Quick Hits

• On March 23, 2026, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson signed a bill into law that will ban noncompete agreements for employees and independent contractors.
• The law will declare all current employment-based and independent contractor-based “noncompetition agreements” to be void and unenforceable, and will prohibit employers from enforcing them.
• The law will prohibit entering into new employment-based and independent contractor-based noncompetition covenants.
• The ban will not apply to certain other restrictive covenants, including narrowly-drafted nonsolicitation agreements.
• The law takes effect on June 30, 2027, and it will require employers to notify employees, former employees, and independent contractors, in writing, by October 1, 2027, that any applicable noncompete agreements are no longer enforceable.

Banning Noncompetition Agreements

The signing of SHB 1155 comes two weeks after the Washington State Legislature passed the bill, and builds off the 2019 restrictions on noncompete agreements, which had limited their use to high-earning employees and even higher-earning independent contractors. Any “noncompetition covenant”—meaning any agreement “that prohibits or restrains an employee or independent contractor from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind”—will be unlawful in Washington starting June 30, 2027. The definition of “noncompetition covenant” is to be liberally construed.

SHB 1155 will further require employers to “make reasonable efforts to provide written notice” by October 1, 2027, to all current employees and independent contractors with noncompetition covenants that their noncompetition covenants are void and unenforceable. Employers must also inform all former employees and independent contractors who are within the restricted period of a noncompetition covenant that the noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable.

The ban excludes certain other restrictive covenants from the definition of a noncompetition covenant, including narrowly drafted nonsolicitation agreements, confidentiality agreements, covenants prohibiting the disclosure of trade secrets or inventions, noncompetition covenants for individuals who are acquiring or disposing of at least one percent of the total ownership interest as part of the sale or acquisition of a business, noncompetition covenants as part of certain franchisee transactions, or “an agreement to pay for education expenses between an employer and a current or potential employee.”

The law adds Washington to the growing list of states that ban most employment-based noncompete agreements, including California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma.

More information on SHB 1155 can be found here.

Ogletree Deakins’ Seattle office and Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Healthcare, Hospitality, Multistate Compliance, Sports and Entertainment, Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets, and Washington blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Utah has enacted H.B. 380 to address and reduce workplace violence in healthcare, requiring hospitals to implement comprehensive reporting systems for such incidents.
• The law, which takes effect on May 6, 2026, mandates detailed tracking of workplace violence incidents, protection for employees reporting these incidents, and annual reporting of data to the state health department.
• The collected data is intended to drive improvements in prevention strategies, such as de-escalation training and risk identification.

Overview

On March 18, 2026, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed H.B. 380 into law. The new law takes effect on May 6, 2026, and hospitals across the state will be required to implement comprehensive workplace violence reporting systems by November 1, 2026, including by taking the following steps:

• Establishing formal reporting systems for workplace violence incidents
• Tracking detailed information, including date, time, type of incident, and whether the perpetrator was a patient, visitor, or employee
• Adopting policies prohibiting discrimination or retaliation against employees who report incidents of workplace violence or who participate in investigations
• Maintaining records of reported workplace violence incidents for at least two years
• Analyzing and using collected data to improve safety and prevention strategies
• Reporting workplace violence incident data annually to the state health department

The law also requires internal reporting to the hospital’s chief medical officer and chief nursing officer and emphasizes that collected data should drive improvements, such as de-escalation training and risk identification.

Utah is not an outlier. States across the country are expanding workplace violence prevention requirements in healthcare and general industry, signaling an increased regulatory focus on this issue.

Next Steps

Ogletree Deakins’ Healthcare Industry Group and Workplace Violence Prevention Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Healthcare, Workplace Safety and Health, and Workplace Violence Prevention blogs.

In addition, the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal also covers developments and updates in Workplace Violence Prevention, including the new Utah Workplace Violence Prevention law and other healthcare-specific requirements. 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 Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court’s decision and found that a generic severability clause does not undermine a clear delegation of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
• The court found the inclusion of a leading arbitration provider’s rules that require arbitrators to decide the validity of an arbitration agreement is “clear and unmistakable” evidence of the parties’ intent.
• The court said federal law governs arbitrability delegation and rejected state law cases on the issue.

In Sandler v. Modernizing Medicine, Inc., the Ninth Circuit issued a unanimous decision, finding that a district court misapplied federal law. The lower court relied on California state court decisions. Those cases suggested that a severability clause could justify refusing to compel arbitration. That reliance was in error, the court said.

The Ninth Circuit rejected the employee’s argument. The severability clause mentioned “a court.” (Emphasis in original.) But that reference alone did not show the parties intended a court—rather than an arbitrator—to decide validity. Nor did it create ambiguity about who would resolve arbitrability questions.

Background

The employment contract at issue specified that employment disputes would be subject to binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The contract stated that arbitration would be administered by a leading arbitration service provider. The provider’s rules require the arbitrator to resolve questions of whether the arbitration clause is valid and enforceable.

The employee later sued Modern Medicine, Inc., alleging age and disability discrimination under state and federal law. The employer moved to compel arbitration. The district court acknowledged that incorporating the arbitration provider’s rules delegated the validity question to the arbitrator. But the court relied on California state court decisions to hold that a separate severability clause in the employment agreement negated the delegation clause. The court said the clause created ambiguity about who would decide enforceability. It then found the arbitration agreement unconscionable and denied the motion to compel.

Key Holdings by the Ninth Circuit

• Clear and Unmistakable Delegation Through Arbitration Rules

The Ninth Circuit held that incorporating an arbitration provider’s rules was enough to evidence the parties’ intent. Those rules state that arbitrators will decide questions of validity. This inclusion met the “clear and unmistakable” evidence standard of an enforceable delegation. “The parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to have the arbitrator resolve any challenge to the validity of the arbitration agreement,” the court said. The incorporation of the provider’s rules “which delegate the question of the agreement’s validity to the arbitrator” … “evinces a ‘clear and unmistakable’ intent to delegate,” the court said.

• Severability Clause Does Not Negate a Delegation Clause

The Ninth Circuit held that a severability clause does not negate a delegation clause. Many contracts have severability clauses. These allow a court to sever unconscionable or unenforceable provisions. But such a clause “does not conflict with the clear and unmistakable delegation” nor does it “render the delegation ambiguous,” the court said.

Both can be true, the court said. Parties can agree to have disputes heard by an arbitrator, including disputes over validity. They can also agree on a “contingency” allowing a court to sever unenforceable terms. The court also noted that the severability clause did not refer exclusively to “a court.” The clause also referenced an “other body of competent jurisdiction.” That phrase could include an arbitral forum, the court noted.

• Federal Law Governs Questions of Arbitrability

The Ninth Circuit said the district court’s reliance on state court decisions was “legal error.” Those decisions disfavored arbitration. But the question of whether parties delegated arbitrability is “a question of federal law.” (Emphasis in original.) The court rejected any state-law rule treating a severability clause as negating a valid delegation. Such a rule would be preempted by the FAA. It “hinge[s] on the primary characteristic of an arbitration agreement” and thereby disfavors arbitration.

Key Takeaways

The Sandler decision is welcome news for employers. The decision holds that a generic severability clause in an arbitration agreement does not undermine a clear delegation of arbitrability. The decision also reinforces a key point: whether there has been a “clear and unmistakable” delegation is a question of federal law under the FAA. The decision suggests courts should not rely on state decisions that disfavor arbitration.

Employers may wish to review their arbitration agreements in light of this decision. Arbitration agreements can incorporate institutional rules. Standard severability clauses complement delegation provisions. They do not contradict them.

Ogletree Deakins’ California offices will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Arbitration and Dispute Resolution and California blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• California Assembly Bill (AB) 1898 would impose significant new notice and transparency obligations on California employers using AI-powered tools for employment-related decisions.
• AB 1898 would require employers to provide advance written notice, obtain signed acknowledgments, and maintain an annual inventory of AI tools, with penalties for noncompliance.
• Employers may want to begin preparations now by conducting AI tool audits, assessing coverage, building notice processes, planning for acknowledgment requirements, preparing annual disclosure lists, evaluating vendor agreements, and training managers and HR.

The Problem AB 1898 Is Designed to Solve

The backdrop for this legislation is striking. AI adoption has surged—from 20 percent of firms in 2017 to 72 percent by 2024—yet workers are largely in the dark. A 2025 study found that only 22 percent of workers were aware when they were being monitored, and up to 44 percent did not know their employers were using biometric surveillance. Researchers have also found that electronic monitoring can create a climate of fear that undermines psychological well-being, leading to stress, burnout, and injury—and such tools disproportionately affect marginalized communities in low-wage industries.

What AB 1898 Would Require

At its heart, AB 1898 would add a new Part 5.9—titled “Artificial Intelligence Transparency at Work”—to the California Labor Code. The bill’s key obligations fall into two broad categories: advance notice and ongoing disclosure.

Advance Written Notice. Before deploying any “workplace AI tool,” employers would be required to provide written notice at least ninety days in advance to any worker who would likely be directly or indirectly affected, as well as to that worker’s exclusive bargaining representative. For employers already using covered AI tools as of January 1, 2027, notice would have to be provided no later than February 1, 2027. New hires would have to receive notice upon hire.

The bill defines “workplace AI tool” broadly to encompass both automated decision systems—computational processes using machine learning, statistical modeling, or AI that produce scores, classifications, or recommendations materially impacting workers—and workplace surveillance tools, which include video and audio surveillance, geolocation tracking, biometric monitoring, and continuous time-tracking technologies.

Notice Requirements. The written notice would have to be written in plain language, be separate from other notices, be provided in the language used for routine workplace communications, and be delivered via an accessible method such as email. The content requirements are extensive. Employers would have to disclose the purpose and justification for the tool; the employment decisions it may affect (such as hiring, promotion, or termination); what worker data is collected and how it is stored; whether data will be shared with third parties; the vendor and model name; any job displacement timelines; and a summary of any risk assessments conducted.

Notably, the bill would also require employers to disclose any quotas measured by AI tools, including the number of tasks to be performed and any adverse employment consequences for failing to meet those quotas.

Signed Acknowledgment Required. Employers would be required to obtain a signed acknowledgment from each affected worker confirming receipt and understanding of the notice. Critically, the employer would not be permitted to deploy the workplace AI tool until all affected workers have returned their signed notices—a proposed requirement that has drawn significant criticism from employer groups regarding its administrative feasibility for larger organizations.

Annual AI Tool Inventory. Employers would be required to maintain and provide workers with an updated list of all workplace AI tools currently in use on or before February 1, 2028, and annually thereafter, including a description of any job displacement impacts.

Enforcement and Penalties

The potential stakes for noncompliance are real. The labor commissioner would be authorized to investigate violations and issue citations. AB 1898 would also permit workers, or their exclusive representatives, to bring civil actions and seek punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. Employers that violate the law could face penalties of up to $500 per employee for each violation—an amount that can add up quickly for mid-size or large organizations.

Practical Steps for Employers to Prepare

While AB 1898 has not yet been signed into law, employers may want to consider beginning preparations now. Key areas to evaluate include:

• Conducting an AI tool audit. Employers may want to identify every automated system, monitoring platform, and surveillance technology currently in use or under evaluation—this inventory will form the foundation of any compliance program.
• Assessing coverage. Employers may want to determine which tools fall within the bill’s broad definitions of “automated decision systems” and “workplace surveillance tools,” erring on the side of inclusion when in doubt.
• Building a notice process. Employers may want to work with HR and IT to develop compliant written notice templates for each covered tool, including translated versions for multilingual workforces.
• Planning for the signed acknowledgment requirement. Employers may want to develop a reliable system for distributing notices and tracking acknowledgment returns before any new AI tool is deployed.
• Preparing the annual disclosure list. Employers may want to begin cataloging AI tools now to be ready for the annual inventory requirement, which would begin February 1, 2028.
• Evaluating vendor agreements. Employers may want to review contracts with AI tool vendors to confirm they can obtain the information the notice requirements demand.
• Training managers and HR. Employers may want to educate frontline supervisors and HR professionals on which tools are covered, what disclosures are required, and how to respond to worker questions.

Looking Ahead

AB 1898 is part of a broader wave of California legislation targeting workplace AI, alongside related bills such as AB 1883 (restrictions on workplace surveillance tools), Senate Bill (SB) 947 (restrictions on employment-related automated decision systems), and SB 951 (to establish a “Technological Displacement Act Fund”). This legislative momentum signals that transparency and accountability in AI are becoming a defining priority for California policymakers—and employers that prepare early will be better positioned to build trust with their workforce and avoid costly enforcement actions.

Ogletree Deakins’ California offices will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the California, Cybersecurity and Privacy, and Technology blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

On November 21, 2025, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, issued a published decision in Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center addressing the scope of the ministerial exception under the First Amendment in the context of wage-and-hour claims brought by a former staff member against the San Francisco Zen Center, a Zen Buddhist training center. The court reversed summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that the ministerial exception does not categorically bar wage claims absent evidence that such claims implicate ecclesiastical concerns. The decision also clarified statutory requirements for posting undertakings in appeals from Labor Commissioner orders. On February 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of California agreed to hear Lorenzo and examine the ministerial exception in the context of the case.

On March 2, 2026, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, issued a published opinion, Ehrenkranz v. San Francisco Zen Center (A171652), involving the identical issues and the same employer.

The Ehrenkranz court came to the same conclusion as the Lorenzo court regarding the application of the ministerial exception, but, notably, reached a different result from Lorenzo on the issue of whether the individual defendants were required to post an undertaking to appeal the Labor Commissioner’s award. The Ehrenkranz court concluded, following a lengthy analysis, that the statute requiring the undertaking did not apply to the individual defendants. That holding itself was significant.

It is expected that the Ehrenkranz defendants will also seek review by the Supreme Court of California—a petition that will be granted based upon the review previously granted in Lorenzo. This article focuses on Lorenzo.

Quick Hits

• On February 12, 2026, the Supreme Court of California agreed to hear a wage-and-hour case involving the ministerial exception under the First Amendment.
• In November 2025, the California Court of Appeal held that the ministerial exception does not bar wage-and-hour claims against religious institutions unless adjudication of those claims would require judicial inquiry into matters of faith, doctrine, or internal church governance.
• The court reversed summary judgment for the defendants, finding no evidence that the plaintiff’s wage claims raised ecclesiastical concerns.
• The court further held that individual defendants found liable as “employers” under Labor Code section 558.1 must each post an undertaking to perfect their appeals from California Labor Commissioner orders; failure to do so deprives the court of jurisdiction over their appeals.

Background on Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center

Annette Lorenzo, a former participant and staff member in a residential Zen Buddhist training program, alleged wage-and-hour violations against the San Francisco Zen Center and two of its former leaders. The organization operated multiple training centers and generated income through commercial activities, including guest accommodations and event rentals. Lorenzo’s duties included cleaning, guest services, kitchen work, and other tasks supporting both religious practice and commercial operations.

After the Labor Commissioner found all defendants liable for unpaid wages, overtime, and related penalties, the defendants appealed. The organization posted an undertaking for the full award amount, but the individual defendants did not. The trial court denied Lorenzo’s motion to dismiss the individual appeals and subsequently granted summary judgment for all defendants, finding the ministerial exception barred the claims.

Key Holdings of the Court of Appeal in Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center

Ministerial Exception Limited to Ecclesiastical Concerns. The appellate court clarified that the ministerial exception, as recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, is grounded in the church autonomy doctrine and protects religious organizations from judicial interference in decisions regarding the selection, supervision, and removal of ministers. The exception, however, does not extend to all employment claims by ministers. Wage-and-hour claims that do not require courts to resolve religious controversies or intrude upon matters of faith and doctrine are not barred by the exception.

The court distinguished wage claims from employment discrimination and wrongful termination claims, noting that minimum wage and overtime disputes do not inherently implicate ecclesiastical concerns. The court rejected the broad interpretation of the ministerial exception adopted by certain federal appellate decisions, emphasizing that religious organizations are not generally immune from secular laws absent a showing that compliance would burden religious exercise or entangle courts in religious matters.

Church Autonomy Doctrine. The court further explained that the church autonomy doctrine may bar claims only where the alleged misconduct is rooted in religious belief. In this case, neither party argued that the wage claims required resolution of religious doctrine or practice, and the record contained no evidence that compensation decisions implicated ecclesiastical concerns.

Statutory Requirements for Appeals From Labor Commissioner Orders. The court held that individuals found liable as “employers” under California Labor Code section 558.1 must each post an undertaking to appeal a Labor Commissioner order. The undertaking posted by the organization did not cover the individual defendants, and no joint and several bond was provided. As a result, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the individual appeals, and the judgments in their favor were reversed on this independent ground.

Key Takeaways

• The ministerial exception does not categorically bar wage-and-hour claims against religious institutions; it applies only where adjudication would intrude upon matters of faith, doctrine, or internal governance.
• Religious organizations must demonstrate that application of wage-and-hour laws would violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise or Establishment Clauses to invoke constitutional protection.
• Individuals found liable as “employers” under Labor Code section 558.1 must independently satisfy statutory undertaking requirements to perfect appeals from Labor Commissioner orders.
• The decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between employment claims that implicate ecclesiastical concerns and those that do not and clarifies procedural requirements for appeals in wage-and-hour disputes involving religious entities.

Employers and individuals involved in religious organizations may want to carefully assess whether employment claims implicate protected religious autonomy and ensure compliance with statutory requirements when appealing California Labor Commissioner decisions.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Voluntary equality action plans will be introduced in the UK in April 2026.
• Mandatory publication is expected from spring 2027, subject to secondary legislation.
• Equality plans will need to address both the gender pay gap and menopause support.
• The guidance emphasises practical, evidence-based action.
• Employers may want to use the voluntary period to prepare ahead of the mandatory requirements.

From April 2026, employers with 250 or more employees will be able to publish a voluntary action plan alongside their existing gender pay gap reporting obligations. From spring 2027, this requirement is expected to become mandatory.

The significance of the new guidance lies in its clear shift from reporting to action. Employers will be expected not only to disclose their gender pay gap, but also to explain what they are doing to address it.

Under the guidance, action plans are intended to support workplace gender equality by improving equality of opportunity between male and female employees. They are also expected to set out what steps an organisation is taking to support employees experiencing menopause.

Employers will need to commit to one action on the gender pay gap and at least one on menopause support. At the same time, the guidance encourages organisations to go further where appropriate. The emphasis is on practical, evidence-based measures rather than broad commitments that are difficult to assess in practice.

For gender pay gap action, that means going beyond headline numbers and examining the factors that may be driving pay disparities within the organisation. Depending on the workforce, that may include issues such as unpaid care responsibilities, full-time work history, working patterns, or the concentration of men and women in different sectors, roles, or levels.

The menopause aspect is also notable. Employers may want to consider what meaningful support looks like in practice and whether that support is accessible to employees with different needs, experiences, and backgrounds.

The guidance also encourages employers to consider how sex may interact with other characteristics, including ethnicity, disability, and socioeconomic background. That points to a more nuanced approach to equality planning and may require closer analysis of workforce data.

Developing and implementing an action plan will require support across the organisation. Senior leaders will need to back the chosen actions and support the resources needed for implementation. Managers are likely to play a central role in implementation, while employee input may be important in understanding lived experience and identifying measures that are likely to have a meaningful impact.

For employers preparing now, a sensible starting point may be to:

• review workforce data to understand what is contributing to the pay gap;
• identify targeted actions linked to those findings;
• involve senior leaders, managers, and employee groups early in the process; and
• think ahead about how outcomes will be tracked and reviewed.

The voluntary phase from April 2026 should be seen as an opportunity to test the approach, governance, and communication before action plans become mandatory in 2027.

The overall direction is clear: reporting alone will no longer be enough. Employers will increasingly be expected to show, in concrete terms, what action they are taking and how that action is intended to make a difference.

For many organisations, now is the right time to start building that foundation.

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, United Kingdom, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Many countries outside the United States restrict the type and scope of employment background checks that employers may conduct.
• Internationally, criminal background checks face the most restrictions, while the permissibility of drug testing varies widely, and education and employment verification are more common.
• Employment references may require careful interpretation as ostensibly positive terms could actually signal poor performance due to cultural differences and local legal requirements.  

Below, we review some of the complexities of conducting background checks from an international employment law perspective.

Criminal background checks

Very few jurisdictions permit criminal checks in the manner they are conducted in the United States. The United Kingdom and Australia have comparable systems, but their usage is more restricted. In many European countries and other jurisdictions, employers may request a certificate of good standing or clearance from the local police precinct. However, these certificates are often limited in scope—typically confirming only whether the individual has a criminal record in that specific precinct and excluding “spent” convictions (typically those that are more than five or ten years old). Employers are neither permitted to ask about nor be informed of spent convictions, adding another layer of complexity to criminal background checks.

Drug testing

Drug testing is another area with significant jurisdictional variation. While generally impermissible in Europe, some countries in the Middle East and Asia allow drug testing with consent. However, a positive test result in these regions may require reporting to local authorities, which can deter employers from conducting drug tests even though it is lawful.

Education verification

One consistent aspect of background checks across all jurisdictions is the verification of education. Employers may request education certificates or professional licenses, making this one of the easiest-to-obtain and universally permissible components of a background check.

Employment references

When it comes to verifying prior employment, most countries allow employers to request a reference or a certificate of employment. In a number of jurisdictions, former employers must provide details about the individual’s performance—not simply dates of employment and last position held. To properly interpret such references, however, it may be necessary for employers to understand the customs and practices of each local market. In some countries, terms like “satisfactory” or “good” may actually indicate poor performance, despite the seemingly positive wording.

Conclusion: A Complex but Navigable Process

Implementing a global background check policy requires careful consideration of the various legal and cultural nuances across different jurisdictions. Employers may want to familiarize themselves with the complexities and requirements to ensure compliance and make informed hiring decisions.

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

Shirin Aboujawde is a shareholder in the New York office of Ogletree Deakins, and a partner in the firm’s London office.

Patty Shapiro is a shareholder in the San Diego office of Ogletree Deakins.

Peg Ventricelli, a practice assistant in the Stamford office of Ogletree Deakins, contributed to this article.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The Trump administration released an AI policy framework, largely reiterating the administration’s previously stated policy goals to promote AI.
• In particular, the framework urges Congress to establish preemption of state and local regulations to promote innovation.
• The likelihood of these policy goals being fully implemented is uncertain at this time.

The “National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” provides broad, overarching legislative recommendations for Congress for governing the development and deployment of AI technology. The framework is the latest effort by the Trump administration to set policy around AI and largely reiterates the administration’s stated policy goals as expressed through a series of executive orders (EOs) issued since the president took office in January 2025. However, it is unclear whether there is sufficient support in Congress for such a framework, and implementation appears unlikely at this time.

This framework further signals the current U.S. position in the global debate as to whether AI regulations prioritize encouraging innovation or protecting individual rights and freedoms. The EU AI Act, for example, focuses on the latter.

Proposed AI Framework

The new framework is organized around “Seven Pillars” that emphasize protecting children, communities, creators, and free speech; maintaining U.S. innovation; and promoting workforce development and AI-ready education. Of note for employers, the framework reiterates the administration’s push for federal preemption of state and local laws on AI and urges Congress to establish preemption, reflecting an acknowledgment that setting such policy may require congressional action.

Specifically, the framework urges Congress to “ensure that State laws do not govern areas better suited to the Federal Government or act contrary to the United States’ national strategy to achieve global AI dominance.” The framework indicates that states should not be permitted to regulate AI development, characterizing it as “an inherently interstate phenomenon with key foreign policy and national security implications.” Further, it asserts that states should not unduly burden the lawful use of AI or penalize AI developers for a third party’s unlawful conduct involving their models.

At the same time, the framework recommends against the formation of any new federal agency, calling on Congress to refrain from creating “any new federal rulemaking body to regulate AI.” Instead, the framework calls on Congress to “support development and deployment of sector-specific AI applications through existing regulatory bodies with subject matter expertise and through industry-led standards” and “provide AI resources to small businesses, such as grants, tax incentives, and technical assistance programs, to support wider deployment of AI tools across American industry.”

Key Takeaways

The White House’s new framework is the latest expression of the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to address AI. If implemented, the framework could have significant implications for employers navigating the current landscape of state and local AI regulations. Several states and municipalities—including California, Colorado, Illinois, Texas, and New York City—have already enacted laws or regulations that directly affect how employers use AI in hiring, promotion, and other employment decisions. At the same time, federal preemption of AI laws and regulations could raise questions about employers’ duties to protect against unlawful discrimination under long-standing state and federal antidiscrimination laws. For multinational employers, it could also create cross-border compliance tension, as many countries are restricting the use of AI in employment.

That said, it appears unlikely that Congress will act on this policy framework, at least in the short term. To date, the mandates in the Trump administration’s EOs have not been implemented, particularly with respect to identifying “onerous” state laws.

Ogletree Deakins’ Cybersecurity and Privacy Practice Group and Technology Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Cybersecurity and Privacy, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Employment Law, Governmental Affairs, and Technology 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

Mullin It Over. This week, the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs advanced the nomination of Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) to serve as the next secretary of homeland security. The committee’s 8–7 vote in favor of the nomination broke mostly along party lines, though Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) voted against Mullin’s nomination, while Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) voted for it. Accordingly, the next procedural step will be a confirmation vote on the Senate floor. President Donald Trump nominated Mullin on March 5, 2026, to replace outgoing Secretary Kristi Noem, who is scheduled to step down as homeland security secretary on March 31, 2026.

DOL Joint-Employer Proposal on the Move. On March 16, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) a proposed rule titled, “Joint Employer Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act FLSA, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.” At this stage of the rulemaking process, the proposal is not publicly available, but according to the abstract on OIRA’s website, the proposal “would guide WHD’s enforcement of [Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)] joint employer liability, and help promote greater uniformity among court decisions nationwide.” During the final year of President Trump’s first administration, the DOL issued a regulation for determining joint-employer status under the FLSA, the major portions of which (i.e., the regulation) were vacated by a federal district court. The Biden administration subsequently rescinded the rule in July 2021.

Employer Groups Seek NLRB’s Return to Employee-Focused Representation Process. After the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision striking down a 2023 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision that had upended the standard for union representation, on March 12, 2026, thirteen employer associations filed a petition for rulemaking, asking the Board to abrogate the same case. According to the petition, the Board’s 2023 case should be rescinded because it established a representation process that “operates to completely nullify employees’ choice as expressed in a Board-supervised secret-ballot election and does so with no clearly articulated or rational standard for doing so.” The rulemaking petition further requests that the Board promulgate a rule to restore the Board’s long-standing representation process, consistent with Supreme Court of the United States precedent, that emphasizes a preference for secret-ballot elections as the most reliable indicator of employee choice.

The lack of an affirmative third vote on the Board continues to prevent it from reversing Biden-era adjudications, but the Board’s rulemaking powers are not similarly constrained. Thus, rulemakings provide a potential avenue for the Board to rebalance the labor-management policy landscape even with only two affirmative votes.

House Committee Advances Bill to Curb Frivolous ERISA Suits. This week, the House Committee on Education and Workforce approved the “ERISA Litigation Reform Act” (H.R. 6084).The bill responds to the proliferation of meritless and costly prohibited-transaction class action lawsuits filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Plaintiffs’ counsel often engineer these purpose-built lawsuits to extract large settlements from defendants (e.g., an employer ERISA-plan sponsor, a plan service provider, etc.), while class members sometimes receive minimal recoveries. Specifically, the bill responds to a 2025 Supreme Court decision by amending ERISA to require plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss to prove that the alleged prohibited transaction they are challenging is not exempt under the statute. The legislation would also automatically pause discovery while the court considers the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Bill Would Exempt Healthcare Workers From $100,000 Visa Fee. This week, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers introduced the “H–1Bs for Physicians and the Healthcare Workforce Act,” a bill to exempt any individual “who is employed (or has received an offer of employment) in the health care workforce” (as defined in the Affordable Care Act) from President Trump’s proclamation issued on September 19, 2025, “Restriction On Entry Of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers.” The bill would also prohibit any new H-1B-related fees that are not authorized by Congress from being levied against healthcare workers. Proponents of the legislation argue that the $100,000 H-1B fee will negatively affect the delivery of healthcare services, as the industry is already experiencing significant workforce shortages.

PBGC Relaunches Opinion Letters. This week, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) relaunched its opinion letter program. According to the accompanying announcement, “[t]hese opinion letters will provide the Corporation’s views on the meaning of the provisions of Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and their application to individual fact patterns.” The relaunch of the program is consistent with other DOL agencies’ renewed focus on opinion letters.

Friends of Ireland. On March 17, 2026—St. Patrick’s Day—President Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson hosted Taoiseach of Ireland, Micheál Martin, for the annual Friends of Ireland Luncheon in the U.S. Capitol. The annual tradition dates to 1983, when it was started by President Ronald Reagan and Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr. (Since 1987, the event has included the Taoiseach of Ireland.) The Friends of Ireland Luncheon celebrates the long-standing friendship between the United States and Ireland. Indeed, no other foreign country claims as many native sons and daughters—122—who have served in the U.S. Congress. (England is second, but not even close, with 58 members.) This includes current U.S. Representative Sean Casten (D-IL), who was born in Dublin, as well as County Wicklow, Ireland–born Matthew Lyon (1749–1822), later of Vermont and Kentucky, the only member of Congress to win an election while in jail. Several Founding Fathers—Matthew Thornton of New Hampshire, James Smith of Pennsylvania, and George Taylor of Pennsylvania—were born in Ireland and signed the Declaration of Independence. Similarly, Irish-born signatories to the U.S. Constitution included Pierce Butler of South Carolina, James McHenry of Maryland, and Thomas Fitzsimons of Pennsylvania.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• General contractors must conduct inspections across the entire jobsite—including hard-to-access areas and spaces where only subcontractors are working.
• An employer’s unawareness of a hazard does not insulate it from liability for failing to identify, evaluate, and correct that hazard.
• Employers may want to investigate the safety records of all subcontractors, not just those with whom they have direct contracts.

Facts

KPRS Construction Services, Inc., of Brea, California, is a general contractor for commercial construction projections. As a general contractor for large projects, it routinely engages multiple subcontractors, who then engage subcontractors themselves.

In July 2018, KPRS was building a 500,000 square foot refrigerated warehouse with an adjacent 25,000 square foot mechanical building. KPRS contracted with A.G. Construction to complete the concrete work, Angle Iron Works to complete structural iron work, and C & L Refrigeration to complete HVAC work.

At some point, and unknown to KPRS, Angle Iron Works further subcontracted with G.B. Metal Fabricators to cut openings on the roof of the mechanical building.

The structural plans called for no openings greater than six inches to be cut in the metal roof of the mechanical building until the cement roof had been poured and cured.

On July 26, 2026, A.G. Construction crews began loading a metal roof deck onto the structural steel of the mechanical building, which necessitated employees of KPRS’s subcontractors to work on the roof. The Appeals Board later noted that this was the trigger for KPRS’s obligation to inspect the roof.

On July 27, 2018, G.B. Metal, a subcontractor two levels below KPRS, cut a two-by-three-foot opening in the building’s metal roof deck and covered it with plywood. At some unknown point before the injury, the cover moved off the opening.

KPRS did not inspect or monitor the crews working on the approximately 25,000 square foot mechanical building roof at any time during the eleven days that its subcontractors’ employees were on the roof.

On August 7, 2018, Jorge Antonio Chavez Soto, an employee of A.G. Construction, was working on the roof clearing debris when he either picked up the unmarked plywood cover or stepped onto it. He fell approximately twenty-seven feet to the cement floor below, suffering serious injuries.

Following an investigation, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) issued two Serious Accident-Related citations to KPRS under the multi-employer theory of liability as the controlling and correcting employer. The citations alleged violations of Title 8, section 1509(a) (failure to implement an effective Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP)) and section 1632(b)(1) (failure to guard floor/roof openings), with proposed penalties of $22,500 for each citation.

Vindication at Trial

On January 12, 2024, the administrative law judge (ALJ) vacated Citation 1 because Cal/OSHA could not prove that it ever requested or reviewed KPRS’s IIPP that it alleged KPRS failed to effectively implement. The ALJ took a linear approach to this citation, holding that the substance of an employer’s IIPP is a necessary element to be able to find that an employer failed to effectively implement the same IIPP.

The ALJ vacated Citation 2 because KPRS met its burden to prove the “due diligence” affirmative defense available to controlling employers on multi-employer worksites.

Heartbreak on Appeal

On March 12, 2026, the Appeals Board disagreed with the ALJ’s analysis and reversed on all key issues.

Citation—Failure to Implement IIPP

The Appeals Board held that Cal/OSHA is not required to evaluate the substance of an employer’s actual IIPP before issuing a citation for a failure to effectively implement its IIPP. Essentially, an employer’s failure to inspect and identify a hazard is sufficient to find that the IIPP, no matter how perfectly drafted, was not effectively implemented.

Interestingly, KPRS, rather than Cal/OSHA, moved its IIPP into evidence. KPRS then presented a novel argument that it should be relieved of liability because the Cal/OSHA failed to comply with Labor Code section 6314.5, which KPRS argued created a requirement for the Cal/OSHA to evaluate employers’ IIPPs when they open inspections. The Appeals Board held that Labor Code section 6314.5 does not create an affirmative defense for employers when Cal/OSHA fails to comply.

The Board rejected KPRS’s argument that it had no obligation to inspect the mechanical building roof because access was limited and the structural plans did not call for openings to be cut until the concrete was poured and cured.

Instead, the Board held that as soon as employees were on the roof, KPRS was obligated to inspect that area of the worksite. Moreover, KPRS’s own IIPP (again, admitted at trial by the employer) required “daily safety inspections of the work area.”

The Board seemed to perceive KPRS’s decision not to inspect the roof as one of deliberate ignorance, reasoning that permitting the lack of knowledge defense here “would incentivize employers to conduct inadequate inspections.”

Citation 2—Failure to Guard Floor/Roof Openings

The Appeals Board also reversed the ALJ’s finding that KPRS satisfied the due diligence defense. Applying the five-factor test from McCarthy Building Companies with no deference to the ALJ’s determinations, the Board found that KPRS failed to establish three of the five factors. The Appeals Board helpfully laid out the factors below:

• whether the controlling employer conducted periodic inspections of appropriate frequency;
• whether the controlling employer implemented an effective system for promptly correcting hazards;
• whether the controlling employer enforced the other employer’s compliance with safety and health requirements with an effective, graduated system of enforcement and follow-up inspections;
• whether the controlling employer researched the safety history of the subcontractor; and
• whether the hazard was latent and unforeseeable.

The Board found that KPRS did not meet factors (a), (d), and (e).

With regard to factor (a), KPRS did not conduct periodic inspections of appropriate frequency because it failed to inspect the mechanical building roof, for at least eleven days, while multiple crews were working there. It is possible that the Appeals Board would have come to a different conclusion on this factor if KPRS conducted a physical inspection of the roof at some point while its subcontractors’ employees were working on the roof before the opening was cut, even though it still may not have identified the hazard.

With regard to factor (d), the Board found that KPRS did not adequately research the safety history of its subcontractors. KPRS was the general contractor and only vetted direct subcontractors. It did not investigate the subcontractors below its direct subcontractors, what it called “sub-tier” contractors like G.B. Metal. Additionally, this was the first job for which KPRS contracted with Angle Iron and accordingly they did not have a basis for trusting Angle Iron’s safety practices. KPRS’s decision not to inspect the roof before the accident “reflect[ed] an “unearned confidence in Angle Iron.”

Finally, with regard to factor (e), the Board found that the hazard was not latent and unforeseeable because employees were working on the roof for eleven days and the unsecured opening existed for ten of those days. Again, it is not clear if the Board would have come to a different conclusion had KPRS conducted an inspection on the first day the employees were on the roof.

The Board affirmed both citations and assessed total penalties of $45,000.

Key Takeaways for Construction Employers

This decision underscores several important lessons for general contractors and controlling employers in California:

1. Inspections must cover everywhere employees are working. Employers cannot carve out exceptions for areas that are difficult to access or where only subcontractors are working. If employees of any contractor or subcontractor are working in an area, the general contractor’s IIPP obligations extend there. Reliance on plans and project scheduling alone is insufficient.

2. Due diligence is required to establish a valid “lack of knowledge” defense. An employer’s unawareness of a hazard does not insulate it from liability for failing to identify, evaluate, and correct that hazard.

3. All subcontractors, even those with whom a subcontractor contracts, are the general contractor’s responsibility. Employers may want to consider vetting the safety records of all contractors who will be working on a jobsite, not just those with whom they have direct contracts.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts