Quick Hits

• ViaQuest Residential Services recently agreed to pay $975,000 to settle claims it misclassified program managers as exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Ohio’s wage laws.
• The case, Simmons v. ViaQuest Residential Services LLC, No. 2:23-00201 (S.D. Ohio), centered on whether program managers’ “primary duty” was management or direct patient care.
• One hundred-six plaintiffs opted in after conditional certification, illustrating how quickly liability can scale with companywide classification practices.
• Healthcare employers may want to consider auditing the actual duties of their program managers and similar frontline supervisors to ensure exempt classifications withstand scrutiny.

The Complaint

Kenneth Simmons filed suit in January 2023 on behalf of himself and similarly situated program managers at ViaQuest Residential Services, LLC, a company that provides home healthcare services, including support to individuals with developmental disabilities. Simmons alleged in the complaint that ViaQuest maintained a companywide policy of classifying program managers as salaried exempt employees and failing to pay overtime. Simmons alleged that program managers’ primary duties were nonexempt in nature—consisting largely of providing direct patient care—and that they did not qualify as “executive,” “administrative,” or “professional” employees under the FLSA’s white-collar exemptions. The complaint raised claims under the FLSA, the Ohio Wage Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and alleged that ViaQuest’s violations were knowing and willful.

ViaQuest’s Answer

ViaQuest broadly denied the allegations, insisting its program managers were properly classified as exempt under both the FLSA’s “executive exemption” and “administrative exemption.” ViaQuest contended that program managers earned the required minimum salary, directed the work of at least two full-time employees, had hiring and firing authority, and exercised discretion and independent judgment on matters of significance. Even if program managers performed some nonexempt work, ViaQuest argued, their primary duty always remained management, and such work would have been done while multitasking. Under the FLSA, the term “primary duty” means “the principal, main, major, or most important duty that the employee performs.”

The Settlement

The court conditionally certified the collective action in April 2023, and 106 individuals opted in. After substantial discovery, the parties reached a settlement during their third mediation session in January 2026. The $975,000 fund covers all individual payments, service awards, attorney fees, and costs, with plaintiffs receiving pro rata payments representing approximately 76.4 percent of their calculated alleged unpaid overtime. ViaQuest continues to deny any wrongdoing.

Key Takeaways for Healthcare Employers

This case highlights the compliance risks healthcare companies face when they rely on program managers and similar frontline supervisors who carry supervisory titles but spend much of their time delivering hands-on patient care. The FLSA’s white-collar exemptions turn on actual duties, not job titles, and the more time a manager spends providing direct care—and to the extent to it is a reliable proxy for the “principal, main, major, or most important duty of the employee”—the harder it may be for an employer to argue that management is the “primary duty.”

Healthcare employers should consider auditing the actual day-to-day duties of frontline supervisors—not just job descriptions—to ensure exempt classifications can withstand scrutiny.

Ogletree Deakins’ Columbus office, Class Action Practice Group, Healthcare Industry Group, and Wage and Hour Practice Group will continue to monitor these issues and will provide updates on the Class Action, Healthcare, Ohio, and Wage and Hour blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• New Jersey lawmakers are currently considering several bills that would have significant implications for employers.
• Key proposals include the establishment of paid prenatal leave, an extension of pregnancy-related disability benefits, and amendments to ensure paid sick leave applies to employees bound by amendable collective bargaining agreements.

Here is a summary of some notable employment law bills currently under consideration.

Pregnancy-Related Employment Protections

Assembly Bill (A) 113—Concerns bereavement leave for miscarriage and stillbirth

This bill would amend the New Jersey Family Leave Act to include “the death of a child or miscarriage or stillbirth of a child” in the definition of job-protected “family leave.” The bill would also amend the definition of “family leave” to include “time to grieve.” The bill would allow employees to certify the leave by “stat[ing] the date of the death, miscarriage, or stillbirth.” The bill was introduced on January 13, 2026.

A4358—Expansion of pregnancy-related temporary disability

Under current law, employees are entitled to paid temporary disability benefits during the four weeks before their expected delivery date and the six weeks after their actual delivery date. This bill would expand the post-delivery pregnancy-related temporary disability leave benefits from the current six weeks to eight weeks. The bill was introduced on February 19, 2026.

A440—Establishes the “New Jersey Paid Prenatal Personal Leave Act”

This bill would require all New Jersey employers to provide every employee with up to twenty hours of paid prenatal leave (not to be confused with “parental” leave) each year, to be used during the employee’s pregnancy for pregnancy-related healthcare, including physical examinations, medical procedures, monitoring, and testing. Employees would be allowed to take leave in one-hour increments, to be paid at their regular rate of pay. It is unclear what documentation employers would be permitted to request to substantiate the need for prenatal leave, if any, as the bill provides that employers “shall not require the disclosure of confidential information relating to a mental or physical illness, injury, or condition as a condition of providing paid prenatal personal leave.” Employers would not be required to pay employees for unused paid prenatal personal leave after separation of employment. The bill was introduced on January 13, 2026.

A4704 / S2689—Accommodations for Breastfeeding Employees

This bill would amend the NJLAD to make it an unlawful employment practice to fail to accommodate a lactating employee by providing appropriate accommodations for as long as “the employee desires,” meaning however long the employee desires to lactate. These accommodations could include reasonable break time paid at the employee’s regular rate of compensation, job restructuring, and a modified work schedule for the purpose of milk expression. This bill also clarifies that the location the employer must provide the employee to express milk must be a suitable room “free from intrusion of other employees or customers of the employer’s business, if applicable, other than a restroom.” (Emphasis added.) Finally, the bill would add “breastfeeding” as a protected status under the equal pay provisions of the NJLAD. A4704 / S2689 was introduced on March 16, 2026.

Leaves of Absence

Senate Bill (S) 3510—Clarifying New Jersey’s Earned Sick Leave Law (ESLL)

Enacted in 2018, the ESLL provides most employees with up to forty hours of paid sick leave per year. The ESLL does not apply to employees “performing service in the construction industry” covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBAs) in effect when the law took effect until that CBA’s expiration. S3510 would ensure that the ESLL’s provisions apply to employees subject to amendable CBAs when those CBAs are amended. The bill was introduced on February 12, 2026.

Amendments to the NJLAD

A4563 / S1631—Height and weight discrimination

This bill would amend the NJLAD to expressly prohibit discrimination “because of the height or weight of any individual.” Exceptions include circumstances in which height and weight requirements are a “bona fide occupational qualification[s],” which generally means a requirement that an employee be of a certain height or weight because it is genuinely necessary for the business to run properly or for the employee to perform the job safely and effectively. A4563 / S1631 was introduced on January 13, 2026, and was passed by the New Jersey Senate on February 24, 2026. It is currently under consideration by the New Jersey General Assembly.

A4487 / S3779—Discrimination based on menstruation, perimenopause, and menopause

This bill would amend the NJLAD to make it an unlawful employment practice for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of menstruation, perimenopause, or menopause, if symptoms of such conditions “substantially interfere with” employees’ abilities “to perform one or more job functions.” The legislation was introduced in the Assembly on February 24, 2026, and in the Senate on March 5, 2026.

A2041—The “New Jersey Intern Protection Act”

This bill seeks to provide legal protections and remedies for interns by adding them to the list of individuals protected by the NJLAD and the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), which provides whistleblower protection to employees. The bill would provide interns with employment protections and allow them to bring actions against employers. The bill was introduced on January 13, 2026.

A767—Health benefits and female contraceptives

This bill would make it an unlawful employment practice under the NJLAD to exclude health insurance coverage for the purchase of “female contraceptives.” The bill includes exceptions for “religious employer[s],” defined as churches, associations of churches, and church-supported elementary or secondary schools, if the purchase of female contraceptives conflicts with their “bona fide religious beliefs and practices.” The bill was introduced on January 13, 2026.

A4194—Public Health Emergencies and States of Emergency

This bill would make it an unlawful employment practice for employers to require employees who are parents or guardians of a school-aged (K-12) child “to be physically present for work, when that work can be performed remotely, during the public health emergency and state of emergency declared by the Governor,” unless the employer can demonstrate that it would be an “undue hardship” on its business operations. There would be a “rebuttable presumption” that an employee can perform work remotely if the employee has already worked remotely for the lesser of either two consecutive pay periods or two weeks. That presumption can be rebutted with a “preponderance of the evidence showing that the employee cannot perform essential duties remotely.” The bill was introduced on February 19, 2026.

Wage and Hour

A4639 / S2105—Prohibition on training repayment agreements

This bill would prohibit employers from requiring employees and prospective employees to enter into a “training repayment agreement” as a condition of employment and make such agreements void and unenforceable. Such an agreement generally requires employees to reimburse the employer, a training provider, or another third party for the costs of providing training to the employee. The bill would exclude cash advances, payments for equipment purchased or leased by the employee, educational sabbatical leave contracts, and training repayment agreements made as part of a collective bargaining agreement. This bill was introduced in the New Jersey Senate on January 13, 2026, and in the General Assembly on March 10, 2026.

Employment Law

S3604—Exemptions to Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights (DWBR)

This bill would amend the DWBR, which was enacted in 2024, to clarify that certain licensed or certified home health care workers and hospice care workers are not intended to be treated as “domestic workers” under the DWBR. The bill would exclude from the definition of “hiring entity” under the DWBR, home care service agencies, including health service firms, and licensed hospice care programs with respect to services performed by licensed workers. The bill was introduced on February 19, 2026.

A4414—Employment verifications

This bill would immunize employers from civil liability when an employer in good faith discloses information to a prospective employer “contained within the employee’s personnel file, including but not limited to” title, job qualifications, compensation, period of employment, attendance record, workplace accidents, and, if applicable, the reason for separation. Employers disclosing such information would be “presumed to be acting in good faith unless it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the employer acted with actual malice toward the employee or former employee.” The bill was introduced on February 19, 2026.

Next Steps

The New Jersey legislative session began on January 13, 2026, and runs until December 31, 2026. At this time, most of the bills above remain in early stages, and it is not clear which, if any, will pass. Still, the bills highlight the state legislature’s concerns and potential new compliance obligations for employers. Employers may want to keep their eyes on the progress of these and other bills.

Ogletree Deakins’ Morristown office will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the New Jersey blog as additional information becomes available.

In addition, the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal covers compliance updates in Leave, EEO, Wage and Hour, and other employment laws. If these laws are enacted, they will be included under the applicable topics and on the New Jersey jurisdiction page. Snapshots and updates are available for all registered client users. Premium and Advanced subscribers have access to detailed federal, state, and local law summaries, as well as related template documents. For more information on the Client Portal or a Client Portal subscription, please reach out to clientportal@ogletree.com.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The Superior Court of Québec found that an arbitration award that had overturned the dismissal of a heavy vehicle driver for failure to accommodate was unreasonable, thereby reinstating the dismissal.
• The court opinion confirms that zero-tolerance policies for alcohol consumption constitute a legitimate standard that is reasonably necessary to ensure public safety.
• The duty to accommodate was not triggered because the automatic dismissal took effect before the employer became aware of the employee’s alcoholism.
• Even on the merits, there was no discrimination: the policy applied uniformly and the dismissal resulted from a voluntary act—any person, whether an alcoholic or an occasional drinker, would have faced the same consequence.

In 1641-9749 Québec inc. c. April (2026 QCCS 289), the presiding justice granted an application for judicial review to quash an arbitration award that had ordered the reinstatement of a long-haul truck driver dismissed after causing a traffic accident while severely intoxicated. The court concluded, on the one hand, that the duty to accommodate was not triggered because the employer was unaware of the employee’s alcoholism at the time the automatic dismissal took effect and, on the other hand, that a sanction imposed under a uniformly applied zero-tolerance policy grounded in public safety did not constitute discrimination. This decision sends a strong signal to employers across a range of industries regarding the scope and legitimacy of their zero-tolerance policies.

Background

On June 30, 2022, Yolaine Nadeau, a long-haul truck driver employed by 1641-9749 Québec inc. (Groupe Robert) for approximately twenty-four years, consumed at least nine cans of beer during a trip to Pennsylvania and then caused an accident with a blood alcohol level of 0.18 mg/100 ml—more than double the legal limit. The employer dismissed her in accordance with the zero-tolerance policy set out in the collective agreement, which provided for immediate dismissal for the consumption of alcohol or drugs while on duty.

In Teamsters Québec, local 106 et 1641-9749 Québec inc. (Yolaine Nadeau) (2023 QCTA 304), the grievance arbitrator overturned the dismissal, finding that alcoholism constituted a disability and that the employer should have undertaken a reasonable accommodation process before proceeding with termination.

The Superior Court Decision

On January 21, 2026, the Superior Court granted the application for judicial review and declared the arbitration award unreasonable. Among the court’s key findings:

• Date of dismissal. The dismissal took effect automatically on June 30, 2022 (the date of the accident), pursuant to Annex B of the collective agreement—not on August 31, 2022, as the arbitrator had found. At the date of the accident, the employer was unaware of the employee’s alcoholism.
• No discrimination. The zero-tolerance policy applied uniformly to all drivers. Ms. Nadeau was dismissed not because of her alcoholism, but because she voluntarily consumed alcohol in violation of a clear rule. Any person, whether an alcoholic or an occasional drinker, would have faced the same consequence.
• Alcoholism cannot be invoked after the misconduct. Alcohol dependence cannot be invoked after the commission of the misconduct to defeat the zero-tolerance policy. No evidence demonstrated that Ms. Nadeau lacked the capacity to make a choice regarding her consumption.
• Public safety prevails. Zero tolerance constitutes a justified standard that is reasonably necessary to ensure public safety—a factor the arbitration award had failed to take into account.

A Potentially Broader Reach Beyond the Transportation Sector

Although this decision was rendered in the context of road transportation, the court’s reasoning—that the misconduct lies in the act of consuming alcohol in violation of a clear rule, and not in the employee’s underlying condition—could be transposable to any workplace where safety justifies a zero-tolerance policy.

Notably, the collective agreement at issue provided for immediate dismissal for the consumption of both “alcoholic beverages” and “drugs that may affect [the employee’s] normal behaviour while on duty.” Employers could reasonably anticipate that the court’s reasoning would apply analogously to the consumption of cannabis, opioids, or other intoxicating substances—a particularly timely issue since the legalization of cannabis.

It is worth noting that this decision runs counter to a well-established line of jurisprudence holding that alcoholism and substance dependence constitute a protected disability triggering the duty to accommodate. By prioritizing public safety and the voluntary nature of the consumption, the Superior Court’s opinion provides employers with important support for defending the validity of their zero-tolerance policies.

Next Steps

In light of the 2026 QCCS 289 decision, employers may wish to consider the following steps:

• Reviewing and documenting zero-tolerance policies: Employers may wish to ensure their zero-tolerance policies are clearly drafted, communicated, and uniformly applied. Uniform application is the factor the court relied on to dismiss the allegation of discrimination.
• Anchoring policies in a safety objective: The court emphasized that zero tolerance must constitute a standard that is reasonably necessary to ensure public safety.
• Identifying safety-sensitive positions beyond transportation: Examples include construction, equipment operation, and any sector where substance consumption while on duty poses a danger to the safety of individuals.
• Monitoring developments. The former employee’s union filed a motion for leave to appeal; the state of the case may evolve.

Ogletree Deakins’ Canada offices will continue to monitor developments and provide updates on the Canada, Cross-Border, Drug Testing, Trucking & Logistics, and Workplace Safety and Health blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Newly proposed AB 2321 would require Cal/OSHA’s Bureau of Investigations to “timely notify” the local district attorney’s office of any case “in which there is a serious injury or death,” unless “the bureau determines there is legally insufficient evidence of a violation of the law.”
• The referral requirement applies to fatalities and cases of permanent total disability.
• The term “permanent total disability”—language borrowed from the state’s workers’ compensation system—is not a term typically utilized in the Cal/OSHA realm, so it is unclear how Cal/OSHA would make the determination for a referral.
• The law would set up a parallel system of investigation wherein the local district attorney would begin investigating accidents at the same time Cal/OSHA inspectors initiate typical workplace investigations.

If enacted as proposed, AB 2321 would adjust processes within the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health’s (Cal/OSHA) Bureau of Investigations and create a new investigatory procedure in California.

The bill would require Cal/OSHA to turn over accident reports and compiled investigation materials to local district attorneys’ offices. Additionally, the Cal/OSHA Bureau of Investigations would be required to establish written procedures for reviewing cases, determining and justifying any decision not to refer a case to a district attorney or not investigate an accident in which there is a serious injury or death, and additional procedures to refer non-fatal cases to the district attorney.

Next Steps

At present, the Assembly has not held a hearing, taken a vote, or conducted legislative analysis of AB 2321. The Committee on Labor and Employment will hold hearings on the bill in the month of April 2026.

Ogletree Deakins’ California offices and the firm’s Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group will closely monitor developments and provide updates on the California and Workplace Safety and Health blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Even “just for fun” April Fools’ jokes and pranks must not violate the rights of others or disrupt workplace harmony; in cases of serious violations, German labor law sanctions up to and including termination without notice are possible.
• Content that discriminates against or demeans others may constitute harassment—employers have duties to protect and prevent such behavior.

What counts as an April Fools’ prank?

April Fools’ jokes are defined as deliberately misleading or surprising actions and communications “for fun.” Under labor law, the form, content, context, and effects of such pranks are decisive: If the prank causes significant disruptions (e.g., production downtime, safety risks) or unreasonably infringes on the personal rights of third parties, the interest in protecting the company and those affected generally prevails—the general duty of consideration under Section 241 (2) of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB)) sets limits here.

What is still okay—and what is no longer?

Harmless, short-lived pranks that do not relate to discriminatory characteristics, do not expose individual persons, and do not create safety risks generally remain permissible. In any case, the following are prohibited: deceptions related to safety or compliance (e.g., faked emergencies, technical interference with IT systems); content of an offensive, sexist, racist, or inflammatory nature; and “pranks” that ridicule colleagues. The Schleswig-Holstein Regional Labor Court (Landesarbeitsgericht (LAG)) ruled on such statements that even in supposedly “private” chat groups, dismissal may be justified in individual cases involving severely derogatory remarks—the intent to be humorous does not provide protection in such cases (Judgment of August 19, 2025 – 1 Sa 104/25).

When do warnings or termination become a risk?

Employers generally understand jokes. But if a joke or prank crosses the line of good-natured humor, it is usually a short step to a breach of employment contract obligations, which may warrant a warning or a formal reprimand. If there is good cause, extraordinary termination may be considered in extreme cases; these include, for example, gross insults, discriminatory content, or significant operational and safety impairments.

Takeaway

April Fools’ jokes do not take place in a legal vacuum. To ensure that everyone can enjoy them, employers may want to remind employees that crude, discriminatory, and safety-related jokes can lead to serious consequences, up to and including termination of employment.

Andre Appel is a partner in Ogletree Deakins’ Berlin office.

Pauline von Stechow, a law clerk in Ogletree Deakins’ Berlin office, contributed to this article.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• USCIS has received enough H-1B registrations for unique beneficiaries to meet the annual cap.
• Petitioners will have ninety days, beginning on April 1, 2026, to file a completed H-1B petition for each selected beneficiary. Employment in H-1B status can begin no earlier than October 1, 2026.
• The FY 2027 lottery is the first to use the new weighted, wage-level-based selection process established under a DHS rule that took effect on February 27, 2026.

USCIS utilized its electronic preregistration system to carry out the newly implemented weighted selection process and confirmed selection notifications were sent to registrant employers and their authorized representatives of the lottery results through their USCIS online accounts.

USCIS announced that it had selected enough registrations projected to meet the congressionally mandated H-1B cap, including the advanced degree exemption (master’s cap) for FY 2027.

New Weighted Selection Process

The FY 2027 H-1B lottery marks the first cycle conducted under DHS’s final rule establishing a weighted, wage-level-based selection process for cap-subject H-1B petitions. Under this system, which replaced the prior random selection lottery that did not include wage information, registrants are assigned one to four entries in the selection pool based on the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) wage level that corresponds to their offered salary.

Each occupational code by OEWS breaks down wage leveling into Levels I, II, III, and IV, and under this new system, beneficiaries are entered into the registration system depending on which wage level their offered salary would meet based on the specific occupational classification. For example, an offered salary that met wage level IV under an OEWS classification would receive four entries. The weighted process prioritizes higher-paid foreign workers by giving them a greater chance of selection while still allowing entry-level workers to participate. The beneficiary-centric selection system adopted in 2024 remained in effect, but this time incorporating the new wage-based number of registration entries. For more details on the new weighted wage-level rule, see our prior article.

Registrants’ online accounts will display a registration status of “Selected,” indicating they are eligible to file an H-1B cap petition for FY 2027. Registrations that were not selected during the initial process (and that have not been denied or invalidated) will continue to show a status of “Submitted.”

USCIS confirmed selected registrants will have ninety days to file complete H-1B petitions, with the filing window opening on April 1, 2026, and ending on June 30, 2026. Each petition must be accompanied by the corresponding selection notice, a copy of the passport used for the beneficiary’s registration, and supporting evidence demonstrating eligibility for H-1B approval. Petitioners must also ensure that their filed petitions include identifying position information consistent with their registration, including the OEWS wage level, Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code, and area(s) of intended employment.

Employment under an approved FY 2027 H-1B petition can begin no earlier than October 1, 2026.

USCIS may conduct a second lottery if it does not receive enough H-1B petitions during the filing period to meet the annual cap of H-1Bs issued.

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

• A Massachusetts federal court provisionally granted intervention in ongoing litigation challenging the U.S. Department of Education’s ACTS survey, for a limited purpose, to two higher-education associations seeking TROs against the survey deadlines.
• The TRO extends the deadline to complete the ACTS survey to April 14, 2026, for the proposed intervenor associations and their constituent institutions and restrains enforcement of the earlier March 18 and March 31 deadlines against them.
• The court emphasized that it has not yet ruled on full intervention or on preliminary injunctive relief and set an expedited briefing schedule and an April 13, 2026, hearing on those issues.

On March 31, 2026, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV, in Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Education, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) extending the deadline for completion of the ACTS survey for proposed intervenors, the Association of American Universities (AAU) and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts (AICUM), and their constituent institutions of higher education, to April 14, 2026.

Background

The underlying lawsuit was filed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and sixteen other states against the U.S. Department of Education, the secretary of education, the Office of Management and Budget, and its director, challenging the approval and implementation of the ACTS survey as unlawful.

The ACTS survey, which institutions of higher education were initially required to complete by March 18, 2026, significantly expands the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data collection. The survey requires institutions to report admissions, aid, and outcomes data disaggregated by race, sex, test scores, GPA, income, and other factors for the current academic year, and, for the first time in IPEDS history, six prior years (2019–20 through 2024–25).

On March 13, 2026, the plaintiff states moved for a TRO. Later that day, the court issued an order extending the ACTS survey deadline to March 25, 2026, to allow for orderly briefing and a hearing. Following additional proceedings, including a March 24, 2026, hearing, the court issued another TRO extending the deadline to April 6, 2026, for the seventeen named state plaintiffs and their “constituent institutions.”

Motions by Higher-Education Associations

On March 19, 2025, the AAU and other national higher-education associations sought leave to file an amicus curiae brief, which the court granted. On March 25, the AAU filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff and a motion for a TRO. The AAU’s TRO motion asserted, among other things, that ED had extended the ACTS survey deadline for all institutions of higher education to March 31, 2026.

The AICUM filed its own motion to intervene and motion for a TRO on March 30, 2026. Both associations challenge the ACTS survey on grounds similar to those advanced by the state plaintiffs and addressed at the March 24 hearing.

March 31, 2026, Order

To allow for orderly consideration of the associations’ requests and to provide the defendants an opportunity to respond, the court “provisionally” granted the motions to intervene filed by AAU and AICUM, but only “for the limited purpose of considering the proposed plaintiff-intervenors’ motions for a temporary restraining order.” The order expressly states that this is not a ruling on intervention “for all purposes.”

The court issued a TRO that:

• extends the deadline to complete the ACTS survey “for proposed plaintiff-intervenors and their constituent institutions of higher education through April 14, 2026”; and
• restrains the defendants from enforcing either the original March 18, 2026, deadline or the March 31, 2026, extended deadline “against those institutions.”

The court made clear that this TRO is not a grant of preliminary injunctive relief and that such relief will be “subject to future briefing and a hearing.”

Next Steps

Defendants were ordered to respond to the motions to intervene and for a TRO by April 9, 2026. Separately, the court scheduled a hearing on the motions for April 13, 2026.

For now, the March 31 order provides additional, temporary deadline relief from the ACTS survey requirements for the two proposed plaintiff-intervenor associations and their constituent higher-education institutions, while the court considers whether to allow full intervention and whether broader or longer-lasting injunctive relief is warranted.

Higher education institutions may want to stay tuned to the litigation and consider necessary steps to comply with the ACTS survey.

Ogletree Deakins’ Higher Education Practice Group and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Government Contracting and Reporting, Higher Education, State Developments, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

This article and more information on how the Trump administration’s actions impact employers can be found on Ogletree Deakins’ Administration Resource Hub.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

AB 1803 represents California’s latest effort to expand mandatory workplace training requirements—this time, to address what its sponsors describe as a gap in existing law with respect to hate-motivated conduct in the workplace.

Quick Hits

• California is poised to expand mandatory workplace training requirements. AB 1803, introduced in February 2026, would require employers with five or more employees to incorporate anti-hate speech training into their existing workplace harassment prevention programs—a response to a reported increase in hate crimes across the state over the past decade.
• The bill builds on existing law. Rather than mandating a separate training program, the legislation adds anti-hate speech content to the training California employers already provide on sexual harassment, abusive conduct, and gender-related harassment. Notably, the bill does not define “hate speech,” a gap lawmakers have flagged for potential revision.
• Employers may want to begin evaluating their compliance readiness. If enacted, AB 1803 would require companies to assess whether their current training curricula, recordkeeping systems, and trainer qualifications adequately address the new anti-hate speech component—though no formal opposition to the bill has emerged as it advances through the legislature.

The Problem AB 1803 Is Trying to Solve

The bill’s authors, Assembly Members Josh Lowenthal (D–District 69) and Corey Jackson (D–District 60), cite a number of statistics in support of the legislation, including that reported hate crimes in California increased by 159.9 percent over the last decade. From 2019 to 2022 alone, the number of hate crimes against Black Californians nearly tripled, hate crimes against Latinos almost doubled, and hate crimes against Asians more than tripled. California’s Civil Rights Department estimated that 2.6 million Californians experienced at least one act of hate between 2022 and 2023. The bill’s legislative analysis also states that the 2023 California Health Interview Survey found that more than one in three Californians had experienced hate at a business in the previous year.

And here is the gap that AB 1803 is specifically designed to close. While California already requires employers to train employees on sexual harassment, abusive conduct, and harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation, there is currently no requirement that workers receive training specifically on anti-hate speech. As Equality California put it in its letter of support, “This gap leaves employees vulnerable to hostile work environments, while also leaving employers without clear guidance on how to prevent and address these behaviors.”

What AB 1803 Would Require

AB 1803 would amend Government Code Section 12950.1 to add anti-hate speech training as a required component of the existing workplace training program that California employers with five or more employees are already obligated to provide.

Under existing law, employers with five or more employees must provide at least two hours of training to supervisory employees and at least one hour to non-supervisory employees, once every two years. AB 1803 would not create a standalone, separate anti-hate speech training obligation; it would add anti-hate speech as another component woven into that existing training framework, alongside the current requirements covering abusive conduct, gender identity, and sexual orientation.

An important point: AB 1803 does not define “hate speech.” The bill’s legislative analysis notes that hate speech itself is not illegal, but it can violate employment law when it rises to an actionable level of workplace harassment or discrimination. The Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment has flagged this definitional gap and noted that the authors may wish to address it before the bill advances further.

The committee has also noted that various organizations have proposed definitions for hate speech. For example, the American Library Association defines hate speech to mean “any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability or national origin.” Similarly, the United Nations defines hate speech as referring to “offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace. Hate speech can be conveyed through any form of expression, including images, cartoons, memes, objects, gestures, and symbols, and it can be disseminated offline or online. Hate speech is “discriminatory” (biased, bigoted or intolerant) or “pejorative” (prejudiced, contemptuous or demeaning) of an “individual or group.”

Key Takeaways

For most employers, the practical impact of AB 1803 will be felt in the HR and compliance departments. Employers may wish to consider the following as the bill moves forward.

• Consider reviewing current training programs. Employers that already work with third-party training vendors or use the Civil Rights Department’s online training modules may want to consider whether their current curricula address hate speech in any meaningful way.
• Understand the flexibility built into the law. Employers are not required to build entirely new training programs from scratch. The law expressly permits training on this topic to be provided in conjunction with other training, completed individually or in group settings, and delivered in shorter segments as long as the total hourly requirement is met.
• Consider recordkeeping practices. California’s training law already requires employers to track and verify employee completion of required training. If AB 1803 passes, employers may wish to consider whether existing recordkeeping systems can document that the anti-hate speech component was included and completed, particularly for new hires, who must receive training within six months of hire.
• Consider trainer qualifications. Whether in-house HR professionals or outside counsel are used to deliver the training, employers may wish to consider whether the person leading the session has sufficient knowledge and expertise relevant to this new component. The bill’s broader training framework already requires that trainers have expertise in the areas they cover, and that same expectation will logically extend to anti-hate speech content.

Looking Ahead

AB 1803 is still moving through the legislative process. As of the bill’s most recent committee hearing, no opposition has been formally filed. On March 18, 2026, AB 1803 passed out of the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment and was referred to the Assembly’s Committee on the Judiciary. Should AB 1803 be signed into law, employers will need to assess whether their existing training programs satisfy the new requirement. Consulting with employment counsel before any compliance deadline is established may be a useful step for employers seeking guidance on how the bill could affect their operations.

Ogletree Deakins’ California offices and the firm’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the California and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The German Federal Labor Court held that blanket release clauses in employment contracts that entitle the employer to grant a release upon termination constitute an unreasonable disadvantage and are invalid.
• An employee’s interest in continuing employment until the termination of the employment relationship generally outweighs an employer’s interest in granting the employee a leave of absence in a terminated employment relationship until the expiration of the notice period.
• Exemption is also possible without a contractual basis if the employer’s interests worthy of protection preclude continued employment until the end of the notice period.

Nevertheless, an exemption may be justified if, in the specific case, the employer’s overriding interests worthy of protection conflict with the employment relationship, the BAG said.

Case Background

The employee had been working as a regional manager in the field sales department since January 2022 and used a company car, which was also provided for private use. The standard employment contract contained a clause stating that the employer was entitled to release the employee from work “upon or following the issuance of a notice of termination—regardless of which party issued it”—while continuing to pay compensation. After the employee resigned, the employer granted him leave and demanded the return of the company car. The employee returned the car but claimed compensation for loss of use in the amount of EUR 510 per month due to the withdrawal. The Oldenburg Labor Court (Arbeitsgericht (ArbG)) (Ref. No. 5 Ca 370/24) dismissed the claim, while the Lower Saxony Regional Labor Court (Landesarbeitsgericht (LAG)) ordered the employer to pay the compensation for loss of use (Ref. No. 5 SLa 249/25).

Decision

The BAG’s Fifth Senate opinion clarifies that the agreed-upon leave-of-absence clause, which provided for a blanket option for leave of absence upon termination, is subject to the review of standard terms and conditions under Section 307 (3) sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB)) and is invalid under Section 307 (1) sentence 1 of the BGB.

Such a blanket clause deprives the employee of the constitutionally protected interest in employment until the end of the employment relationship. Such an interest generally outweighs the employer’s general interest in exemption. Nevertheless, in the opinion of the BAG, a release of the employee may be considered even without a contractual basis if, in the specific case, overriding employer interests worthy of protection precluded continued employment. Since this had not been examined by the LAG, the legal dispute was referred back to the LAG. The BAG did not rule on compensation for loss of use.

Key Takeaways

It comes as little surprise that blanket leave-of-absence clauses in standard-form employment contracts are invalid. However, granting an employee a leave of absence following termination is still possible if, in the specific case, the employer’s overriding interests worthy of protection preclude continued employment. This raises the question of whether it is even necessary or sensible to include release clauses in employment contracts, since the decision will come down to a balancing of interests on a case-by-case basis anyway. Nevertheless, in our view, appropriate release clauses in employment contracts are sensible, as they increase the acceptance of such releases in practice. However, such clauses do not replace a balancing of interests in individual cases. The employer will only be able to effectively withdraw benefits, such as the private use of a company car, during the leave of absence if such a withdrawal is also effective in the specific case, i.e., if the employer has an overriding interest in the leave of absence. This may be the case, for example, if an employee moves to a competitor and trade and business secrets are at risk, or if an employment opportunity no longer exists due to the elimination of the position. In practice, employees rarely object to the leave of absence, but they are more likely to do so if benefits are withdrawn during the leave.

Outlook

With this decision, the BAG confirmed the employee’s overriding interest in continued employment until the end of the notice period. Since the legal dispute has been referred back to the LAG, it remains to be seen which specific employer interests could justify a suspension in this particular case and whether such interests existed. It will then also be determined whether the employer must pay compensation for loss of use due to the withdrawal of the company car.

Ogletree Deakins’ Berlin and Munich offices will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Cross-Border and Leaves of Absence blogs as additional information becomes available.

Dr. Ulrike Conradi is managing partner in Ogletree Deakins’ Berlin office.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• In Larkin v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, a logistics firm was sued after it denied a work-from-home accommodation request from an employee with a high-risk pregnancy.
• A jury found the accommodation denial contributed to the baby’s premature birth and death.
• The case shows how an accommodation denial may create liability for employers if they aggravate a worker’s medical condition.

Background on the Case

In 2021, a claims associate for a Cincinnati-based logistics firm, Total Quality Logistics, LLC (TQL), was pregnant and required bed rest after a related surgery. When she requested to work from home and provided medical documentation, the company denied the request and placed her on an unpaid leave of absence instead. She quickly resumed work in the office.

About two weeks later, the company reconsidered and granted her request to work from home. The same day, the employee entered very premature labor and gave birth to her daughter. The baby died shortly after being born.

In February 2023, the baby’s estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit in the Hamilton County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas. A jury awarded the estate $22.5 million on March 18, 2026. The court denied the plaintiff’s request for punitive damages, holding that punitive damages are not available for a “purely wrongful death action.”

Americans with Disabilities Act and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

There are several obligations and remedies that employers must consider when evaluating a pregnant employee’s requests for accommodation.

Some pregnancy complications may be covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires employers to accommodate employees with known physical or mental disabilities. For example, pregnancy accommodations may include remote work, light duty, reduced hours, permission to sit and avoid lifting, and time off to attend prenatal medical appointments.

An employee can bring a failure-to-accommodate claim if the accommodations offered do not reasonably allow the employee to perform the essential functions of their job with the established medical restrictions of the employee. An employee also can sue under the ADA if an employer’s delay in an accommodation decision is unreasonable, is unjustified, or causes a breakdown in the interactive process.

In addition, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, even when the pregnancy does not qualify as a disability under the ADA. The PWFA is more expansive in the right to accommodation for pregnant employees. For example, a pregnant employee may be entitled to temporarily removing essential functions of her position. Employers are prohibited from harassing, discriminating against, or retaliating against a worker for requesting an accommodation under the ADA or the PWFA.

To legally justify denying a reasonable accommodation request, an employer must demonstrate the accommodation would impose an undue hardship, meaning a substantial cost or difficulty, as determined by factors such as the nature and cost of the accommodation, the employer’s financial resources, and the impact on business operations.

Next Steps

The employer in this case may appeal the judgment. Nonetheless, this case shows how an employer can be held liable for negligence or wrongful death if its accommodation denial results in an aggravated medical condition, injury, or death. The eight-figure jury award here is far from typical in litigation concerning pregnancy accommodations in the workplace, but it serves as a reminder that the stakes of these employment decisions are very high, and mistakes can lead to significant consequences for both employee and employer.

Thus, employers may wish to train supervisors on the accommodation process and what is required under the PWFA and the ADA. Employers also may wish to carefully document their legitimate business reasons for denying any accommodation requests. If an employer applies its attendance, remote work, and accommodation policies consistently and fairly, it may reduce the risk of discrimination claims based on gender, age, and other protected characteristics.

Ogletree Deakins’ Leaves of Absence/Reasonable Accommodation Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Employment Law, Leaves of Absence, and Ohio blogs as additional information becomes available.

H. Devon Collins is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Columbus 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