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

Quick Hits

• In Adelanto Elementary School District v. Krause, a California appellate court upheld the bulk of a restraining order against a former school district superintendent who later was elected to the school district’s board of trustees.
• The court found the former superintendent exhibited a pattern of stalking and harassing texts that were “alarming and frightening” to employees.
• The court shortened the duration of the restraining order and removed a provision that prevented him from speaking about the restraining order at board meetings.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to maintain a workplace free of harassment. To be unlawful, the conduct must be severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to a reasonable person. In addition, many states have antiharassment laws that are similar to Title VII.

Background on the Case

Michael Krause served as superintendent of Adelanto Elementary School District in San Bernardino County, California. In March 2024, two female employees, who worked as executive assistants, reported to the school district’s board of trustees that they observed Krause screaming at work meetings and slamming his fists and his drink on a table. Krause’s executive assistant and another executive assistant reported that he poked them sharply. The district placed Krause on administrative leave in April 2024. Shortly afterwards, he filed a sexual harassment complaint against his executive assistant, but the district found his allegations were unfounded. Three executive assistants filed a report with the local police in May 2024. The school district terminated Krause’s employment in June 2024.

Krause’s executive assistant claimed he sent her text messages that said, “I am so unloved today” and “I don’t love you anymore” and “you have been so distant.” All three employees alleged Krause sent them text messages with photos suggesting he was watching their whereabouts outside of work hours while they were at home, at local restaurants, and at the place where one employee’s husband worked. The three employees further alleged that Krause sent photos that he took secretly of them while working. All three said they sought mental health treatment because of the alleged harassment. They said they feared for their own safety and the safety of their families because they believed he was following them. They never sued the school district.

Krause was elected to the school district’s board of trustees in November 2024. During the campaign, all three employees reported finding his campaign signs near their homes even though two of them did not live in the district for which he was running.

In March 2025, a trial court granted a workplace violence restraining order (WVRO) that the school district requested on behalf of the three employees. Within the WVRO, the court ordered Krause to refrain from contacting the women and stay at least one hundred yards away from the women and their workplace. It allowed Krause to attend board meetings with a security guard and be on school district property for official functions. The WVRO prohibited Krause from commenting on the restraining order at board meetings. The duration of the WVRO was four years.

On appeal, Krause argued that (1) the school district waived its right to obtain a WVRO when it signed his separation agreement with a general release of claims; (2) there was insufficient evidence of a reasonable probability of future harm; (3) the WVRO violated his parental rights; (4) one provision of the WVRO was overbroad and violated his rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and (5) the WVRO’s four-year duration violated section 527.8 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

Court Ruling

The court rejected the first three arguments but agreed with the last two. Accordingly, it shortened the WVRO to three years and vacated the provision that precluded Krause from speaking about the WVRO at board meetings. “Under the First Amendment, elected officials are given the widest latitude to express their views on matters of public interest in public meetings,” the court noted. An injunction restricting speech must be as narrow as possible to achieve the intended goals.

Meanwhile, an employer’s right to prosecute a WVRO on behalf of its employees is “unwaivable” under California law, the court stated, and “we also find sufficient evidence of a future threat of harassment to support the WVRO.”

The court noted that the state legislature recently broadened the WVRO statute to protect against future harassment, as well as future physical violence. The criteria for a WVRO “may be satisfied under current law if there is a reasonable probability of continued harassment, even if it does not rise to the level of violence or a threat of violence,” the court stated.

Key Takeaways

This case illustrates employers’ legal obligation to take steps to prevent workplace violence, even from former employees who continue to have some form of connection to the workplace. It shows that a WVRO can be enforced in California when there is a likelihood of future harassment, even if there is no threat of physical violence.

Employers may wish to train managers to properly handle complaints about workplace harassment. A prompt internal investigation may support an employer’s defense against harassment and hostile work environment claims.

Ogletree Deakins’ Employment Law Practice Group and Workplace Investigations and Organizational Assessments Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the California, Employment Law, Higher Education, Workplace Investigations and Organizational Assessments, and Workplace Violence Prevention blogs as additional information becomes available.

Tracie L. Childs is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ San Diego office.

Joel H. Kosh is Of Counsel in Ogletree Deakins’ San Francisco office.

This article was co-authored by Leah J. Shepherd, who is a writer in Ogletree Deakins’ Washington, D.C., office.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The U.S. Senate confirmed two nominees for the NLRB to new five-year terms.
• The confirmations give the Board a 3–1 Republican majority that will allow it to overturn precedential decisions.
• Despite the new additions, one vacancy on the five-member Board remains.

The Senate confirmed Republican James Macy, a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) official and former management-side labor attorney, and Democrat David Prouty, who was renominated for a second term. Prouty, who was first nominated by President Joe Biden in 2021, and Macy will serve terms running until August 2031 and August 2030, respectively.

The NLRB confirmations came as part of a slate of 74 nominations confirmed en bloc in S. Res. 817 on a 51–47 vote. The confirmations continue President Trump’s reshaping of the NLRB after he removed former Democratic member Gwynne Wilcox in January 2025 and nominated two Republican members, Chairman James Murphy and Scott Mayer, who were confirmed in December 2025.

While the NLRB has been operating with a functioning quorum of three members, including Member Prouty, the addition of Macy gives the Board four members with a three-member Republican majority that will allow it to overturn prior precedential decisions. Long-standing Board tradition requires at least three affirmative votes to reverse extant precedent, a requirement unlikely to be met with a 2–1 political composition of the quorum.

Next Steps

The timing of the new NLRB confirmations is significant in that it avoids a potential “quorum gap,” as the Board was set to lose its three-member quorum with Prouty’s prior term expiring this month. Board Chairman Murphy’s term is also set to expire on December 16, 2027.

Still, the two NLRB member confirmations leave the five-member Board with one vacancy that President Trump may seek to fill. It is not clear at this time who may be nominated to fill that vacancy.

Ogletree Deakins’ Traditional Labor Relations Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Governmental Affairs and Traditional Labor Relations 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

Senate Confirmation Vote Results in Three-Member Republican Bloc at NLRB. Today, the U.S. Senate confirmed a package of seventy-four executive branch nominees. The package includes National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) nominees James Macy and David Prouty, a fact that is significant for two reasons. First, if the Senate left for its five-week August recess before confirming Macy or Prouty, then the Board would have lost its quorum upon the expiration of Prouty’s term at the end of this month. Second, for the first time in this second Trump administration, it presents the Board’s Republican majority with an opportunity to revisit and reverse Biden-era precedent relating to bargaining orders, employer speech, and workplace rules.

State Department Makes Visa Bond Program Permanent. On August 3, 2026, the U.S. Department of State published a final rule establishing a permanent visa bond program. The rule follows on the heels of a twelve-month pilot program, begun in August 2025, which “provided sufficient data to suggest that a visa bond program [was] an effective tool for enforcing compliance among bonded visa holders.” The final rule requires a covered applicant for a business visitor/tourist (B-1/B-2) visa to post a bond of “either $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000, based upon the applicant’s circumstances as determined by the consular officer, unless the bond requirement is waived.” Pursuant to the final rule, bonds will be required from applicants who are “nationals of countries with high overstay rates, deficient information sharing, insufficient identity verification and criminal records, and/or that need improvement in the area of screening and vetting and the security of travel and civil documents.” Sarah Collins and Jessica L. Cross have more on this.

USCIS Issues Update on Benefits Denial Policy. Effective August 5, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has clarified its policy regarding the evidence applicants must present when applying for immigration benefits. The previous policy encouraged processing officers to seek additional information when an applicant failed to include sufficient evidence in an initial benefit request. According to USCIS, this “prior policy increased processing times, raised costs which [were] transferred to all benefit requestors through filing fees, and encouraged nefarious filing practices such as frivolous and placeholder filings to secure ancillary benefits.” Under the new, clarified policy, USCIS officers may deny incomplete benefit requests without soliciting further information from applicants. Andrew G. Drozdowski, Carolina Izaguirre, and Ashley Laut have additional details.

State Department Proposes Expanded J-1 Termination Criteria. On July 30, 2026, the State Department published a proposed rule—“Exchange Visitor Program–Termination of Program Participation, Extension of Program and Reinstatement to Valid Program Status”—setting forth criteria for the termination of a J-1 exchange visitor’s program participation. The proposed rule would require a program sponsor—and authorize the State Department—to terminate the exchange visitor’s participation in a program when the “exchange visitor falsifies or fails to provide a full and truthful response, information, or documents as part of his or her exchange visitor application or during the ongoing exchange program.” Additionally, the State Department would be given discretionary authority to terminate an exchange visitor’s program when the Department or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has revoked or canceled an exchange visitor’s visa with immediate effect or when the exchange visitor has engaged in unauthorized employment. The proposal would also eliminate the distinction between minor or technical infractions and substantive violations of the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System’s (SEVIS) recordkeeping rules by requiring program sponsors to correct such errors within 30 days, rather than the current 120-day time frame. Comments on the proposed rule are due by September 28, 2026.

Dems Reintroduce Bill to Prohibit Predispute Arbitration Agreements and Class Action Waivers. Congressional Democrats have reintroduced the “Restoring Justice for Workers Act” (S. 5190/H.R. 9995), a bill that would prohibit the use of predispute arbitration agreements in the workplace and supersede a 2018 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that affirmed the use of class action waivers to settle workplace disputes. Although the bill is unlikely to gain traction in the remaining months of the 119th Congress (previous versions were unsuccessful in recent Congresses), it raises an issue that Democrats may seek to press should they recapture one or both chambers of Congress in the November 2026 midterm elections.

Senate Democrats Seek to Double the Federal Overtime Premium. On August 5, 2026, five Democratic senators introduced the “Double the Wage for Overtime Act of 2026” (S. 5268), a bill that would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to increase the overtime premium from one and one-half times the regular rate to two times the regular rate. A House version of the bill (H.R. 9216), introduced on June 9, 2026, currently has twenty-six cosponsors (all Democrats). As with the aforementioned predispute arbitration bill, the Double the Wage for Overtime Act of 2026 could feature prominently in congressional Democrats’ coming legislative agenda.

‘M-I-Z!’ / ‘Z-O-U!’ On August 6, 2026, the U.S. Senate passed by unanimous consent Senate Resolution 833, “Recognizing the 1960 University of Missouri Tigers Football Team for Its Undefeated Regular Season, Orange Bowl Victory, and Claim to the 1960 National Championship.” Normally, these resolutions happen immediately following the celebrated event, so what took so long? It probably has something to do with a controversy surrounding Missouri’s game against the University of Kansas on November 19, 1960. Missouri’s record was 9–0 going into that game, but the Tigers lost to the Jayhawks at home by a score of 23–7. However, weeks after the game, the Big Eight Conference’s faculty committee found that Kansas had violated conference rules when recruiting a halfback (who was retroactively and prospectively ruled ineligible), and the committee ordered Kansas to forfeit its win over Missouri (as well as its victory over Colorado on November 12, 1960). Missouri then went on to defeat Navy, 21–14, in the Orange Bowl to complete an 11–0 season. This week’s resolution doesn’t magically anoint Missouri as college football’s undisputed 1960 national champion, but it does perhaps add a bit to the “Border War” football rivalry, which resumes in just a few weeks when the Missouri Tigers visit the Kansas Jayhawks on September 11, 2026.

The Buzz will be on hiatus next week but will return on August 21, 2026.

Quick Hits

• USCIS may deny benefit requests without issuing an RFE or NOID if required initial evidence is missing or if the submission does not demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit.
• Partial responses to an RFE or NOID will be treated as a request for a decision on the existing record.
• Officers now have discretion to set RFE response deadlines on a case-by-case basis, rather than automatically according to the full twelve-week maximum period.
• RFE and NOID response timeframes now allow only three additional days for all mailed notices, including international correspondence, reduced from the prior fourteen-day allowance for notices mailed outside the United States.

Effective immediately, USCIS rescinded the prior administration’s 2021 guidance, which directed officers to issue an RFE or NOID before denying a benefit request, even when applications were incomplete or substantially deficient. USCIS determined that this approach contributed to longer processing times, increased costs, and enabled “placeholder” filings through which applicants could secure ancillary benefits such as employment authorization while awaiting a decision on their underlying case.

The updated policy aligns full adjudicatory discretion with a longstanding regulatory framework under which the burden remains on the requestor to establish eligibility at the time of filing. The policy also clarifies the distinction between initial and additional evidence, primary and secondary evidence, and the evidentiary weight afforded to affidavits. Additionally, RFE and NOID response timeframes have been reduced from fourteen additional days for international correspondence under the prior policy to just three additional days for mailed notices, regardless of location. Any response to an RFE or NOID, even if partial, will be treated as a request for a decision on the existing record.

Key Takeaways

According to USCIS, the agency has the authority to deny immigration benefit requests without issuing  an RFE or NOID if the required initial evidence is not included at the time of filing. This policy applies to all petitions that are pending or filed on or after August 5, 2026. Under this updated policy, it will be increasingly important for petitioners to ensure that applications are thorough and well-documented prior to submission. The practical implications of this policy for employment-based petitions will continue to develop as USCIS begins implementation.

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

• In Baker v. Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc. (2026 ONCA 568), the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously held that without-cause termination provisions containing the words “at any time” or “at any time and for any reason” are not, by that language alone, inconsistent with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) and are therefore enforceable.
• The decision provides an authoritative interpretive framework: termination provisions must be read in context, with a view to the objective intentions of the parties, rather than through a literal, isolated reading that strains to find ambiguity where none exists.
• The court also confirmed that a with-cause provision defining “cause” more broadly than the ESA’s “wilful misconduct” standard is enforceable where it expressly preserves the employee’s minimum ESA entitlements.

The decision offers much-needed clarity for employers and employment counsel seeking to draft enforceable termination provisions that limit obligations to ESA minimums without running afoul of the statute.

The Facts

Frederick Baker commenced employment with Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc. on November 2, 2020, as its controller, head of finance, at an annual salary of $95,000 plus benefits. His employment contract contained a without-cause provision permitting Van Dolder to terminate his employment “at any time, without just cause, upon providing you with only the minimum notice, or payment in lieu of notice and, if applicable, severance pay, required by the Employment Standards Act.” The contract also contained a with-cause provision and a separate “Minimum Standards” clause providing that the ESA would prevail over any inconsistent contractual term.

On March 24, 2023, Van Dolder terminated Mr. Baker’s employment without cause. Mr. Baker was seventy-one years old and entitled to two weeks of statutory notice. He declined a release and commenced a wrongful dismissal action, arguing the termination provisions were inconsistent with the ESA and therefore void.

In a companion case, Song Li commenced employment with Wayfair Canada ULC on January 23, 2023, as a senior product manager at an annual salary of $221,546. His contract permitted termination without cause “at any time and for any reason” while repeatedly affirming that he would receive the minimum statutory entitlements under the ESA. Wayfair terminated Mr. Li’s employment without cause on October 17, 2023.

Conflicting Decisions Below

The two cases produced irreconcilable results at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

In Baker v. Van Dolder, the motion judge found the “at any time” language inconsistent with the ESA because it could be read to permit termination at times expressly prohibited by statute—such as upon the conclusion of an employee’s leave (s. 53) or as a reprisal (s. 74). The motion judge also struck down the with-cause provision for failing to explain the ESA’s “wilful misconduct” standard to “regular employees.”

In Li v. Wayfair, a different motion judge found the virtually identical “at any time and for any reason” language enforceable, reasoning that the contract as a whole clearly sought to limit entitlements to ESA minimums.

As the Court of Appeal observed, this was precisely the kind of inconsistency that had plagued the jurisprudence for years, with virtually identical provisions yielding opposite results.

The Court of Appeal’s Interpretive Framework

The Court of Appeal set out an interpretive framework built on established principles.

First, employment contracts must be interpreted differently from ordinary commercial agreements to further employment law principles, most notably the protection of vulnerable employees. Second, determining the meaning of an employment contract remains an exercise in contractual interpretation: the goal is to ascertain the objective intentions of the parties as expressed in the wording of the contract as a whole, understood in light of the relevant surrounding circumstances. Third, courts should avoid a “magic words” approach and should not strain to find ambiguity where none reasonably exists.

Applying this framework, the court held that the words “at any time” simply reflect a mutual intention that a without-cause termination will be valid and legally effective regardless of when it occurs—not that the employer is entitled to ignore express statutory prohibitions. This interpretation is consistent with nearly three decades of jurisprudence, including the Supreme Court of Canada’s foundational judgment in Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd.

The court further held that the addition of “for any reason” simply means that the employer is not required to give the employee a reason for the termination—not that the employer could plausibly claim the contract exempted it from statutory prohibitions.

On the with-cause provision in Mr. Baker’s contract, the court found that because it expressly preserved minimum ESA entitlements even where the contractual standard of “just cause” was met, the provision was aligned with the ESA. The motion judge’s requirement that employers explain the difference between contractual cause and statutory wilful misconduct was an error in principle.

The court declined to reconsider Waksdale, since both the without-cause and with-cause provisions in both contracts were found to comply with the ESA.

What This Means for Employers

“At any time” and “for any reason” language is safe—in the right context. The court has definitively confirmed that these common drafting phrases do not, by themselves, render a termination provision inconsistent with the ESA, provided the clause as a whole reflects an intention to comply with statutory minimums. Employers with existing contracts containing this language can take considerable comfort from the decision.

Contextual interpretation prevails over literal, isolated readings. The decision firmly rejects an approach that seizes on individual words or phrases and assigns them a meaning divorced from the contract as a whole. Employers may want to ensure that their contracts contain clear, repeated references to ESA compliance, as these contextual markers are precisely what courts will rely on to uphold enforceability.

Referential incorporation of ESA entitlements remains effective. The court reaffirmed that employers may validly incorporate ESA minimum entitlements by reference, without needing to spell out the precise scope of those entitlements in the contract. This includes with-cause provisions: defining “cause” more broadly than wilful misconduct is not fatal, so long as the provision preserves the employee’s right to ESA minimums when conduct falls short of the statutory standard.

A “Minimum Standards” clause adds a belt to the suspenders. The court relied heavily on the clause in Mr. Baker’s contract providing that the ESA would prevail over any inconsistent contractual term. While not strictly required, such a clause reinforces the interpretive context that the parties intended ESA compliance.

No obligation to explain the law in the contract. The court rejected the motion judge’s suggestion that employers must explain the ESA’s wilful misconduct standard or how it differs from contractual just cause. This removes what would have been an unworkable drafting burden, but employers may still wish to ensure that the contract clearly preserves ESA floor entitlements upon a for-cause termination.

Consistency in the jurisprudence—at last? The court expressly acknowledged the “uncertainty” and “myriad of cases” that have plagued this area. By articulating a clear, principled framework rooted in contextual interpretation and objective intention, the decision should reduce—though perhaps not eliminate—the risk of conflicting outcomes at first instance.

The Bottom Line

Baker v. Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc. is the most significant Ontario appellate decision on termination clause enforceability in years. It resets the interpretive approach away from formalistic, word-by-word scrutiny and back toward the contextual, purposive framework endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada. For employers and counsel drafting employment contracts, the message is clear: well-constructed termination provisions that express an intention to comply with the ESA—through repeated statutory references, ESA-compliance clauses, and preservation of minimum entitlements—will be enforced according to their terms.

Ogletree Deakins’ Canada offices will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Canada, Cross-Border, and Employment Law blogs as additional information becomes available.

Quick Hits

• The 2026 VETS-4212 reporting platform opened on August 1, 2026.
• All 2026 VETS-4212 filings are due by September 30, 2026.
• Federal contractors and subcontractors with a single covered contract of $200,000 or more are required to file VETS-4212 reports.

Who must file VETS-4212 reports?

Federal contractors or subcontractors with a single contract of $200,000 or more for the procurement of personal property or nonpersonal services, regardless of the number of employees, are required to file VETS-4212 reports with the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS).

The increase in the contract threshold of $200,000 from $150,000 is the result of the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council’s review and adjustment of acquisition-related statutory thresholds applicable to federal procurement. VETS states in its frequently asked questions (FAQ) guidance that the contract or subcontract may be with “any department or agency of the United States” and includes procuring personal property and services such as “utility, construction, transportation, research, insurance, and fund depository.” The FAQs state that this filing requirement applies to banks, financial institutions, or private sector entities insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) if a single contract meets the dollar threshold. Federal contracts can include “agreements to serve as fund depositories, agreements for federal share and deposit insurance, and agreements to serve as an issuing and paying agent for U.S. savings bonds and savings notes.”

What data must be filed?

The VETS-4212 form posted for the 2026 reports is split into two data sections for the reporting location. On the left side of the form, Column A shows the total number of protected veterans broken down into the ten EEO-1 occupational categories, and Column B shows the total number of employees in each of the ten EEO-1 occupational categories. The right side of the data section shows hiring activity for the report location for the last twelve months, including the total number of protected veteran hires during the previous twelve months in Column C and the total number of hires in Column D. The form does not require that hiring activity be broken down by EEO-1 occupational category. The upper part of the form contains company identification information and information on the location for which the VETS-4212 form is being filed.

Will filers receive notices of the platform opening or notices of failure to file?

No. VETS does not send emails about platform openings, deadlines, filing updates, and overdue filings. The VETS posts information for each filing period on the reporting landing page and leaves it to filers to complete their filings by the deadline.

Covered government contractors and subcontractors may want to consider preparing now so they can complete their required filings by the September 30, 2026, deadline.

Ogletree Deakins’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance Practice Group, Government Contracting and Compliance Practice Group, Military Workforce Practice Group, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Government Contracting and Compliance, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts