Quick Hits

• USCIS will continue to accept adjustment of status filings based on the Dates for Filing Chart in February 2026.
• All EB-3 categories advance, except India and China-mainland.
• EB-4 Certain Religious Workers (SR) is Unavailable (U) in February 2026 due to the program’s sunset on January 30, 2026.

Final Action Dates

The final action dates in the EB-3 category advance for all countries except for China-mainland and India in the February 2026 Visa Bulletin. Additionally, the EB-4 Certain Religious Workers subcategory is unavailable (U) for all countries in February 2026. No movement is shown for all other categories.

• EB-1: No movement is shown. The final action date for China-mainland and India remains February 1, 2023; all other countries continue to be current.
• EB-2: No movement is shown.
• EB-3: All countries advance except for China-mainland (which remains at May 1, 2021) and India (which remains at November 15, 2013). All other countries advance by just over one month to June 1, 2023.
• EB-4: No movement is shown.
• EB‑4 Certain Religious Workers: Unavailable (U).
• EB-5: No movement is shown.

Source: U.S. Department of State, February 2026 Visa Bulletin, Final Action Dates Chart

Dates for Filing

The dates for filing in the EB-3 category advance for all countries except for China-mainland and India in the February 2026 Visa Bulletin. Additionally, the EB-4 Certain Religious Workers subcategory is Unavailable (U) for all countries in February 2026. No movement is shown for all other categories.

• EB-1: No movement is shown. August 1, 2023, remains the date for filing for China-mainland and India. All other countries remain current. EB-2: No movement is shown.
• EB-3: All countries advance except for China-mainland and India. All other countries advance by three months to October 1, 2023.
• EB-4: No movement is shown.
• EB‑4 Certain Religious Workers: Unavailable (U).
• EB-5: No movement is shown.

Source: U.S. Department of State, February 2026 Visa Bulletin, Dates for Filing Chart

Key Takeaways

With advancement in the final action dates, more applicants will become eligible to complete the final step of the permanent residency process. Additionally, applicants who became eligible to file their Adjustment of Status (AOS) application from November 2025 through January 2026, as outlined in the Dates for Filing Chart, will have at least another month to submit their applications.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Muldrow’s lowered standard of harm for discrete discriminatory acts under Title VII does not apply to hostile work environment claims, according to the Tenth Circuit.
• A circuit split exists on this issue, with the Sixth Circuit reaching the opposite conclusion.
• Employers may face different standards for hostile work environment claims depending on jurisdiction.

Background

In Russell v. Driscoll, a civilian employee at a U.S. Army hospital alleged that his female supervisor treated the men in her division poorly compared with female employees. Following multiple complaints, the Army investigated and determined that the supervisor had, in fact, engaged in gender discrimination in violation of the Army’s equal-opportunity policy.

The employee filed internal complaints, followed by a lawsuit claiming that his supervisor had created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. The federal district court granted summary judgment for the Army, finding that the supervisor’s actions did not meet the standard for establishing an unlawful hostile work environment.

Legal Framework

Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex, encompassing two major categories: (1) discrete discriminatory acts arising from specific employment decisions (such as discharge or demotion) and (2) hostile work environment harassment claims based on a series of smaller actions that add up to create a negative work environment.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow resolved a circuit split over whether an employee “must meet a heightened threshold of harm—be it dubbed significant, serious, or something similar” to assert a viable Title VII discrimination claim based on a discrete employment action. The Court rejected the heightened standard, holding that an employee “need show only some injury respecting her employment terms or conditions.” (Emphasis added).

For hostile work environment claims, long-standing Supreme Court precedent requires an employee to show that “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” Courts have traditionally viewed this as setting a high bar for such claims.

The Court’s Opinion

The employee argued that Muldrow’s lessened standard should apply to hostile work environment claims in addition to discrete employment action claims. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, holding that the Supreme Court had not expressly overruled its standard for hostile work environment claims and that Muldrow’s analysis was not applicable to such claims. As the court explained, the severe or pervasive nature of the underlying conduct “is integral to determining whether any actionable Title VII injury occurred” and applying the Muldrow standard would wholly undermine the hostile work environment claim.

In arriving at this holding, the Tenth Circuit noted that the Sixth Circuit had reached a different result, though it was unclear whether Muldrow’s impact on hostile work environment claims was actually contested in that case. The Tenth Circuit strongly rejected the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, asserting that applying Muldrow would essentially “gut[] the very thing that distinguishes hostile-environment claims from discrete-act claims.”

The Tenth Circuit also noted that the Fourth and Fifth Circuits had issued unpublished decisions (which carry less weight as precedent) aligning with the Tenth Circuit’s approach, although, like the Sixth Circuit case, it was unclear whether the issue was actually contested in either case.

Takeaways for Employers

At least in the Tenth Circuit—and likely in the Fourth and Fifth Circuits—employers can take some reassurance that employees must still meet a high bar to establish a viable hostile work environment claim under Title VII. But as other courts consider the issue, the existing circuit split may deepen, and different standards could apply across jurisdictions—unless and until the Supreme Court provides a definitive answer.

Ogletree Deakins’ Employment Law Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Employment Law and State Developments blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• “Ley Silla”—the Chair Law—took effect in June 2025, with Labor Ministry inspections starting in December 2025.
• App‑based couriers have been recognized as employees since June 2025.
• SIQAL, the Labor Ministry portal for anonymously filing complaints and reporting workplace accidents, has been live since September 2025.
• The minimum wage increased 13 percent, effective January 1, 2026. The daily, monthly, and annual UMA‑indexed amounts will increase 3.69 percent over the 2025 UMA rates, effective February 1, 2026.
• The Labor Ministry’s inspections are expected to tighten up enforcement throughout 2026, through all kind of visits.

2025 Labor and Employment Roundup

Mexico saw several initiatives from late 2024 gain traction in 2025, translating into concrete obligations for employers across industries.

Chair Law. The Chair Law (“Ley Silla”) was published on December 19, 2024, and became enforceable in June 2025. The Chair Law requires employers to provide a sufficient number of seats with backrests for employees and to refrain from prohibiting seated breaks when the nature of the work allows it. While the obligations had been in place since June, labor authorities initiated formal inspections on this topic in December 2025.

App-based couriers as employees. Amendments to the Federal Labor Law recognizing app‑based couriers as employees were published on December 24, 2024, and took effect in June 2025. The reforms established a regulatory framework intended to protect couriers who provide services through digital platforms and to provide legal certainty to the sector. Employers and platforms operating in this space may want to review their contracting models, onboarding, social security registration, benefit accruals, and health and safety obligations to ensure they align with an employment relationship.

INFONAVIT Loans. On February 22, 2025, amendments to the National Housing Fund Institute for Workers Law (INFONAVIT) law were published. Although approved early in 2025, their practical relevance increased toward the end of the year due to criteria issued by INFONAVIT and the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación). Employers may want to validate payroll configurations, contributions, and employee communications to ensure proper handling of INFONAVIT rights, deductions, and any new procedural requirements.

SIQAL (whistleblowing tool): A New Way to Submit Complaints and Report Workplace Accidents in Mexico. Since September 2025, the SIQAL portal—run by the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social (STPS))—has provided a centralized, anonymous channel for filing labor complaints and reporting workplace accidents. This tool spans issues from general labor noncompliance to unsafe working conditions.

Preparing for 2026

With 2025 now closed, employers may want to prepare for new financial thresholds, potential legislative changes, and increased enforcement intensity in 2026.

Minimum Wage. On December 3, 2025, The National Commission on Minimum Wages (Comisión Nacional de los Salarios Mínimos (CONASAMI)) approved a 13 percent increase to the minimum wage effective January 1, 2026.

Update of Mexico’s Unit of Measure. On January 12, 2026, the National Institute of Statistics and Geography announced an increase to Mexico’s Unit of Measure and Update (UMA), setting it at $117.31 MXN per day, effective February 1, 2026.

Risk premium update. The Mexican Social Security Institute (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS)) requires employers to review and, where applicable, update their risk premium based on the prior year’s workplace accidents and occupational diseases. Employers must prepare and submit the annual report of work accidents for the relevant period and confirm that classification, contribution rates, and supporting documentation are accurate and complete (due February of every year).

Forty-Hour Workweek. The initiative to reduce the workweek to forty hours was reintroduced to the Congress of the Union, with the latest proposal suggesting enforceability beginning in 2027. Although there is no definitive approval date, Mexico’s current administration has treated the matter as a priority, and approval is plausible in 2026. Employers may want to model staffing, scheduling, overtime exposure, and cost scenarios under a forty‑hour framework and consider collective bargaining implications.

World Cup 2026. With Mexico co‑hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup, there has been public discussion about declaring the opening day a holiday in Mexico City. This has not been confirmed, but employers may want to monitor official announcements, and employees’ vacations / absenteeism trends to be prepared to approach the World Cup.

T-MEC (USMCA) trade agreement. Review of the Mexico-United States-Canada Treaty is scheduled for discussion on July 1, 2026, with an emphasis on compliance with labor and energy commitments. Potential adjustments could affect sectors such as automotive and technology. Employers may want to monitor the review’s outcomes and anticipate supply chain, compliance, and labor‑relations impacts over the medium term if revisions are adopted.

Workplace Inspections. Given the heightened regulatory focus and the new and amended obligations described above, workplace inspections are likely to become more frequent and more granular. Authorities may emphasize compliance with the Chair Law, INFONAVIT obligations, general working conditions, accident reporting, and proper classification of platform‑based workers. Employers may want to prioritize audit‑ready documentation, ensure internal policies reflect current law, and conduct periodic compliance reviews.

Ogletree Deakins’ Mexico City office will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Cross-Border and Mexico blogs as additional information becomes available.

Pietro Straulino-Rodríguez is the managing partner of the Mexico City office of Ogletree Deakins.

Natalia Merino Moreno is an associate in the Mexico City office of Ogletree Deakins.

María José Bladinieres is a law clerk in the Mexico City office of Ogletree Deakins.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Mexico’s Unit of Measure (UMA) is updated annually and is mostly used to establish amounts that must be paid for penalties imposed by Mexican authorities.
• Employers must consider this unit to comply with the penalties and verify which unit is applicable.

Daily, Monthly, and Annual Amounts

Each year, the National Institute of Statistics and Geography calculates this unit and sets the amounts on a daily, monthly, and annual basis. The UMA amounts for 2026 will increase by 3.69 percent over the 2025 amounts and are as follows:

1. Daily: $117.31 MXN, increased from $113.14 in 2025 (approximately $6.55 USD, up from $6.49 USD in 2025)
2. Monthly: $3,566.22 MXN, increased from $3,439.46 in 2025 (approximately $199.01 USD, up from $197.41 USD in 2025)
3. Annual: $42,794.64 MXN, increased from $41,273.52 in 2025 (approximately $2,388.45 USD, up from $2,368.94 USD in 2025)

The increase in the UMA has direct implications for the payment of penalties, fines, and other contributions related to employers’ breach of their labor and employment obligations.

Ogletree Deakins’ Mexico City office will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Cross-Border and Mexico blogs as additional information becomes available.

Pietro Straulino-Rodríguez is the managing partner of the Mexico City office of Ogletree Deakins.

Natalia Merino Moreno is an associate in the Mexico City office of Ogletree Deakins.

María José Bladinieres is a law clerk in the Mexico City office of Ogletree Deakins.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• In July 2024 Massachusetts enacted An Act Relative to Salary Range Transparency, which includes a requirement that covered employers report their EEO-1 workforce demographic data to the state each year.
• Covered employers must use an online portal to submit their EEO-1 reports.
• The deadline to file the data for the 2025 reports is February 2, 2026.

The federal government requires certain employers to submit workforce demographic data in a report, called an EEO-1 form, each year. Under Massachusetts’s 2024 pay transparency reporting law, An Act Relative to Salary Range Transparency, employers that had one hundred or more employees in Massachusetts at any time during the prior calendar year (and which are subject to EEO-1 reporting obligations) must send their most recent EEO-1 report to the state each year. For the 2025 filings that are due by February 2, 2026, employers that file EEO-1 reports must determine if they had one hundred or more employees in Massachusetts at any time during calendar year 2025. The published materials do not discuss remote employees.

The state maintains a portal that employers must use to submit their most recent EEO-1 report.

The portal does not require login information, but it allows the direct upload of the reports through the provided link. The instructions direct filers to make sure the uploaded file name contains the legal name of the filing entity and the type of report being filed, such as EEO-1 reports. The instructions provide contact information for several agencies that can answer questions concerning the implementation and interpretation of the filing requirement. During the first year of filings the portal did not provide confirmations of filings. For this reason, filers may want to consider alternative means of confirming their filings have been made.

The Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development (EOLWD) has published guidance in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to help employers comply with the workforce demographic reporting requirements. The FAQs include a discussion of which report should be submitted.

The FAQs state in a special notice that the deadline to submit this year’s EEO reports is February 2, 2026.

Next Steps

Massachusetts employers may wish to make the necessary preparations to file the required reports with the state before the deadline using the online portal. As a reminder, EOWLD has stated that employers need only file the most recent EEO-1 reports they have, and they do not need to include any form of wage data. The filing platform for the 2025 EEO-1 reports has not opened yet.

Ogletree Deakins’ Boston office, Government Contracting and Reporting Practice Group, Multistate Advice and Counseling Practice Group, and Pay Equity Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Government Contracting and Reporting, Massachusetts, Multistate Compliance, and Pay Equity blogs as new information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit provided guidance in a recent unpublished opinion on leave and remote work as reasonable accommodations under the ADA and West Virginia Human Rights Act.
• Indefinite leave is not a reasonable accommodation as a matter of law.
• Remote work is not a reasonable accommodation for an employee who is receiving short-term disability insurance benefits, which typically are awarded only when an employee cannot work at all.

Background

The employer approved eight weeks of remote work for an account manager experiencing pregnancy complications, followed by twelve weeks of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) parental bonding leave after she gave birth to twins. Due to severe childbirth-related complications, the employee required surgery that imposed significant physical restrictions, and she was approved for short-term disability (STD) benefits under her employer’s STD policy through her anticipated return date.

When the employee failed to return as expected, the employer contacted her. The employee stated she remained unable to work, that her STD benefits had been extended, and directed the employer not to contact her about a return date. The employer responded that her FMLA leave was exhausted, that STD benefits were separate from protected leave, and that her directive not to be contacted was unacceptable. The employee replied that she had another surgery scheduled for the following week with a four-to-six-week recovery period and possibly additional surgery thereafter. The employer then terminated her employment, citing the critical nature of her position and its inability to hold her job any longer.

The employee sued, alleging that the employer failed to accommodate her under the West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA), the state’s equivalent to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, concluding that the employee was still unable to work after six months of leave and had not demonstrated the existence of a reasonable accommodation that would meet her needs. This appeal followed.

The Fourth Circuit’s Decision

The Fourth Circuit applied the ADA’s standards in evaluating the employee’s state law claims. The ADA obligates employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities, absent an undue hardship on their business operations. A reasonable accommodation is any modification or adjustment to a job or work environment that allows an employee with a disability to perform the essential functions of the employee’s role or to enjoy the same benefits and privileges of employment as other employees. Such accommodations can include leave and remote work—both of which can be difficult for employers to manage.

In affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer, the Fourth Circuit highlighted several key points on reasonable accommodations:

• An indefinite period of leave is not reasonable. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the longstanding principle that “an employer is not required to give a disabled employee an indefinite period of time to correct a disabling condition that renders him unqualified.” (Internal citations and quotations omitted).
• A reasonable accommodation should enable an employee to perform essential functions now or in the near future. While the Fourth Circuit acknowledged that a precise return-to-work date is not required, it noted that the key issue is whether the employee can return at any point in the near future. Here, even after six months of leave, the employee was unable to provide even an approximate return-to-work date.
• Remote work is not a reasonable accommodation for employees who cannot work. The Fourth Circuit observed that, contrary to the employee’s argument, her ability to work remotely prior to giving birth is not necessarily determinative of her ability to work remotely after giving birth. Furthermore, the Fourth Circuit noted that the employee’s statements about being unable to return to work pending multiple surgeries, as well as her receipt of short-term disability benefits, which are awarded when employees are unable to perform their job, confirmed that the employee was unable to work. Consequently, her requested accommodation of remote work was not reasonable. 

Implications for Employers

This case offers several considerations for employers regarding leave and remote work as reasonable accommodations under the ADA:

• Indefinite Leave Is Not a Reasonable Accommodation: Employers are not required to grant an indefinite period of leave as a reasonable accommodation. A specific return-to-work date may not be realistic, but it is reasonable to request at least an approximate date for such return.
• Leave Cannot Impose an Undue Hardship: A return-to-work date does not render the leave automatically reasonable, however. Depending on the circumstances, extended leaves, and even shorter leave periods, may impose an undue hardship that would enable employers to deny the leave request.
• The Interactive Process Is Key: The communication between the employee and employer to clarify the employee’s limitations and assess possible accommodations is a vital part of the reasonable accommodation obligation. It is important for both the employer and employee to participate in this process; the employee cannot simply refuse to provide information, as we have previously discussed.
• Shifting Circumstances May Result in Shifting Accommodations. As we previously noted, accommodations are not set in stone. What may have been reasonable previously may not necessarily be reasonable in the future if circumstances have changed significantly. Thus, although an employee may have previously been allowed to work remotely, that does not mean that remote work continues to be a reasonable accommodation.
• STD Benefits May Mean the Employee Is Unable to Perform His or Her Job Functions. The receipt of STD benefits may indicate that the employee is not capable of performing his or her job functions, including on a remote basis. This understanding can help guide employer decisions on whether the requested accommodation is reasonable.

These principles may assist an employer in navigating the complexities of leave and remote work as possible accommodations, and help ensure compliance with the ADA and state laws.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On February 27, 2024, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) against the State of Texas as an employer, holding that the U.S. Congress passed the law—part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023—in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s quorum requirements.
• On August 15, 2025, after the federal government appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel reached a split decision, ultimately reversing the district court’s order and holding that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—the agency charged with enforcement of the PWFA—could enforce the PWFA against the State of Texas.
• Now, an en banc panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case and decide. It is likely that the issue will ultimately reach the Supreme Court of the United States.

The PWFA, which went into effect on June 27, 2023, requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation to workers for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, “unless such [a] covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business.”

In late 2022, the U.S. Congress passed the PWFA as part of a funding package under consideration, with only 205 members of the U.S. House of Representatives voting in person in favor of it. The State of Texas then sued the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and other federal agencies, arguing that because only 205 members of Congress were physically present to vote on the PWFA, the House of Representatives had lacked a valid quorum. Two hundred twenty-six votes were cast by House members who voted by proxy in favor of the law. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed, holding that Congress had passed the PWFA using an unconstitutional congressional rule implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, which permitted non-present congressional members to vote by proxy and thus be counted toward quorum requirements.

The Fifth Circuit panel’s majority disagreed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, finding that the vote-by-proxy rule was not unconstitutional and that congressional lawmakers had not needed to vote in person to reach a quorum. In dissent, the panel’s minority found that the vote-by-proxy rule was unconstitutional and that Congress had exceeded its authority when passing the PWFA without a quorum.

Now, a full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel will decide.

Ogletree Deakins’ Leaves of Absence/Reasonable Accommodation Practice Group will continue to monitor and report on developments with respect to the PWFA and will provide updates on the firm’s Employment Law, Leaves of Absence, and State Developments blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The New Jersey Legislature is expected to reintroduce legislation during the 2026 session that would ban most noncompete agreements in the state.
• A5708 and S4385 would provide limited exceptions for senior executives, and would require employers to notify employees within thirty days of enactment that their noncompete agreements are no longer enforceable.
• With Democrats in control of both chambers of the legislature, and apparent widespread support for limits on noncompetes, a bill may pass this year that would have significant impact on employers in New Jersey.

As we described in our May 2025 article, A5708 seemingly tries to combine elements of California and Massachusetts noncompete statutes, and was similar in several respects to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) proposed ban on noncompetes that did not pass, and would effectively ban most noncompetes in New Jersey.

The legislation would prohibit noncompete agreements except under limited circumstances. Notably, A5708/S4385 is retroactive and would void enforcement of current noncompete agreements. There is a limited carve-out: A5708/S4385 would not ban retroactive enforcement against “senior executives.” If the legislation goes into effect, employers would have to notify employees within thirty days of its passage that their noncompete agreements are no longer enforceable. No-poach agreements would also be outlawed.

The definition of a noncompete would be: “any agreement arising out of an existing or anticipated employment relationship between an employer and a worker, including an agreement regarding severance pay, to establish a term or condition of employment that prohibits the worker from, penalizes a worker for, or functions to prevent or hinder in any way, the worker from seeking or accepting work with a different employer after the employment relationship ends, or operating a business after the employment relationship ends.” The question, of course, is whether a nonsolicit agreement/provision or even a nondisclosure agreement/provision would still be enforceable since either type of restriction may arguably hinder an employee from accepting employment with a different employer or staring their own business.

“Senior executive” is defined as: “a worker who is in a policy-making position with an employer and is paid total compensation of not less than $151,164 during the year immediately preceding the end of employment, or not less than $151,164 when annualized if the worker was employed during only part of the preceding year.” Here the issue will be that many job categories that employers have traditionally had legitimate needs for noncompetes, such as salespeople, may not be considered in a “policy-making position.”

Noncompetes entered into before the effective date of A5708/S4385 would only be viable for senior executives if the criteria detailed in our May 2025 article are met, such as limiting their duration to twelve months, restricting their geographic scope, and requiring employers to provide “garden leave” compensation during the noncompete period.

Notably, the legislation would not apply to noncompetes entered into in the sale of a business. Nor would the bill apply to causes of action that accrue prior to the enactment of the bill, meaning any current noncompete litigations are still viable.

The legislation also would create a civil cause of action for aggrieved employees and their potential damages would include liquidated damages, compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees.

Employers should carefully monitor the bill this spring. New Jersey’s efforts to ban noncompetes have been going on for almost a decade without success, but this year something might finally pass that will have significant impacts for New Jersey employers.

Ogletree Deakins’ Morristown office and Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the New Jersey and Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On December 19, 2025, Governor Hochul signed into law legislation amending New York’s General Business Law to restrict the use of an applicant’s/employee’s credit history in employment decisions, effective April 28, 2026.
• The new law prohibits employers from requesting or using credit reports for employees or job applicants unless they fall into specific exceptions, such as certain positions that will have regular access to trade secrets, and positions with fiduciary authority to enter financial agreements of at least $10,000 on behalf of the employer.
• Employers must ensure compliance by not inquiring into or using credit history information unless the position qualifies for an exception and should disclose the relevant exception to consumer reporting agencies.

The new law takes an expansive view of credit history and includes any information touching on an applicant’s/employee’s creditworthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, or payment history, regardless of whether it is obtained through a credit check or credit score. It also includes information obtained directly from an applicant/employee concerning the individual’s credit accounts (including the number of credit accounts, late/missed payments, charged-off debts, items in collection, credit limit(s), and prior credit report inquiries), bankruptcies, judgments, and/or liens.

Under the new law, it is a discriminatory act for an employer to inquire into or use an applicant’s/employee’s credit history for employment purposes unless the employer/position falls into one of the act’s exceptions. These include:

• when the use of credit history “is required by state or federal law or by a self-regulatory organization” under the Securities Exchange Act;
• certain law enforcement roles;
• appointed roles with a high degree of public trust;
• positions requiring bonding under federal or state law;
• roles requiring federal or state security clearance;
• nonclerical roles with “regular access to trade secrets, intelligence information or national security information”;
• roles with signatory authority over third-party funds or assets of at least $10,000, or fiduciary authority to enter financial agreements of at least $10,000 on the employer’s behalf; and
• roles “with regular duties that allow the employee to modify digital security systems” protecting networks or databases.

The exceptions most relevant to private employers are emphasized in italics above.

This law does not override local laws that are consistent with its provisions or that offer more expansive protections, including New York City’s Stop Credit Discrimination in Employment Act. Lastly, to align the new law with background check companies (also known as “consumer reporting agencies” or “CRAs”) practices, the act prohibits CRAs from providing employers with consumer reports for employment purposes unless the employer/position falls within one of the above exceptions.

Key Insights for Employers

• Under S3072, employers are prohibited from inquiring into or using credit history information unless the company/position falls into one of the act’s exceptions.
• The prohibition spans the lifecycle of employment and includes both applicants and existing employees.
• Employers with positions that fall within one of the act’s exceptions may want to disclose the relevant exception to the CRA to ensure that they continue receiving credit information for exempted positions.
• The law should not impact local credit check laws, such as the New York City Stop Credit Discrimination in Employment Act.

Ogletree Deakins’ Background Checks Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Background Checks and New York blogs as additional information becomes available.

Additional information is available in the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal in the New York Use & Evaluation – Credit, Asking Questions and Initiating Checks – Credit, and Miscellaneous Background Checks law summaries. (Full law summaries are available for Premium-level subscribers; Snapshots and Updates are available for all registered client-users.) For more information about the Client Portal or to inquire about a Client Portal subscription, please contact us at clientportal@ogletree.com.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• Workers in certain certified professions in Canada can now more easily obtain authorization to work in other jurisdictions.
• Labour mobility between the provinces and territories, and at the federal level, has reduced red-tape barriers to help qualified professionals work outside the province where they are licensed or regulated.
• These changes make it easier for employers to reach a larger labour pool while reducing delays and paperwork.

Federal—Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act

The Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act aims to remove federal barriers to labour mobility within Canada through the recognition of comparable provincial and territorial requirements.

The act permits authorized workers to more easily perform the same licensed or regulated work in a federal jurisdiction, or to secure a federal license.

The act is meant to benefit businesses and workers whose work relates to:

1. Energy efficiency requirements
2. Wild animal and plant trade requirements
3. Canada land surveyors
4. Locomotive engineers, conductors, yard foremen, and transfer hostlers

Under the act, businesses now have the option to meet the federal requirements by satisfying a comparable provincial or territorial requirement in the above areas. For this option to apply, the authorized worker must:

• be in good standing within the province or territory that issued the worker’s authorization,
• have paid the federal regulator any associated fees or dues,
• have taken an oath or solemn affirmation related to the issuance of the federal authorization, and
• have successfully completed any applicable examination and assessment required under the federal Railway Employee Qualification Standards Regulations.

Ontario—‘As of Right’ Framework

Similarly, as of January 1, 2026, Ontario’s new “As of Right” framework, under the Ontario Labour Mobility Act (OLMA), allows workers in regulated, non-health occupations who are certified to work in another province or territory to apply through a streamlined process to begin working in Ontario.

More than fifty professions, including engineers, architects, and electricians are included in the framework.

The framework provides a one-time-only, six-month period during which workers may work in their permitted regulated occupation while the relevant regulatory authority makes a full certification decision.

To apply, workers must first submit their registration documentation to the relevant Ontario regulatory authority and meet other requirements imposed by that authority for the purpose of “As of Right.”

Within ten business days of submission, workers will receive confirmation of their deemed certification in Ontario and may begin working. Workers have until the end of the six-month period to complete their full application and registration with the relevant Ontario regulatory authority for their profession.

Before the introduction of this framework, it could take up to six months for professionals to be able to work in their regulated occupation while awaiting their Ontario registration.

Key Takeaway

Together, these reductions of barriers to trade in services will allow employers to access larger pools of qualified applicants and decrease the time it takes for workers to start work.

Ogletree Deakins’ Calgary, Montréal, and Toronto offices will continue to monitor developments and provide updates on the Canada and Cross-Border blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts