Quick Hits

• The NLRB has implemented new case intake procedures requiring charging parties to submit evidence before their unfair labor practice cases are docketed.
• Under the new procedure, a failure to provide documentation and information supporting a charge within two weeks may lead to the dismissal of the charge.
• Designed to enhance efficiency in case handling and reduce the existing case backlog, the updated process may result in quicker resolutions of unfair labor practice charges.

In one of his last acts as acting general counsel of the NLRB, William B. Cowen issued Memorandum GC 26-01 on December 23, 2025, outlining new procedures for processing and assigning charges filed after October 1, 2025. The memorandum states that the NLRB will now require charging parties to submit evidence and documentation within two weeks before a case is assigned.

Recent reporting on the memorandum suggested the NLRB’s updated protocol could create hurdles for charging parties seeking to bring unfair labor practice charges. However, the NLRB has now clarified that the “information requested at intake is the same information that Board agents have always required at the beginning of an investigation” and that “[t]he two-week deadline for responding to preliminary information requests under the updated protocol is fully consistent with longstanding agency practice.”

“The purpose of the new internal protocol is to improve efficiency and reduce delays caused by assigning cases to Board agents who are already managing significant caseloads and may not be able to begin new investigative work for months,” the clarification issued by the NLRB’s Office of Public Affairs stated.

Evidence Submission by Charging Parties

Memorandum GC 26-01 explained that charging parties must e-file specific evidence within two weeks of docketing, and the failure to provide the requested evidence may result in a charge being dismissed. According to the memorandum, charging parties must submit:

• a chronological outline of relevant events and communications;
• relevant documentation and supporting communications; and
• a list of witnesses with contact information and a brief summary of each witness’s testimony.

The regional office will send a docketing letter to the charging party with a new email address for the regional offices and the telephone number of a Board employee for questions about the new initial evidence submission requirements.

According to the memorandum, the updated procedures were aimed at providing relief to the NLRB’s twenty-six regional offices and improving case processing efficiency. Acting General Counsel Cowen acknowledged that the Board and its regional offices faced a significant backlog of cases exacerbated by the 43-day federal government shutdown and decreasing staffing levels. The memorandum came after the NLRB had lacked a quorum of members for most of 2025, and before two new members appointed by President Donald Trump were sworn in on January 7, 2026.

The NLRB said in its new clarification is designed to increase efficiency and reduce delays. Under the prior procedure, the NLRB said Board agents were receiving charges with incomplete information, which required “extensive follow-up before any evidence was collected or meaningful investigative steps could occur.” That process had contributed to the growing backlogs and delays, the NLRB stated.

“By ensuring that essential information is collected at the time the charge is filed, the updated internal protocol allows the agency to make better use of limited investigative resources,” the NLRB stated.

Assignment to a Board Agent

In addition to the information request requirements, Memorandum GC 26-01 explained that charges will not be immediately assigned to a Board agent, but will instead be placed on a list monitored by NLRB staff, awaiting the initial evidence submission. The procedures will not apply to charges related to existing cases or to certain statutory priority charges, as defined by the NLRB Casehandling Manual, including unfair labor practice charges filed against unions that require injunctions, such as to stop illegal picketing or boycotts.

Once the charging party has submitted evidence and it has been determined that the case should be assigned for investigation, the charge “will not be assigned until there is a Board Agent who has sufficient capacity to allow them to timely investigate the charge.” The memorandum stated that “[i]f there is no Board Agent with sufficient capacity, the charge will remain on the unassigned case list until there is a Board Agent with capacity.”

Next Steps

The new case intake protocol changes are designed to improve efficiency and could potentially result in quicker dismissals, particularly when charges lack factual support. Employers may want to note the new evidence submission requirements for filing unfair labor practice charges and the potential for case dismissals for failing to comply. Employers may also want to ensure the organization and retention of records, communications, and events related to potential charges.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Despite the EU Pay Transparency Directive having entered into force in June 2023, giving member states three years to transpose it into national law, only three member states have published partially finalised drafts: Belgium (Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles), Malta, and Poland.
• Core obligations span a ban on salary history and transparency on pay levels during recruitment; pay information rights; gender-neutral pay structures; and mandatory pay gap reporting for employers with 100 or more employees from 2031, and, beginning June 2027, for employers with 150 or more employees.
• Employers must prepare now or risk noncompliance from June 2026.

Core Obligations Set Out in the EU Pay Transparency Directive

The Directive’s core framework is not subject to national negotiation. From 7 June 2026, employers across the European Union will be bound by the following core obligations:

• Recruitment transparency: Employers must provide job applicants with information on the initial pay level or pay range, typically in the job vacancy or before the first interview, and must not ask candidates about their previous salaries.
• Workers’ right to information: Employees can request in writing information on their individual pay levels and the average pay for workers of the opposite gender performing the same work or work of equal value.
• Pay secrecy prohibitions: Contractual clauses that prohibit employees from disclosing their pay or that of colleagues performing work of equal value are prohibited.
• Gender-neutral pay structures: Salaries must be based on objective, gender-neutral criteria, such as skills, experience, responsibility, and working conditions, and employers must be able to demonstrate how the criteria have been applied.
• Pay gap reporting requirements: Employers with between 100 and 149 employees will have to calculate and publish gender pay gap statistics by 7 June 2031 and every three years after that. By 7 June 2027, employers with 250 or more employees will have to report annually using 2026 pay data, and employers with between 150 and 249 employees will have to report every three years using 2026 pay data. Where a pay gap within a worker category is 5 percent or more and cannot be justified by objective, gender-neutral reasons and remedied within six months, employers will be required to conduct a joint pay assessment with employee representatives and implement remedial measures.

Directive Implementation Progress

The Netherlands has already announced expected delays, possibly until January 2027, and there are fears that other countries may also experience similar delays. However, the European Commission has recently reiterated that it expects all EU member states to complete their implementation of the EU Pay Transparency Directive by the 7 June 2026 deadline.

Belgium (Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles) has taken one of the most advanced steps, with a draft decree that already introduces gender pay gap reporting and pay transparency obligations for certain sectors.

Malta has published a draft bill that largely mirrors the Directive’s requirements, including pay transparency in recruitment, pay information rights, and pay gap reporting. Malta has already introduced obligations focused specifically on the Directive’s pre-employment salary disclosure requirements and the right of employees to request pay information, which came into effect on 27 August 2025. However, the remaining provisions of the Directive’s implementation have not yet received final parliamentary approval.

Poland has also published a draft bill implementing the Directive, with some transparency measures already in force and full implementation planned ahead of the June 2026 deadline.

Other EU member states, including Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Sweden, have announced or published partial drafts. These drafts remain subject to change as they undergo review processes in their relevant countries.

What Does This Mean for Employers?

The slow progress of the Directive’s implementation may mean that employers face shorter deadlines than first anticipated. Employers located in or subject to local laws in a member state that has yet to make an announcement may wish to consider the framework for preparation set out in the Directive. It is also important to consider that member state requirements may exceed the minimum requirements of the Directive and impose stricter obligations or penalties.

Employers that fail to prepare now for the June 2026 implementation deadline may find themselves inadequately prepared and at risk for noncompliance with the Directive’s requirements. Employers are encouraged to stay informed about the implementation process in their respective jurisdictions. Information and updates on the progress of the Directive’s implementation across the European Union can be found using Ogletree Deakins’ Member State Implementation Tracker.

Further information can also be found by listening to our podcast, “Understanding the EU Pay Transparency Directive: What Employers Need to Know.”

Ogletree Deakins’ London office, Pay Equity Practice Group, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Cross-Border, Pay Equity, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

Daniella McGuigan is a partner in the London office of Ogletree Deakins and co-chair of the firm’s Pay Equity Practice Group.

Lorraine Matthews, a practice assistant in the London office of Ogletree Deakins, contributed to this article.

Emilia Mobius, a paralegal in the London office of Ogletree Deakins, contributed to this article.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Identifying Impacted Contracts: Review contract terms and engage your contracting officer to determine if contracts are affected by the shutdown.
• Responding to Stop-Work Orders: Stop-work orders typically require immediate compliance. When complying, be sure to document all related communications and actions.
• Proactive Communication: If no stop-work order is issued, seek written confirmation from your contracting officer on whether to continue work.
• Mitigation Strategies: Manage financial exposure, communicate with employees, and explore legal remedies to recover costs or schedule delays.

A government shutdown occurs when Congress and the president fail to pass and sign a funding bill before the deadline, resulting in a lapse in appropriations and the cessation of nonessential federal operations. The current fiscal year appropriations measure that passed on November 12, 2026, will expire at the end of this month. For contractors, this can mean significant disruptions to ongoing programs and potential financial risks from incurring unrecoverable costs or lost performance time.

To determine whether contracts will be impacted by a government shutdown, first review the terms and conditions of the contracts to verify when the currently obligated funds will expire (typically referred to as the “funded” amount in the contract or most recent modification). Contracts funded by annual appropriations are most likely to be affected. (A general rule of thumb: if a contract was disrupted during last year’s shutdown, it likely will be impacted again in another shutdown.) Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, consult with your contracting officer (CO) to understand the specific implications for the work. Maintaining clear communications with the CO in the run-up to a funding lapse is critical to obtaining an accurate understanding of when funding for the work would expire and what would happen when it does.

There are several steps that contractors can take to mitigate risk related to contracts affected by a shutdown:

• Stop-Work Orders: Contractors receiving stop-work orders are encouraged to comply immediately and ensure any subcontractors or suppliers comply as well. Consider documenting all communications with the CO and actions taken in response to the order. This documentation will be crucial for any future equitable adjustments to recover extra costs incurred from complying with the stop-work order or gaining an extension of time to the delivery schedule.
• When No Stop-Work Order Has Been Issued: If no stop-work order has been issued, but funding has lapsed, communicate proactively with the CO and seek written confirmation on whether to continue work or to cease operations. Continuing work without funding authorization—i.e., “working at risk”—can result in nonpayment of incurred costs. With very limited exceptions, a contractor cannot be required to continue to work after a lapse in funding.
• Financial Management: Assessing the financial exposure and taking steps to manage cash flow are critical. This may include negotiating with subcontractors and suppliers to delay payments or reduce costs temporarily. Review payment terms with subcontractors and suppliers for “pay when paid” conditions or how interest for late payment could be owed.
• Employee Management: Communicate with the workforce about the potential impacts of the shutdown. Consider implementing temporary furloughs or reduced work hours to manage labor costs while ensuring compliance with labor laws and contract requirements.
• Legal and Contractual Remedies: Exploring the available legal and contractual remedies is advisable. This may include submitting requests for equitable adjustments when the shutdown ends due to delays or increased costs resulting from the shutdown.

Next Steps

By taking these proactive steps, contractors can better manage the risks associated with government shutdowns and ensure they are prepared to navigate the complexities of federal contracting during periods of funding uncertainty.

Ogletree Deakins’ Government Contracting and Reporting Practice Group and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group will monitor developments and provide updates on the Government Contracting and Reporting and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• When an employee is required to be on duty for more than twenty-four hours, the FLSA allows employers to exclude up to eight hours of sleep time from compensable hours.
• This exclusion applies where: (1) there is an implied or express agreement to the exclusion; (2) the employer provides adequate sleeping facilities; and (3) the employee gets at least five hours of uninterrupted sleep.
• Nonexempt employees who are required to be on duty for fewer than twenty-four hours must be paid for all hours, even those spent sleeping.

The Fair Labor Standards Act and Sleep Time

The FLSA requires employers to pay nonexempt employees for all hours worked, and typically, any time that the employer requires employees to remain on-site counts as hours worked. But the FLSA regulations permit an employer to exclude up to eight hours of sleep time from compensable hours when an employee is required to be on duty for twenty-four hours or more, if the following requirements are met: (1) the employer and employee have an express or implied agreement to exclude the sleep time from hours worked; (2) the employer provides the employee with adequate sleeping facilities; and (3) the employee can usually enjoy an uninterrupted night’s sleep. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), in its Field Operations Handbook and Field Assistance Bulletin 2016-01, provides guidance on each of these requirements.

The existence of an agreement can be manifested in writing or orally, or it can be implied by the parties’ conduct. In its Field Operations Handbook, the DOL offers an example of an implied agreement, where the employer has a “usual practice” of excluding sleep time from work shifts of twenty-four hours or more, and the employee, who is regularly required to work such shifts, has never objected to the exclusion. Courts have generally held that an employer’s published policy explaining the sleep time deduction—combined with the employee’s continued employment—satisfies this requirement.

Whether sleeping facilities are adequate is a fact-specific assessment. According to the DOL, this generally requires access to “basic sleeping amenities, such as a bed and linens, reasonable standards of comfort, and basic bathroom and kitchen facilities.” “The designated sleeping area and other facilities can be shared or private.” The DOL notes, however, that context is important, and other types of facilities could meet the requirement in other circumstances.

As for what constitutes an “uninterrupted night’s sleep,” the regulations have defined this as at least five consecutive hours. Notably, if an employee regularly works shifts of twenty-four hours or more, limited interruptions to the five-hour period are permitted so long as they do not occur on more than half of the employee’s scheduled shifts. This rule, however, likely does not apply in the unusual circumstance in which an employee who normally works shifts of fewer than twenty-four hours is required to remain at the workplace for twenty-four hours or more because of an unusual weather event. In the latter case, the five-hour sleep period should truly be uninterrupted; otherwise, the entire period could be considered compensable time.

Employers may deduct only the actual hours spent sleeping, subject to a maximum deduction of eight hours per sleep period. Even when employees sleep for longer periods, no more than eight hours may be excluded from compensation.

Considerations for Employers

During a weather event, such as a snowstorm or hurricane, when travel to and from the workplace may be difficult, if not impossible, employers may require employees to remain at the workplace for extended periods of time to ensure staffing coverage. In anticipation of such situations, employers may wish to consider developing and implementing sleep time policies that specifically exclude up to eight hours of sleep time during shifts of twenty-four hours or more. They should also ensure that there are adequate sleeping facilities and that employees receive at least five uninterrupted hours of sleep.

There may be situations in which an employee chooses—and the employer permits but does not require the employee—to remain at the workplace overnight in order to avoid travel difficulties. Under such circumstances, the employee need only be paid for those hours that the employee is scheduled to work by the employer, and not for those additional hours when the employee is on the premises by his or her own choice, as long as the employee is not performing work during that time.

Notably, state wage and hour laws may impose additional or different requirements regarding sleep time deductions. Some states do not permit employers to exclude sleep time from compensable time and require employers to compensate employees for all time they are required to be on-site, even if they are sleeping. Ideally, a thorough review of applicable state regulations should precede the implementation of any sleep time deduction policy.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• To avoid a partial government shutdown, a funding package for the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, Treasury, State, and other agencies must pass the U.S. Senate before January 30, 2026.
• A government shutdown of these departments would suspend critical immigration functions, including PERM processing, prevailing wage determinations, and Labor Condition Applications.
• E-Verify would also likely be unavailable, and immigration-related services at U.S. consulates abroad could be reduced or suspended due to limited State Department operations.

The Senate and U.S. House of Representatives have passed six of the twelve required appropriations bills funding agencies, including the U.S. departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Justice. The House passed a funding package on January 22, 2026, that would fund the remaining agencies, including the U.S. departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, State, and Treasury. The Senate must now vote on the package to prevent a partial government shutdown of these agencies on January 30, 2026.

A partial government shutdown involving these agencies could delay many immigration matters, but the most significant impacts for U.S. employers would include:

• Certified LCAs: Employers would be unable to obtain certified Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) for H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 petitions.
• PERM and Prevailing Wages: Processing of PERM labor certifications and prevailing wage determinations could halt.
• Consular Services: Foreign nationals could face delays in obtaining employment-based visas at U.S. embassies and consulates.
• E-Verify: If the E-Verify system is taken offline, employers would be unable to initiate new cases or resolve tentative nonconfirmations for active cases.
• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS): As a fee-generating agency, USCIS would remain operational and continue to process applications. However, processing delays could arise due to the impact on other government agencies.
• U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP): Although the CBP is funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, its inspection and law enforcement functions are considered essential and should continue.

Employers seeking further guidance can also review a detailed analysis of the immigration implications of a government shutdown here.

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 New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) issued new guidance on state antidiscrimination law, warning employers that policies or practices related to language could be forms of unlawful employment discrimination under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD).
• The guidance highlights the DCR’s view that language policies or practices may be discriminatory based on disparate treatment or disparate impact theories and that repeated harassment over a worker’s language or accent could create an unlawful hostile work environment.
• The guidance recognizes that language proficiency requirements can be a “bona fide occupational qualification for particular positions,” but the burden is on the employer to show that the qualification is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business or enterprises.

On January 16, 2026, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the DCR released a new guidance document, titled “Guidance on Language Discrimination Under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination January 2026,” clarifying the division’s interpretation of the LAD as recognizing potential unlawful language-based discrimination. The guidance highlights how employment policies and practices related to language, such as language qualification requirements, may lead to potential unlawful employment discrimination under the LAD due to the “intrinsic relationship” between language and protected characteristics.

“Where there is no articulable reason behind a language-based requirement or prohibition, the close link between language and protected characteristics may lead a court or DCR to conclude that language was used as a proxy to discriminate based on a protected characteristic,” the guidance states.

In announcing the new guidance, the attorney general and the DCR emphasized the need to protect against such discrimination, given New Jersey’s ethnic and racial diversity. According to the announcement, nearly a quarter of New Jersey residents are foreign-born, and nearly one-third of New Jersey households speak a language other than English.

Specifically, the guidance clarifies the DCR’s view that employment decisions or policies tied to a worker’s language could result in unlawful discrimination under disparate treatment or disparate impact legal frameworks, and that allowing employees to be subjected to repeated “bias-based harassment” based on their language or accent could violate the LAD. At the same time, the guidance recognizes that in some circumstances certain language proficiency may be a “bona fide occupational qualification for particular positions.”

Unlawful Language-Based Discrimination

According to the guidance, “language discrimination” occurs “when individuals are mistreated and/or devalued based on their language use” or because of “their lack of English proficiency” or “biases based on a person’s native language, accent, and speech patterns.” This may include refusing to hire applicants who cannot speak English for jobs that do not reasonably require such proficiency. The guidance further recognizes the connection between language and accent, stating that “offensive and discriminatory remarks about a person’s language or accent, if sufficiently severe or pervasive, may constitute actionable discrimination under the LAD.”

Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications

The guidance recognizes that not all language-based restrictions or requirements necessarily violate the LAD. Proficiency in a particular language may be “a bona fide occupational qualification for particular positions,” but the burden of establishing the language proficiency qualification is on the employer to show that it is “reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.” By way of example, the guidance points to an English and Spanish proficiency requirement for a bilingual English-Spanish customer service representative position as a potential qualification that may not violate the LAD.

The new guidance also explicitly does not apply to language accessibility laws, such as a 2024 law that requires the state Executive Branch to provide translations of key documents in the most common non-English languages spoken in New Jersey.

Disparate Treatment

The guidance warned that the DCR may consider neutral workplace policies or practices related to language to be unlawful under the LAD if they disproportionately negatively affect members of a protected class due to “language-related factors that are tied to their protected characteristics.” Because language is so intertwined with protected characteristics, such as national origin, ancestry, nationality, race, religion, or disability, a language proficiency qualification could be considered a “proxy” protected characteristic, the guidance states. For example, a grocery store owner who pays higher wages to employees who speak only English or passes over for promotions those who speak English as a second language or “prefers people it considers to be ‘fully American,’” may be liable for unlawful disparate treatment based on language according to the DCR.  

Disparate Impact

The guidance further recognizes that language restrictions or qualifications meant to be neutral policies could be considered unlawful discrimination. An employer that requires advanced English proficiency or requests that employment agencies refer only job candidates with advanced English proficiency is likely to disproportionately negatively impact job candidates of certain nationalities or other protected characteristics, the guidance states. Such a policy could potentially violate the LAD unless the employer can show the “policy or practice is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest.”

The guidance comes just weeks after the DCR adopted new comprehensive rules that codify and reinforce disparate impact liability under the LAD as the federal government under the Trump administration has ceased enforcement of federal antidiscrimination based on disparate impact.

Bias-Based Discrimination

The guidance further warns that, in certain circumstances, employers have an obligation to stop “bias-based harassment” relating to a worker’s language if the harassment results in a hostile environment and the employer knows or should have known of the conduct. For example, a “Jewish warehouse worker” who is “repeatedly subject[ed] to derogatory comments” from coworkers for speaking Hebrew could be subject to a hostile environment if it is pervasive and supervisors fail to stop it.

Next Steps

Employers in New Jersey may want to take note of the language discrimination guidance and how it recognizes the connection between language qualifications or restrictions and their impact on protected characteristics, including national origin, ancestry, nationality, race, religion and disability. The guidance warns employers that language proficiency requirements or policies, such as advanced English proficiency requirements, could violate the LAD. Notably, the guidance warns that even neutral language policies or practices could serve as a proxy for protected characteristics and be used as a pretext for discrimination in violation of the LAD.

However, the guidance only expresses the New Jersey DCR’s views on the application of state law. Courts could take different interpretations in certain situations. Moreover, while the guidance references 2016 guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, analysis of language discrimination under federal law could differ. In particular, the EEOC under the Trump administration has been reconsidering past guidance and taking new positions, including halting enforcement of discrimination claims based on disparate impact and focusing on national origin discrimination and anti-American bias.

Ogletree Deakins’ Morristown office will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Employment Law, and New Jersey blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• OFCCP issued an Information Collection Request on January 2, 2026, seeking to revise questions on its complaint and pre-complaint inquiry forms to align with Executive Order 14173.
• OFCCP issued a renewed Information Collection Request on January 7, 2026, seeking to extend existing recordkeeping requirements under VEVRAA.
• On January 20, 2026, an appropriation bill was introduced that proposed to fund OFCCP at $100,976,000 for fiscal year 2026. This appropriation bill passed the House of Representatives on January 22, 2026, and now moves to the Senate for final approval.

The future and focus of OFCCP has been the subject of discussion and speculation by the federal contractor community since Executive Order (E.O.) 14173 was signed in January 2025. In the lead-up to last year’s government shutdown, the House Appropriations Committee proposed to eliminate OFCCP and move oversight obligations to other federal agencies, while the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed to fund OFCCP for fiscal year (FY) 2026.

On January 20, 2026, a consolidated appropriations bill was introduced that seemingly shifted course from the previous House proposal of eliminating the agency. In the January 20 proposal, which passed in the House on January 22, OFCCP’s necessary expenses would be funded for FY 2026 at $100,976,000. While the FY 2026 proposal contains slightly less funding for OFCCP compared to FY 2025, assuming the Senate passes the bill, it appears OFCCP will have ample funding to enforce agency priorities.

This consolidated appropriations bill comes on the heels of other recent proposed regulatory action from OFCCP related to discrimination complaints and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA).

OFCCP Complaints

On January 2, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor issued an OFCCP-sponsored Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), seeking “approval to revise questions on its complaint and pre-complaint inquiry forms to align with E.O. 14173.” The supplementary information in support of the ICR explains that applicants and employees of federal contractors and subcontractors remain able to file complaints under VEVRAA and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 503), but that complaints are no longer allowed under E.O. 11246.

OFCCP continues to receive and investigate complaints filed under VEVRAA and Section 503. The proposed revisions to the complaint form—while specifics have not yet been released—appear aimed at making updates to reflect the current state of the agency’s investigations, including making clear that OFCCP continues to investigate complaints of discrimination under VEVRAA and Section 503.

VEVRAA Data Collection and Compliance

On January 7, 2026, OFCCP issued a renewed ICR seeking approval to extend the recordkeeping requirements of VEVRAA such that OFCCP can continue to “carry out its responsibility to enforce VEVRAA.” The threshold for VEVRAA coverage recently increased to a contract of $200,000 or more. OFCCP’s Supporting Statement explains in its justification for the ICR that obligations continue for covered contractors in all respects, specifically calling out

• the inclusion of the equal opportunity clause in contracts;
• mandatory job listings with appropriate state or local employment service delivery systems;
• the development and maintenance of written affirmative action programs (AAP);
• invitations to job applicants to self-identify as protected veterans at the pre-offer and post-offer selection stages so that the agency and contractors can “collect valuable data needed to track the number of protected veterans who apply for open positions and the number who are hired”; and
• the adoption of a hiring benchmark.

OFCCP’s renewed ICR reiterates the importance of VEVRAA’s compliance and AAP obligations. Similar obligations for compliance and AAPs also currently remain in place pursuant to Section 503.

Next Steps

Employers may want to review current and anticipated federal contracts and subcontracts against the updated thresholds and notices to assess coverage, as well as compliance and AAP implications, and verify whether their organizations meet the employee-count and single-contract triggers for Section 503 and VEVRAA. Addressing existing and ongoing requirements under VEVRAA and Section 503, including completing mandated AAPs, is important for ensuring compliance with any legal risk related to E.O. 14173.

Ogletree Deakins’ Government Contracting and Reporting and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Groups will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Government Contracting and Reporting and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Effective January 21, 2026, the State Department will pause issuance of immigrant visas to applicants from seventy-five designated countries.
• Nonimmigrant visas (e.g., H-1B, L-1, TN, and B-1/B-2) will continue to be processed and are not impacted by this directive.

Scope and Designated Countries

The seventy-five countries impacted by the announcement include:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.

The processing pause will impact the cases that are currently pending on January 21, 2026, and any new cases going forward until it is lifted. Foreign nationals from the designated countries will still be able to submit immigrant visa applications and attend interviews during the State Department’s pause.

Immigrant visas issued prior to the announcement have not been revoked.

Nonimmigrant visas (e.g., H-1B, L-1, TN, and B-1/B-2) will continue to be processed and are not impacted by this directive.

Exceptions

Immigrant visas will continue to be issued to dual nationals who apply using a valid passport from a country not affected by the directive.

Impact

The State Department will continue to schedule immigrant visa interviews for nationals of the affected countries, but no immigrant visas will be issued until the policy review is complete. The government has not provided a timeframe within which the review should be completed.

This announcement is limited to the issuance of immigrant visas abroad. It should not impact employees in the United States applying for permanent residence through the Adjustment of Status process via Form I-485. Form I-485 applications may, however, be subject to an administrative pause pursuant to USCIS’s January 1, 2026 “hold and review” policy, impacting foreign nationals from thirty-nine specified countries.

Ogletree Deakins’ Immigration Practice Group will monitor developments with respect to these and other policy changes and will post updates on the Immigration blog as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Ontario’s Working for Workers Seven Act, 2025, which received Royal Assent on November 27, 2025, introduces significant amendments to the Employment Standards Act (ESA), the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).
• Key changes to the ESA include new requirements for online job-posting platforms, job-seeking leave entitlements for employees facing mass termination, and provisions for extended temporary layoffs.
• The OHSA now includes a definition for defibrillators, introduces an administrative penalty scheme for noncompliance, and mandates the equivalency of accredited health and safety systems in public infrastructure projects, while the WSIA imposes stricter penalties for false statements, wage recordkeeping failures, and nonpayment of premiums.

Key amendments to each of these pieces of legislation are summarized below.

Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA)

Job-Posting Platform Accountability (in force from January 1, 2026)

An online job-posting platform for publicly advertised job postings is required to:

• implement a mechanism or procedure for users to report fraudulent job postings and
• have a written policy with respect to fraudulent job postings and post it in a conspicuous place on the platform. A copy of the policy must be retained for three years after it ceases to be in effect.

This requirement does not apply to an employer that advertises job postings only on its own website.

Job-Seeking Leave (in force from November 27, 2025):

• An employee who receives notice of termination of employment as part of a mass termination under s. 58 of the ESA is entitled to three days of leave without pay to obtain new employment.
• An employee shall provide at least three days of advance notice to the employer before commencing the leave.
• The leave will be deemed to have been taken in entire days even if only part of a day was taken off.
• An employer may request reasonable evidence.
• Even if the job-seeking leave is provided in an employment contract, the employee will be deemed to have taken the leave under s. 58 of the ESA.
• The entitlement does NOT apply if the employee is provided with termination pay instead of notice, specifically where the “working notice” period provided is 25 percent or less of the total statutory notice period required.

Extended Temporary Layoffs (in force from November 27, 2025):

• An employer and an employee may agree to a layoff that is thirty-five or more weeks in any period of fifty-two consecutive weeks but may not agree to a layoff of fifty-two or more weeks in any period of seventy-eight consecutive weeks.
• The agreement should be made in writing and should have (a) the latest date the employer intends to recall the employee, and (b) a statement of the nature of the agreement.
• The agreement may NOT be withdrawn by the employee.
• The agreement shall be approved by the director of employment standards.
• A copy of the agreement must be retained for three years from expiry of the director’s approval.

Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA)

Clarification on Defibrillator (in force from November 27, 2025):

• The OHSA defines “defibrillator” as an automated external medical heart monitor capable of detecting abnormal heart rhythms, assessing whether defibrillation is required and providing electrical impulses as medically required.
• Employers in the construction industry, which are subject to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, shall be reimbursed for the cost of the defibrillator by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) if they meet specified criteria.
• Regulations may be prescribed to govern the reimbursement process.

Administrative Penalties (in force from November 27, 2025):

• The OHSA introducesan administrative penalty scheme, which will allow inspectors to issue notices of penalty for noncompliance, with the amount of the penalty to be paid in accordance with the regulations.
• A person who receives a notice may request a review, and the designated reviewer can confirm, change, or cancel the notice as set out in the regulations.
• If the fine is paid, the person cannot be charged with an offence under the OHSA with respect to the same contravention.
• If the fine is not paid, it is considered debt to the Crown and may be recovered in accordance with the regulations.

Equivalency of Accredited Health and Safety Systems (in force from November 27, 2025):

The OHSA creates the authority to require public infrastructure project owners, constructors, and employers to treat chief prevention officer-accredited occupational health and safety management systems (OHSMS) as equivalent in procurement processes.

Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA)

False or Misleading Statements (in force from November 27, 2025):

• An employer is prohibited from making false or misleading statements to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board regarding any claims for benefits.
• Contravention may be subject to an administrative penalty, in addition to any other penalty imposed by a court.

Wage Recordkeeping Penalties (in force from November 27, 2025):

An employer that fails to maintain accurate wage records or produce wage records on request of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board may be subject to an administrative penalty, in addition to any other penalty imposed by a court.

Penalties for Failure to Pay Premiums (in force from November 27, 2025):

• An employer may be guilty of an offence for a failure to pay premiums to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board when due.
• If convicted under this section, the court may also make a restitution order for the person to pay the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board any outstanding amounts owed for any period before the conviction.

Increased Fines for two or more convictions (in force from November 27, 2025):

A person convicted of two or more counts of the same offence in the same legal proceeding may be liable for a fine of up to $750,000 for each conviction.

Aggravating Factors for Employers (in force from November 27, 2025):

The following are aggravating factors when determining a penalty for an employer:

• previous conviction under the WSIA,
• conviction of two or more counts of the same offence in the current proceeding, and
• a record of prior noncompliance with the WSIA.

Ogletree Deakins’ Toronto office and Cross-Border Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Canada, Construction, Cross-Border, Leaves of Absence, Reductions in Force, Wage and Hour, and Workplace Safety and Health blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Collective redundancy consultation is required if an employer proposes to dismiss twenty or more employees over a ninety-day period.
• In Micro Focus v. Mildenhall the EAT ruled that previous redundancies do not need to be counted. The test is whether twenty or more redundancies are proposed looking forward.
• The ruling in Micro Focus v. Mildenhall provides a timely reminder of how Employment Tribunals handle redundancy proposals, redundancy pooling, and collective consultation responsibilities. However, this finding may be short-lived as the government intends to consult on making changes to the threshold as part of the new collective redundancy framework under the UK Employment Rights Act 2025.

In Micro Focus Ltd v Mildenhall, the EAT considered when collective redundancy consultation obligations under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA) are triggered. Under TULRCA, there is a legal requirement for employers to carry out a collective consultation when proposing redundancies with twenty or more employees at one establishment in a period of ninety days. Employers that fail to comply with the collective consultation obligations will face penalties.

Mr Mildenhall, the employee in this case, was dismissed for redundancy on 29 July 2022 following a wide-scale cost-reduction and consolidation programme. He brought a claim for a protective award for failure to inform and consult under TULRCA. The Employment Tribunal, taking into account the number of redundancies in a rolling ninety-day period, found that the collective consultation duties had been triggered and awarded Mr Mildenhall the maximum ninety days’ gross pay. The employer, Micro Focus, appealed the finding that the duty to carry out collective consultation had been triggered.

By using the “forward and backward” approach established in a previous ruling, the EAT found that the Employment Tribunal was misdirected. That prior approach had been overtaken by a decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in UQ v Marclean Technologies.

The EAT clarified that the collective consultation obligation applies when an employer proposes to make redundant twenty or more employees within the next ninety days, the approach should be prospective rather than retrospective. The assessment concerns what the employer was actually proposing for the future at the relevant moment, rather than looking back at how many dismissals ultimately occurred. However, the EAT also made clear that employers attempting to avoid their obligations will be subject to scrutiny. Tribunals may consider redundancies that appear to have purposely held back or staggered to prevent consultation in their threshold assessments.

Key Takeaways

Employers may wish to maintain well-documented redundancy procedure and intentions records to aid compliance. Clarity on this subject is particularly welcome, and the importance of following the correct protocol is of increasing importance in light of changes to the penalty for failure to consult in a redundancy in the UK, with the protective award rising from ninety days’ pay to 180 days’ pay per affected employee, effective from April 2026.

Ogletree Deakins’ London office and Global Reorganizations Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Cross-Border, Global Reorganizations, Reductions in Force, and United Kingdom blogs as additional information becomes available.

Roger James is a partner in the London office of Ogletree Deakins, and co-chair of the firm’s Global Reorganizations Practice Group.

Lorraine Matthews, a practice assistant in the London office of Ogletree Deakins, contributed to this article.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts