Quick Hits

• On November 20, 2024, OFCCP published a CSAL that identified 2,000 establishments of federal supply and service contractors and subcontractors for compliance reviews.
• The CSAL operates as a “courtesy notification” to a contractor that an OFCCP compliance review will be undertaken; the compliance review process begins when the company establishment receives a scheduling letter from OFCCP.
• OFCCP published the methodology it used for developing the November 2024 CSAL, continuing to focus on establishments with large employee counts and coordinating multiple reviews of larger contractors.

In its scheduling methodology statement, OFCCP notes that the eligible contractor list was created from information housed at USAspending.gov. The CSAL methodology also reveals that OFCCP removed a number of categories, then refined the pool to those contractor establishments with the highest employee count in each OFCCP district office’s jurisdiction. To identify employee headcounts, OFCCP pulled data from 2022 EEO-1 reports. Notably absent again from the methodology document was any reference to the use of data from OFCCP’s own contractor portal.

For each parent company in the United States with at least one contract of $50,000 or more, OFCCP identified establishments with at least 400 employees, but the methodology notes an establishment is still appropriate for review even if the employee threshold drops below 400 at the time OFCCP schedules an audit. The cap has increased from a maximum of two per parent company to ten per parent company. As with prior CSALs, OFCCP may transfer or consolidate compliance evaluations of different establishments to different districts or regions to balance workloads.

OFCCP’s scheduling methodology statement reminds contractors that “OFCCP does not purge unscheduled cases from prior lists before releasing a new scheduling list.” This means any evaluations not yet initiated from a prior list—such as the list of 500 establishments identified in June 2024—remain in OFCCP’s upcoming compliance evaluation queue. The CSAL does not start the compliance review process, but it gives the contractor notice and time to prepare for the upcoming compliance evaluation.

Next Steps

It is anticipated that OFCCP may start scheduling audits immediately. Federal contractors subject to OFCCP’s jurisdiction may want to take quick action to ensure they are prepared in the event they are on the fiscal year 2025 CSAL.

Ogletree Deakins’ OFCCP Compliance, Government Contracting, and Reporting Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and provide updates on the Government Contractors and OFCCP Compliance, Government Contracting, and Reporting blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe

LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• California voters turned down a measure to increase the minimum wage to $18.00 per hour for all employees across the state by January 1, 2026.
• The rejection comes after the state raised the minimum wage for fast-food workers to $20.00 per hour in April 2024.

California’s Proposition 32 would have immediately raised the state minimum wage for employees with twenty-six or more employees to $17.00 per hour immediately and to $18.00 per hour on January 1, 2025. Proposition 32 also would have increased the minimum wage for employers with twenty-five or fewer employees to $17.00 per hour on January 1, 2025, and to $18.00 per hour on January 1, 2026.

The ballot measure was defeated with only 49.2 percent voting “yes” for the ballot measure, according to the state’s unofficial election results as of November 20, 2024. While the vote will not be certified until December 2024, major media has called the election.

Statewide votes on minimum wage increases are generally successful, but opponents of Proposition 32 warned that the increases could lead to higher prices for everyday products, higher costs for small businesses, and job cuts.

The rejection of Proposition 32 also comes after the California Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act (FAST Recovery Act) set a new $20-per-hour minimum wage for workers in most fast-food restaurants in April 2024.

Under the current minimum wage law, the California minimum wage for non-fast-food workers is $16.00 per hour and will increase to $16.50 per hour on January 1, 2025.

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the California, Hospitality, and Wage and Hour blogs.

Follow and Subscribe

LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The New Jersey governor signed legislation that will require employers to provide the “hourly wage or salary, or a range of the hourly wage or salary” in postings for new jobs or transfer opportunities.
• The law will also require employers to make “reasonable efforts” to advertise promotion opportunities to all current employees “in the affected department or departments of the employer’s business.”
• The law is set to take effect on June 1, 2025.

The signing of Senate Bill 2310 (S2310) comes nearly two months after the legislation was passed by the New Jersey Assembly on September 26, 2024. The legislation unanimously passed the state Senate (40-0) in June 2024.

S2310 adds New Jersey to the growing list of states and jurisdictions with pay transparency laws. According to the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal, thirteen other states, in addition to the District of Columbia, have enacted a statewide pay transparency law, including four states—Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Vermont—that have laws that will go into effect in 2025.

Pay Transparency Requirements

S2310 will require employers to include the “hourly wage or salary, or a range of the hourly wage or salary” in each “posting for new jobs and transfer opportunities that are advertised by the employer either externally or internally.”

Further, regarding promotion opportunities, S2310 will require employers to make “reasonable efforts” to “announce, post, or otherwise make known” any promotion opportunity advertised either internally within the employer or externally “to all current employees in the affected department or departments of the employer’s business.” The term “promotion” is defined as a “change in job title and an increase in compensation.”

Notably, the law also applies to temporary help service firms and consulting firms, requiring them to provide temp workers the same “pay and benefit information” as required by other types of employers for the specific job opening.

Next Steps

Businesses with employees in New Jersey may want to review their job postings and listings for internal promotions to ensure compliance with the upcoming pay transparency obligations. Noncompliance with the new requirements may lead to civil penalties of $300 for a first violation and $600 for subsequent violations.

More information on S2310 is available here.

Ogletree Deakins’ Morristown office will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the New Jersey and Pay Equity blogs.

Follow and Subscribe

LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Value of closeout conferences: Close-out conferences provide valuable insights into the basis for the violations and gravity cited, which are crucial for preparation and decision-making regarding future actions.
• Preparation and participation: Management may want to discuss observed conditions and issued citations, before and during the conference, and focus on listening, asking questions, and providing accurate facts to challenge allegations without antagonizing the inspector.
• Effective strategy: Focusing on well-supported facts and presenting strong arguments, rather than aggressively confronting inspectors, can achieve better outcomes in informal conferences and future litigation.

One is to skip the closeout conference and tell the inspector they are taking the citations to court. The other is to give the inspector a piece of their mind at the inspection close-out conference.

In many cases, they are frustrated by a sharp increase in the number of citations or a ratcheting up in gravity that they have not seen before. This frustration is often escalated by their understanding of the negative impact that this kind of violation and gravity spike can have on the operation’s violation history and on future civil penalties.

This reaction is understandable, but it is moments like this when it may make sense to step back and develop a strategy for the closeout conference—and beyond.

The Conference’s Value

No matter how hard the feelings are from a difficult inspection, the closeout conference offers the opportunity for supervisors and managers to learn more about the basis for the allegations of violation and gravity that have been cited.

MSHA’s “Citation and Order Writing Handbook” states the following: “At the conclusion of any enforcement-related inspection or investigation, inspectors shall discuss the general findings and each violation issued with the mine operator and, if applicable, with contractors and / or miners’ representatives. Also, during this conference, inspectors will inform and discuss [if] citations or orders will be evaluated as possibly flagrant and / or any that will be recommended for possible special assessment.”

Generally, there is information to be had in these meetings that can be critical in the preparation for an informal conference or the decision-making regarding whether to initiate a contest.

These meetings can also allow operations personnel to get a feel for the focus and tone of the inspection. It also affords an opportunity to ask questions that may not have been addressed.

Of course, the effectiveness of this information is only as good as the inspector’s willingness to share observations and rationale regarding inspection findings—and that willingness is not always on display.

Some inspectors bristle at being asked questions. They see it as a challenge, and they refuse to respond. Nonetheless, it is worthwhile to make the effort.

An Effective Strategy

While it is generally a good idea to participate in a closeout conference, there are some caveats.

First, an effective closeout begins with preparation. Try not to walk into the closeout cold. The company’s management team may want to gather beforehand and discuss the conditions that were observed and the citations that have been issued or are anticipated.

Second, that discussion should dictate the level of participation in the closeout. For instance, if the inspector has alleged high negligence or even aggravated conduct on the part of the company, it may be better to listen to the inspector, ask questions, and take notes to enable the management team to check the facts and hone their position for an informal conference.

Third, to the extent that the management team wants to weigh in on the allegations, challenging the facts or gravity, or providing mitigating facts that undermine the alleged negligence or gravity, the team may want to make sure their facts are straight before going into the conference, because the inspector is writing down what they say.

The enforcement action can certainly get worse if the operator’s facts are not accurate, or if a statement is made that is perceived by the inspector to support higher gravity.

Finally, telling the inspector that they don’t know what they are doing, don’t understand the regulations, or that they have bad motives—may feel good in the moment. This, however, almost never moves the ball forward in a positive way.

In some situations, it can make future informal conferences and litigation more difficult because MSHA’s perception that the conduct at the closeout was an effort at intimidation. The better strategy is to focus on the citations, challenging them with good facts and strong arguments regarding the proper interpretation of the standards.

That effort always starts with an effective closeout.

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

A version of this article was previously published in Pit & Quarry magazine.

Follow and Subscribe

LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Generally, MSHA inspectors and investigators will not instruct mine companies or managers on their rights, operators must get that information elsewhere.
• Managers and supervisors who work at mines are miners, and have the same miners’ rights that hourly miners have.
• Because managers and supervisors are also deemed mine operator agents, their actions can be imputed to the employer.

Mine operators and managers have rights, too, and it is essential they know what they are before the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) arrives.

Generally, MSHA inspectors and investigators will not instruct mine companies or managers on their rights. Operators must get that information elsewhere, and it is usually company counsel or consultants who provide that insight.

Here is a summary of what companies and their managers will want to know.

What to Know

First, managers and supervisors who work at mines are miners. They have the same miners’ rights that hourly miners have. This includes the right to make an anonymous hazard complaint to MSHA, the right to provide information confidentially to an MSHA inspector, and the right to not be retaliated against for any protected safety activity.

Managers and supervisors are also agents of the mine operator. An agent is defined in the Mine Act as any person who operates part or all of a mine or who supervises miners.

An agent’s actions can be imputed to the employer, meaning if an agent acts negligently or with intentional reckless disregard for safety, it is as if the company did that. MSHA may issue an unwarrantable failure citation with heightened negligence findings and penalties against the company where an agent was responsible in some negative way for the existence of a violation.

MSHA can also prosecute agents as individuals. This is usually associated with an unwarrantable failure citation where MSHA believes the agent knew or should have known there was a hazard and did not do the right thing to protect themselves or other miners.

In these circumstances, MSHA will propose a civil penalty that the agent is to pay to the government. In extreme situations, an agent may be criminally prosecuted.

Because of the potential risk of legal action against them in their role as agents, supervisors and managers may want to refresh their knowledge of their rights in dealing with MSHA. Whenever an inspector requests an interview or even asks what may seem like a simple question, an agent, just like any miner, has a right to decline to answer. Even if agents agree to answer a question, they can always decide after hearing it that they do not want to answer. Speaking with MSHA is purely voluntary.

Agents who are willing to speak with MSHA also have the right to have anyone they want with them during the questioning. This can include an agent’s manager, an agent’s lawyer, or a company lawyer. It could be a coworker or anyone else the agent chooses.

If MSHA asks the agent to sign a statement, the agent has the right to decline to do so. If the inspector asks the agent to listen to the inspector read back notes of an interview and acknowledge that they are accurate, the agent can also say that he or she will not agree to do that. The agent can also decline to consent to be recorded by MSHA while responding to any questions.

This is not meant to suggest that an agent should always refuse MSHA’s requests. Sometimes—and maybe even oftentimes—it is in the agent’s and the company’s best interest to cooperate with MSHA.

Every situation is different, though. Sometimes, it may be best to simply pause and seek advice before deciding what to do.

Mine operators have rights, as well. For example, operators have the right to have a company representative accompany an inspector during an inspection. This extends to accident scene examinations by MSHA.

While MSHA will typically control access to the scene by issuance of a Section 103(k) order, the mine operator does have a legal requirement under 30 C.F.R. Part 50 to investigate the accident—and that includes examination of the physical evidence. Being present while MSHA examines the scene is an important part of the company’s investigation, as well.

MSHA will also usually permit company officials to observe agency interviews during an accident investigation. This is an important part of the company’s investigation.

Finally, mine operators have the right to seek judicial review of MSHA’s citations and orders. Occasionally, an operator may be under the impression that that right is limited if they seek MSHA review of the citations in an informal conference with the district office. Communications from inspectors and the districts often contribute to that confusion.

Operators always retain the right, however, to obtain independent judicial review through the contest process, even if these or other citations from an inspection have been submitted for review in an agency conference.

A version of this article was previously published in Pit & Quarry magazine.

Follow and Subscribe

LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The Massachusetts Department of Family and Medical Leave has issued its 2025 poster, individual notices, and rate sheets.
• While the maximum weekly benefit amount and the state average weekly wage will increase slightly going into 2025, there will be no change to the minimum earnings threshold. So, just as in 2024, a worker may be eligible for Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) benefits if the worker has earned at least thirty times the expected benefit and at least $6,300 (adjusted annually) in the last four completed quarters preceding the application for benefits.
• Employers may want to review more recent changes in PFML administration to ensure they remain compliant and avoid the possibility of fines or other penalties.

The 2025 Workplace Poster

All Massachusetts employers must display a DFML-prepared or DFML-approved workplace poster explaining the benefits available under the PFML program. This poster must be displayed at the employer’s workplace in a location where it can be easily read (for example, near other mandatory workplace posters, such as wage-and-hour and workplace-safety notices). The poster must be in English and in each language that is the primary language of five or more individuals in the workforce, if translations are available from DFML. The 2025 DFML template workplace poster can be found at the department’s website.

2025 Notices for Individuals

The DFML has also issued notices for individual workers. Employers may want to assess whether they are issuing the correct notice based on the relevant number of covered workers:

• Employers with workforces with twenty-five or more covered individuals
• Employers with workforces with fewer than twenty-five covered individuals
• Self-employed individuals from employers with twenty-five or more covered individuals
• Self-employed individuals from employers with fewer than twenty-five covered individuals

New workers must be issued these notices within thirty days of hire. Like the poster explaining the benefits available under the PFML program, the notice must be available in English and each language that is the primary language of five or more individuals in the employer’s workforce. The DFML provides versions in English and many other languages on its website.

2025 Rate Sheet Notices

The DFML’s 2025 rate sheets are now available. There are two versions:

• 2025 rate sheet for employers with twenty-five or more covered individuals
• 2025 rate sheet for employers with fewer than twenty-five covered individuals

The DFML’s website advises that for current workers and self-employed individuals who have previously signed their individual notices, employers must provide information on the new rates thirty days in advance of the rate change effective date of January 1, 2025, which is roughly December 1, 2024. Electronic issuance of the notice is allowed.

Benefit Adjustments

There are several monetary adjustments, effective January 1, 2025, to be aware of:

• The maximum weekly benefit amount that a worker can receive in PFML benefits per week will be $1,170.64. This is roughly a $21 increase from 2024.
• The state average weekly wage will increase slightly, by roughly $32, to $1,829.13.
• There is no change to the contribution rates for employers and employees.

FY 2024 Annual Report

The Massachusetts PFML statute requires the DFML to issue annual reports containing information about applicants. The most recent annual report contains interesting statistical information regarding applicants for PFML benefits in FY 2024 (i.e., from July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024). The DFML’s FY2024 Annual Report for the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Program can be found on the department’s website.

Staying Informed

The DFML website includes links to the DFML’s regulations, notices, and other guidance. The DFML also issues a newsletter to which readers may subscribe.

Ogletree Deakins’ Boston office and Leaves of Absence/Reasonable Accommodation Practice Group will continue to monitor developments with respect to the PFML program and will provide updates on the Leaves of Absence and Massachusetts blogs as additional information becomes available.

In addition, the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal provides subscribers with timely updates on Massachusetts paid sick leave requirements. Premium-level subscribers have access to updated policy templates for Massachusetts. Snapshots and Updates are complimentary for all registered client users. 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

• Mine operators often face frustration with MSHA citations alleging insufficient illumination in work areas, as the standards can seem subjective.
• A recent court case reaffirmed that MSHA inspections do not require light measurements to cite violations of illumination standards, focusing instead on the observed working conditions.
• The judge in the case sided with MSHA, emphasizing the importance of safe visibility for critical tasks, despite a contractor’s evidence of sufficient light based on later measurements.

In his situation, a loading area was illuminated by twelve overhead lights, and the loader had a bank of lights on top of the operator’s cab—in addition to manufacturer-provided lights. Two of the twelve overhead lights were out.

Based on these two inoperable lights and the inspector’s observation of the workplace, an S&S (significant and substantial) citation was issued alleging violation of the illumination standard at 30 C.F.R. §56.17001. That standard requires the following: “Illumination sufficient to provide safe working conditions shall be provided in and on all surface structures, paths, walkways, stairways, switch panels, loading and dumping sites, and work areas.”

The inspector did not utilize a light meter to make an objective evaluation of the illumination level. At conference, MSHA reiterated that a light meter was not required and that the inspector’s observations of the work area—and the work that was being performed—was sufficient to justify the citation. The district office modified the citation to non-S&S, and the company decided not to challenge the citation any further.

Recent FMSHRC Case

A recent Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission administrative law judge’s decision casts some light on MSHA’s illumination standard.

 In Saiia Construction Co., LLC, an inspector conducted an inspection of a contractor’s work area following a hazard complaint alleging insufficient illumination. MSHA issued a citation to the contractor alleging a violation of 30 C.F.R. §56.17001.

The focus of the case was the sufficiency of lighting conditions at the worksite at 4:30 a.m. The contractor argued that the lighting conditions were sufficient based on light measurements performed by an industrial hygienist in similar conditions several months after the inspection.

The industrial hygienist utilized a methodology that considered best practices for lighting ranges involving certain tasks identified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Illuminating Engineering Society, and a handbook.

Based on this analysis and the fact that all vehicles in the work area had operable lights, the contractor asserted that the work area had sufficient illumination. The contractor also pointed out that the inspector did not take light measurements.

The judge, however, disagreed. He explained that section 56.17001 does not require light measurements to be conducted to determine if lighting is sufficient.

He further pointed out that the review commission stated in the past that, in determining whether illumination is sufficient to provide safe working conditions, a judge is required “to make a factual determination based on the working conditions in the cited area and the nature of the illumination provided.”

The Judge’s Reasoning

In this regard, the judge noted that the industrial hygienist’s analysis concentrated on the light necessary to perform certain activities but did not see some of the critical tasks—like pushing and dumping material over a substantial drop. To this point, the judge credited an equipment operator who stated that he could not see the outline of the dumping area.

In finding a violation, the judge summarized his reasoning as follows: “This Court recognizes that [the] period of time at issue, which comprised darkness and early twilight, was relatively brief in duration. Nonetheless, it was of sufficient length so as to create a reasonable likelihood of the occurrence of the hazards testified to by the inspector. This Court credits [the equipment operator’s] testimony that it was too dark to see the edge of the dump site when the miners began to operate vehicles.”

Further, the judge noted it was appropriate to credit the opinions and judgment of the MSHA inspector. In this case, he noted that the inspector’s testimony was especially credible given the inspector’s experience.

This decision would probably not relieve the quarry manager’s frustration, but it does provide some parameters to consider if confronted by one of these citations.

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

A version of this article was previously published in Pit & Quarry magazine.

Follow and Subscribe

LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine, which had previously allowed courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
• The Court’s ruling emphasizes that federal courts must independently interpret statutes, reinforcing checks on executive power.
• This shift will impact agencies like MSHA, requiring courts to focus on statutory intent rather than deferring to agency regulations in cases involving complex legal interpretations.

In the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision, the Supreme Court overruled a forty-year-old precedent in the Chevron decision and reinforced the responsibility of federal courts to exercise their independent judgment in reviewing agency interpretations of their governing statutes.

Rather than simply deferring to and accepting as valid any “reasonable” interpretation that an agency may put forth, the Supreme Court is now directing federal courts to have the final say on what federal statutes mean. Taken to its full measure, this decision should strengthen the checks and balances on the executive branch that the judicial branch is meant to provide.

Further Details

When Congress enacts a law delegating certain powers to an agency, situations inevitably arise where the law is not easily understood or applied.

This is especially true where the legislation itself or its subject matter is especially complex, or where the U.S. Congress may have left gaps in the law for an agency to fill with regulations or policy interpretations. This can provide needed opportunities for agency expertise to add to the legal framework or flexibility for the law to adapt to changing circumstances.

Still, this can also lead to agency overreach and misinterpretation of the law, which can inflate agency powers and cause other consequences inconsistent with Congress’s intent.

In 1984, the Supreme Court issued its Chevron ruling, which laid the modern groundwork, until now, for judicial review of agency interpretations of statutes. Under what came to be known as the “two-step Chevron doctrine,” a court would first determine whether the statutory language at issue was unambiguous. If it was, then the court was to apply that plain and unambiguous meaning to the issue at hand in the case without regard to what the agency’s interpretation may be, and that was the end of the matter.

On the other hand, if the court found that the meaning of the statute was not clear or the statute was silent, then the court was to move to step two and defer to the agency’s reading of the statutory language if the agency’s reading was “reasonable.” The agency’s interpretation did not have to be the most reasonable reading, nor did it have to be the reading that the court thought was best. It just had to be a permissible reading.

As one may imagine, in any case where a statute was ambiguous, the strong tendency was for courts to defer to agency interpretations. This was particularly true where the agency could claim to have special expertise on the matter. This made it quite difficult for a party challenging an agency’s legal interpretation to win its case where the court was likely to find the statute to be less than crystal clear on its face, even where a private party had expertise equal to or greater than the agency’s.

The Chevron doctrine came to be widely criticized as leading courts to essentially hand the reins over to the executive branch to say what the law means, which is not at all what was intended under the federal Administrative Procedure Act and the separation of powers scheme of the U.S. Constitution. For some time, there had been signs that the Supreme Court may have been preparing to overrule Chevron. We have now crossed that threshold with Loper Bright.

Key Takeaways

So, what does this all mean for MSHA’s interpretations of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act?

As with most judicial seismic shifts in the law, that remains to be seen as the lower courts wrestle with how to review agency interpretations in the absence of Chevron. What is known is that the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission and federal courts should be more focused now on issuing opinions based on what they find is the reading of the law most consistent with Congress’s intent without deferring to what the agency is advocating.

In the MSHA context, operators can expect this to come up in a variety of cases, including those concerning the scope of MSHA’s jurisdiction, the meaning of “interfere” in Section 105(c) discrimination cases, the meaning of “significant and substantial”—and more.

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

A version of this article was previously published in Pit & Quarry magazine.

Follow and Subscribe

LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The Mexican government is eliminating the National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information and Protection of Personal Data (INAI).
• The access to public information and the protection of personal data will no longer be overseen by an autonomous institution but by an agency within the executive branch of the federal government.
• There are many uncertainties that the government has not addressed, including how a ministry of the executive branch can remain independent.

Many political critics and legal practitioners in Mexico see the elimination of the INAI as Mexico taking steps backward instead of forward in protecting the country’s democracy, given that the INAI guarantees compliance with two fundamental rights: access to public information and protection of personal data.

“Access to public information” guarantees that any individual has access to information held by federal authorities, autonomous bodies, political parties, trusts, public funds, and unions; or information about any individual or legal entity that receives and exercises public resources or performs acts of authority.

“Protection of personal data” guarantees the proper use of personal data, as well as the exercise and protection of every person’s access, rectification, cancellation, and opposition to use of personal data (ARCO) rights.

The main concerns about the elimination of the INAI are:

• The access to public information will be managed by the executive branch. It will not be independent nor impartial, per its budget, the terms of its members, who they will report to, and who might appoint them. Critics, legal practitioners, and the political opposition to the presidential party are concerned that the government will manipulate the information and hide contracts and activities that will increase how “independent” Mexico is perceived.
• It is unclear which government institution will protect and guarantee the protection of personal data. There is also no immediate certainty about the budget, process, resources, and authority to sanction any violation in connection with personal data and ARCO rights.
• The projects currently held by the INAI will most likely not be continued by the government, which raises concerns about measures for protecting personally identifiable data, including minors’ personal data, which change daily due to technological updates.

This November 2024, the Mexican Chamber of Representatives will vote on dissolving the INAI and several other autonomous institutions. This vote is likely to succeed, as the ruling government/party holds the majority in the chamber and is focused on “austerity” measures.

Ogletree Deakins’ Mexico City office will continue to monitor developments and provide updates on the dissolution of the INAI and the redistribution of staff among the Mexican government dependencies on the Cross-Border and Cybersecurity and Privacy blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe

LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The New York governor’s office is discussing with the state legislature a possible amendment to the New York Retail Worker Safety Act, and it is anticipated that the legislature will vote on potential amendments in January 2025.
• Anticipated amendments include reducing the frequency of workplace violence training for employers with fewer than fifty employees, issuing training templates in English and the twelve most common non-English languages in New York, and replacing the term “Panic Button” with “Retail Worker Requests for Assistance.”
• The act is effective March 3, 2025, but the proposed amendment would move the effective date to June 2, 2025.

The proposed amendment would modify the following provisions of the act:

• Covered employers with fewer than fifty retail employees would only need to provide workplace violence training to their retail employees upon hiring and then every two years thereafter (as opposed to annually under the current law).
• The model templates provided by New York State would be issued in English and now only the twelve most common non-English languages spoken in New York.
• The term “Panic Button” would no longer be used in the act and would be removed from the definitions. The “Panic Button” section would be entitled “Retail Worker Requests for Assistance.”
• The Retail Worker Requests for Assistance section would only apply to employers with 500 or more retail employees statewide (as opposed to nationwide under the current act).
• In place of panic buttons, employers required to comply with the Retail Worker Requests for Assistance section would have to provide retail employees with access to “silent response buttons” (SRBs). SRBs must request immediate assistance from a security officer, manager, or supervisor while the employee is working at the employee’s location. As with panic buttons, SRBs may be a device installed in an easily accessible location within the workplace or a wearable or mobile phone-based button.
• The compliance date for the majority of the provisions under the amended act would be moved from 180 days after it was signed into law to 270 days. The new effective date would therefore be June 2, 2025. The SRB requirement will still go into effect on January 1, 2027.

The majority of the changes under the proposed amendment would apply to the panic button requirements, the most controversial section within the act.

It is important to keep in mind that the act as signed on September 4, 2024, is still the current law. The proposed amendment is still under development and there may be some additional changes. The amendment would not be effective unless and until it is passed by the legislature when the next session begins in January 2025. Although the possible changes are still under discussion, employers may nevertheless want to consider getting into compliance before the current effective date of March 3, 2025.

As the 180-day compliance deadline approaches, Ogletree Deakins’ Workplace Violence Prevention Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the New York and Workplace Safety and Health blogs as additional information becomes available.

Additionally, the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal provides subscribers with timely updates on workplace violence prevention requirements, including those in New York. Premium-level subscribers have access to our New York Workplace Violence Prevention Plan Template Package, which includes a model policy, training, hazard assessment, notice, and more.

Follow and Subscribe

LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts