal data used in the consequential decision in a concise, transparent, and intelligible form. The proposed rules define this information broadly, including not just raw inputs but also the final rank, score, classification, recommendation, prediction, or other inferences about the individual.

Moreover, Rule 7.4 of the proposed rules would require employers to correct any incorrect information in their “existing system[s].” While employers would be entitled to request supporting documentation for a correction request, employers would need to give the employee or job applicant requesting the correction “a meaningful understanding of why the documentation is necessary.” . Where possible, the adverse outcome would need to be stayed pending correction of incorrect personal data.

Right to Independent Human Review

A central part of the ADMT law is that consumers (i.e., employees and job applicants) have a right to request “meaningful human review and reconsideration” of an adverse outcome in a “consequential decision, to the extent commercially reasonable.” (Emphasis added). Rule 7.7 of the proposed rules would further clarify the procedures for such requests, requiring employers to confirm receipt within ten days and complete a review within forty-five days, mandate that reviews be independent, and establish a multifactor test for determining commercial reasonableness.

The proposed rules clarify that meaningful human review requires that the review “be conducted by an independent reviewer” who has authority to approve, modify, or override the decision. The reviewer should, “whenever feasible,” not be the individual who made the original decision or a subordinate of that decisionmaker. Further, the reviewer would need to “have a level of subject matter understanding that is commensurate with the nature of, and negative consequences” of the adverse outcome and be properly trained on the ADMT.

In light of the possibility that the final rules will incorporate many, if not all of these elements, employers doing business in Colorado that use or plan to use ADMTs may wish to begin considering how they will operationalize the requirements, including identifying and training the individuals who will conduct a meaningful human review and developing a process for documenting any such reviews in the manner required by the rules.

Commercial Reasonableness for Human Review

Further, the proposed rules would clarify what constitutes “to the extent commercially reasonable,” establishing a multifactor test that balances the type of review required, the magnitude and reversibility of the harm, the value of evidence review, the deployer’s size and capacity, the marginal cost and technical feasibility, and the availability of qualified reviewers.

The proposed rules would create a rebuttable presumption of commercial reasonableness when an adverse outcome results in a “severe and irreversible denial of a basic human need.” Employers would bear the burden of rebutting that presumption by showing technical or financial impossibility, or that the review could not change the outcome. This presumption could likely be triggered by employer decisions that affect an individual’s livelihood—particularly terminations of employment or nonrenewals of essential positions.

Types of Meaningful Human Review

The proposed rules contemplate two types of human reviews. First, when an employee or applicant suggests that an ADMT may have “functioned incorrectly” or not as intended, “including with respect to accuracy, output, transcription, and glitches, or errors in configuration, instruction, or other technical failures,” then the review may include correcting the ADMT tool and rerunning the decision-making process.

Second, if the employee or job applicant suggests that “the ADMT itself was problematic,” such as it considered the wrong factors, did not have access to relevant information, or was not meant to make the decision at issue, then a meaningful human review “would likely include the review of additional relevant evidence” provided by the employee or job applicant and a consideration of whether such evidence changes the adverse outcome. A decision to override the original decision and reverse the adverse outcome would be sufficient to indicate that “human review was meaningful.”

Next Steps

For employers using AI-driven tools in hiring, promotions, employment terminations, or other workforce decisions, the proposed rules would impose new technical requirements and substantially increase compliance obligations from the new statutory framework. Employers and other stakeholders may wish to stay informed about further developments in the rulemaking and begin considering how to operationalize requirements that may be incorporated into the final rules.

Ogletree Deakins’ Artificial Intelligence and Innovation Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Colorado, Cybersecurity and Privacy, Employment Law, and Artificial Intelligence and Innovation blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On August 25, 2026, Canada announced new support programs to help employers impacted by the latest round of U.S. tariffs retain workers, fund training, and avoid layoffs.
• Extended Employment Insurance (EI) measures allow laid-off or separated employees to access benefits sooner and alongside severance payments.
• Employers may want to assess eligibility for workforce, EI, and financial support programs when planning staffing or separation decisions.

Here is a summary of what matters most.

The New Workforce Retention and Retraining Program

The government is consolidating the existing Employment Insurance (EI) Work-Sharing program and the Worker Retention Grant into a single, streamlined Workforce Retention and Retraining Program (WRRP). This is significant for employers looking to avoid layoffs while managing reduced business activity. Key features include:

• Work-Sharing flexibilities continue. Employers experiencing a decline in business activity attributable to tariffs can reduce employee hours rather than resorting to layoffs, with affected employees receiving EI benefits for hours not worked.
• Training funding. Employers participating in the program will be eligible for up to $1,000 per participant to cover training and administrative costs during reduced work periods.
• Broader eligibility. The program now extends to nonprofit and charitable organizations experiencing revenue declines as a direct or indirect result of tariffs, not just private-sector employers.

Since Work-Sharing applications roughly doubled in 2025, with approximately 80 percent citing tariffs, this expanded program signals the government’s expectation that workforce disruptions will continue.

Extended Employment Insurance Flexibilities

The government is extending three temporary EI measures that directly affect how employees transition off an employer’s payroll:

• Waived one-week EI waiting period. This was extended by one additional year, allowing separated or laid-off employees to receive benefits from day one of their claim.
• Separation pay treatment. The usual requirement for workers to exhaust severance and other separation payments before accessing EI remains suspended for another year, meaning employees who receive severance packages can access EI benefits concurrently.
• Additional twenty weeks for long-tenured workers. This measure, which provides extra regular EI benefits for workers with extended employment histories, has been extended by eight months.

These measures are relevant for employers structuring severance and separation packages, as employees now face fewer gaps between employment and benefits.

Financial Support for Employers

• Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs): The Regional Tariff Response Initiative is receiving an additional $1.5 billion, with the cap on nonrepayable contributions increasing to $3 million.
• Large Employers: The $10 billion Large Enterprise Tariff Loan facility now offers up to thirty-six months of liquidity support with loan terms extended to fifteen years.

What Can Employers Do Now?

Employers affected by the U.S. tariffs may want to consider the following steps:

Assessing whether Work-Sharing applies to one’s workforce. For employers whose operations have been directly or indirectly affected by tariffs and are contemplating layoffs, the new WRRP may provide a viable alternative that lets them retain skilled employees while accessing government-funded training support.

Reviewing separation and severance practices. The extended EI flexibilities change the calculus for employees receiving severance. Employers may want to ensure their HR teams are aware of how these measures interact with existing separation packages.

Exploring available financial supports. Both SMEs and large enterprises now have access to enhanced funding. Employers may want to review their eligibility early, as demand for these programs has been high.

Ogletree Deakins’ Canada offices will continue to monitor developments as the government has indicated it will assess programs and expand supports to newly impacted sectors. Updates will be posted on the firm’s Canada, Cross-Border, and Reductions in Force 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

• AI-generated employee complaints can be lengthy and persuasive but may obscure the key facts and issues.
• Employers could consider word limits for internal complaints while allowing exceptions and supporting evidence.
• Focusing on main issues, allowing reasonable response times, and using AI carefully will help employers manage lengthy employee complaint submissions.

AI can make a complaint long, fluent, and superficially persuasive while obscuring relevant facts. It can be very difficult to see the wood for the trees and a feeling of not understanding what a complaint may be about, despite having read twenty pages, is not uncommon. In the United Kingdom, AI often advises employees to throw in a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) as well for good measure.

AI has a natural bias towards the user and is only fed the user’s side of a dispute. The resulting employee-favourable output gives false encouragement to employees who feel emboldened and confident to pursue their complaint as far as possible, with their AI free solicitor at their side for the journey.

So how do employers respond? It is time to consider whether employers should be amending policies to impose a word limit. Word limits are an accepted measure in courts and tribunals to ensure the time and resources spent dealing with a case is proportionate. Surely that same principle should apply to internal processes, although there do not yet appear to be any court decisions on this in the UK.

There should however be some safeguards to ensure employees are able to properly convey detail where appropriate. One thought would be to limit the length of the complaint, but not any accompanying evidence or chronology.

Opponents may cite a word limit as an unreasonable barrier to justice, but all disputes can be sufficiently summarised within 2,000 words, at least at a high level. This would help justice to be served as it would enable the employer to understand the big picture and main issue(s) without getting bogged down. It would also allow an employer to respond more swiftly as delays caused by the need to understand twenty pages of detail do not serve justice. Employers may want to seek further detail in appropriate cases and that obligation could be set out in the applicable company policy.

Policies could also stipulate that employees can request an extension to the word limit in appropriate cases such as when relying on disability-related reasonable adjustments, or where English is not the employee’s first language.

The approach is legally untested in the UK but it is time to start the conversation. In the meantime, some tips for dealing with lengthy complaints:

• Consider focusing on the key issues (assuming they can be worked out!).
• AI can be responsibly used to summarise the complaint.
• It is acceptable to inform an employee who has submitted a lengthy complaint that more time will be needed to handle it than the time period specified in the applicable policy, whether or not the policy time period is expressed as merely a target with provision to disapply. The legal standard is that responses should be sent “within a reasonable period” and this can be weeks or months in appropriate cases.
• Finally, slowing down the pace of communications may be helpful. AI enables employees to respond to the latest email within minutes—perhaps with another lengthy document. Where applicable consider just acknowledging receipt and then taking a week or longer to send a substantive response.

Ogletree Deakins’ Artificial Intelligence and Innovation Practice Group and London office will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Artificial Intelligence and Innovation and United Kingdom blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On July 9, 2026, Governor Mike Kehoe signed a law extending legal protections under USERRA to Missouri National Guard members and Missouri employees of other states’ National Guards.
• The law extends the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) to Missouri National Guard members and Missouri employees of other states’ National Guards called to active state duty for more than thirty consecutive days.
• National Guard members who are public employees may take up to 160 hours per year of paid military leave under the new law.
• The law will take effect on August 28, 2026.

Missouri House Bill (HB) 2593 extends the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act’s (USERRA) protections to members of the Missouri National Guard and Missouri employees who are members of another state’s National Guard, granting them the same reemployment rights that USERRA provides.

HB 2593 also extends SCRA’s protections to members of the Missouri National Guard who are called to active state duty by the governor or adjutant general for a period of more than thirty consecutive days and any Missouri employees who are members of the National Guard of another state and are called to active state duty by the governor or adjutant general of that state for a period of more than thirty consecutive days.

The new law also allows National Guard members who are public employees to take up to 160 hours per federal fiscal year of paid military leave without loss of regular time, pay, regular leave, or efficiency ratings. Previously, the limit was 120 hours.

Members of the Missouri National Guard who are on state active-duty orders for more than thirty days will receive an allowance from the federal government for any premiums for TRICARE or other government-sponsored health insurance programs during the period of active duty.

The Missouri law permits individuals to bring lawsuits for alleged violations. In addition, the Missouri Attorney General’s Office can bring suit against employers.

Under USERRA and the Missouri military leave law, employers are prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against servicemembers for taking military leave. Servicemembers can take a cumulative total of five years of unpaid military leave with a single employer, with certain service types being exempt from this time limit. After military leave ends, employers must permit servicemembers to return to a job with the same level of pay, benefits, and seniority they would have if they did not take leave.

Next Steps

Now is a good time for Missouri employers to consider reviewing their policies and practices regarding military leave and reemployment to ensure compliance with state and federal military leave laws and obligations. Training managers and human resource officers on compliance with USERRA and HB 2593 may help minimize legal risk under state and federal military leave laws.

An Ogletree Deakins podcast titled “The Top 5 USERRA Traps and How to Avoid Them” with Amy Quick Glenos and James A. Patton, Jr., is available here.

Ogletree Deakins’ Military Workforce Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Leaves of Absence, Military Workforce, and Missouri blogs as additional information becomes available.

Sarah Smith Kuehnel is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ St. Louis and Tampa offices.

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