Quick Hits

• Effective November 12, 2025, British Columbia’s Employment Standards Act Regulation bars employers from asking for a sick note for a worker’s first two health-related, short-term absences of five consecutive days or fewer in a calendar year.
• Employers can still request reasonably sufficient proof of the employee’s need for leave, such as a receipt from a pharmacy or an attestation from the employee, even though the requirement for a sick note is now more restricted.

Under the current Employment Standards Act, employees in British Columbia are entitled to five paid and three unpaid sick days per calendar year after ninety days of employment. The new regulation specifically restricts when employers can require a sick note from a physician for these short-term absences.

Although the requirement for a sick note is now more restricted, employers remain entitled to request reasonably sufficient proof of the employee’s need for leave. Examples of such documentation include a receipt from a drugstore or pharmacy, a medical identification bracelet from a hospital, or a signed, written attestation from the employee stating that he or she is sick.

Employers are permitted to ask for a sick note if a leave lasts longer than five consecutive days or if the employee takes more than two health-related leave of five consecutive days or less in the same calendar year.

However, even when employers are permitted to request a sick note, employees may still be allowed to provide alternative “reasonably sufficient proof,” depending on the specific circumstances. For instance, it may not be reasonable to demand a sick note from an employee who missed only one day of work due to stomach cramps. Conversely, if an employee exhibits a pattern of absences before or following long weekends, a request for a sick note may be considered reasonable.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Shutdown Ends, Federal Government Reopens. The record-breaking forty-three-day federal government shutdown ended this week. On the evening of November 12, 2025, President Donald Trump signed into law a spending package that extended government funding for most federal agencies through January 30, 2026, while also funding the legislative branch and the departments of Agriculture and Veterans Affairs through September 30, 2026. The deal also reversed the layoffs of federal employees that had occurred during the shutdown and ensured that furloughed federal workers would receive back pay. Notably, the legislative package did not include an extension of Affordable Care Act health insurance subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of this year. Thus, with the spending issue merely postponed and the healthcare debate unresolved, the Buzz expects these issues to remain front and center in the U.S. Congress for the remainder of the year and into 2026.

There is one other item to note about the shutdown that could have labor and employment policy implications going forward. Multiple times during the shutdown, including when President Trump signed the eventual spending deal into law, he called for an end to the legislative filibuster. With roughly three more years left in office, the Buzz suspects this won’t be the last time President Trump makes this demand. If Republicans abandon the filibuster to push through their legislative priorities (which could include things like employment-based immigration reform), Democrats will likely do the same when they control Congress.

Agency Personnel Update. Late last week, the following officials were sworn in to leadership positions within the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).

• Jonathan Berry now serves as the solicitor of labor.
• Andrew Rogers serves as the administrator of the Wage and Hour Division.
• David Keeling serves as the assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health, leading the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
• Daniel Aronowitz serves as assistant secretary of the Employee Benefits Security Administration.
• Wayne Palmer serves as the assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health, leading the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

With these political appointees in place and other agency personnel back on the job, the DOL’s regulatory and enforcement agendas are expected to kick into high gear in the coming weeks.

Additionally, Andrea Lucas was officially made chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), removing the “acting” designation that she had held since the beginning of the year. While the move doesn’t provide Chair Lucas with any additional legal authority, it does give her greater internal influence within the Commission and indicates that her agenda will remain in place going forward.

Republicans Seek Labor Reform. This week, U.S. Senate Republicans released a slate of bills aimed at reforming current labor law practices and procedures. The bills are as follows:

• ‘‘Worker Reforming Elections for Speedy and Unimpeded Labor Talks Act’’ (‘‘Worker RESULTS Act’’). The bill would:
  • require bargaining representatives to be chosen solely through a secret ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board;
  • require at least two-thirds of all employees in a bargaining unit to vote in a secret-ballot election for a bargaining representative to be elected;
  • prohibit the filing of a decertification petition before a collective bargaining agreement goes into effect. However, the bill would allow for a ninety-day decertification “window period” if the Board finds the labor union is not bargaining collectively in good faith;
  • allow decertification petitions to be filed after the first two years of a collective bargaining agreement. Currently, employees must wait until after the third year to file a decertification petition; and
  • require the party filing an unfair labor practice charge for purposes of blocking an election to provide “a written offer of proof in support of the charge.”

• “NLRB Stability Act.” This bill would require the Board, when issuing an order, to follow the precedent established by the U.S. court of appeals in the circuit in which the unfair labor practice in question is alleged to have occurred.
• “Fairness in Filing Act.” The bill would require the filing of unfair labor practice charges to be accompanied by “documentation of evidence” (such as an affidavit, an email, or a photograph, etc.). The bill also would require the Board to allow respondents “to inspect, copy, test, or sample” such evidence prior to a hearing. Persons filing frivolous charges could be fined up to $5,000.
• “Union Members Right to Know Act.” This bill would:
  • amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to codify the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Communications Workers of America v. Beck, requiring unions to notify employees of their rights to refrain from joining a union and only pay fees that cover the union’s cost of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment; and
  • require a union to obtain affirmative authorization to spend employees’ (including union members’) union dues, fees, or assessments “not directly related to the labor organization’s collective bargaining or contract administration functions.”

• “Protection on the Picket Line Act.’’ This bill would permit employers to take disciplinary action against employees who engage in harassing or abusive conduct while participating in an activity protected by Section 7 of the NLRA (e.g., shouting racial epithets while participating in a strike).
• ‘‘Worker Privacy Act.’’ This bill would allow employees to limit the amount and type of personal contact data that employers are otherwise required to provide to labor unions prior to a representation election.

Of course, Senate Democrats are unlikely to support these measures, though the bills could serve as legislative alternatives for Republicans who might otherwise be persuaded by Senator Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) labor reform package.

Project Firewall Update. According to media reports, the DOL’s Project Firewall has initiated nearly 200 investigations into employer misuse of the H-1B visa program. It is unclear how the skeletal staff that remained at the DOL during the forty-three-day shutdown managed to accomplish this, although other DOL immigration-related processes, such as the issuance of prevailing wage determinations and labor certifications, continued operations during some of the shutdown. Regardless, with the return of DOL employees to work and the administration’s scrutiny of the H-1B program, the Buzz expects activity at Project Firewall to tick up in the coming weeks.

Common Cents. On November 12, 2025, the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia pressed its last penny. The move was a result of President Trump’s February 2025 instruction to Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent to stop minting the penny, the cost of which (around $.04 per penny) exceeds its actual value. Further, consumer behavior has changed, making the penny, much like the New York Giants (the Buzz’s favorite National Football League team), increasingly irrelevant over recent years.

The first penny was produced in March of 1793 in the very same U.S. Mint in Philadelphia, pursuant to the Coinage Act of 1792. The first design of the penny featured a woman in profile with flowing hair, with the word “Liberty” emblazoned above her. President Abraham Lincoln’s image first appeared on the penny in 1909, on the 100-year anniversary of his birth. He was the first U.S. president to appear on a coin.

While the Mint will no longer produce new pennies, the penny remains legal tender. The U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to “coin money,” so only Congress can eliminate coins from circulation. For example, in 1930, Congress abolished the $2.50 gold coin.

Quick Hits

• Workers who are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist will mark religious celebrations in December 2025.
• Employers must grant valid religious accommodation requests unless it would impose a substantial burden on the business.
• In considering time off requests, employers balance business demands with legal obligations. Employees might ask for time off or breaks for religious observances or to complete prayers at designated times.

Typical religious accommodations during the holiday season include telework, flexible scheduling, shift adjustments or swapping, and exceptions to the dress code. One example of accommodating time off for religious reasons is when non-Christian employees agree to work on Christian holidays, or non-Jewish employees agree to work on Jewish holidays, allowing staffing levels to remain adequate for the business.

Some employees do not drink alcohol for religious reasons, so companies hosting holiday parties may want to make attendance voluntary and provide non-alcoholic beverages at the celebrations.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are required to permit a valid religious accommodation request unless it would impose an undue hardship on the business. In 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Groff v. DeJoy that employers must show a substantial burden to justify denying a religious accommodation request. A minor expense, a minor inconvenience, or an employee’s dislike of an accommodation granted in favor of another coworker is not enough to show an undue hardship.

At the same time, many states have antidiscrimination laws with provisions similar to Title VII, which may be broader or require more accommodation than the federal law.

Religious discrimination and freedom have been a particular focus for the first year of the second Trump administration. On February 6, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias,” to signal the administration’s intention to enforce existing laws to prevent discrimination against Christians and to give employees more latitude in the workplace to object to employer policies and to voice or display their religious beliefs at work.

Similarly, on January 29, 2025, the president issued an executive order titled “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,” which announced a policy to use “all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence.” As a result, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) highlighted an uptick in enforcement actions regarding religious discrimination in 2025.

Next Steps

Enforcing attendance policies, telework policies, and scheduling in a consistent and fair manner across all religious holidays can help employers avoid discrimination claims. To ensure consistency, employers can use online systems or software to detect patterns in approving or denying requests for leave on religious holidays, which might indicate supervisors favoring one religious group more than others.

Employers may wish to train supervisors to comply with state and federal laws on religious accommodations. Documenting the legitimate business reasons for denying a religious accommodation request may help to reduce an employer’s legal risk. Employers also may reduce discord or disputes by clearly reiterating time off and telework policies before the holidays.

These holidays are upcoming:

• Hindus will observe Geeta Jayanti on December 1, 2025.
• Buddhists will observe Bodhi Day on December 8, 2025.
• Jews will celebrate Hanukkah from December 14-22, 2025.
• Christians will celebrate Christmas on December 25, 2025.

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Employment Law and Leaves of Absence blogs as new 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.

James M. Paul is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Tampa and St. Louis offices.

Leslie E. Wallis is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Los Angeles office.

This article was co-authored by Leah J. Shepherd, who is a writer in Ogletree Deakins’ Washington, D.C., office.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The ADA, HIPAA, and the 42 CFR Part 2 regulation seek to protect patients’ private medical information with different requirements for healthcare providers and employers.
• When employers receive a request for a reasonable accommodation, they can request a doctor’s letter or limited medical records for which there is a business need for the information. Non-healthcare employers typically are not subject to HIPAA and Part 2 for their employment functions.

HIPAA prohibits unauthorized use or disclosure of protected health information, unless the use or disclosure meets an exception, such as for treatment, payment, or operations. HIPAA applies to all medical information transmitted by covered entities and their business associates, including information about mental illness and substance use disorders. In general, hospitals, health plans, pharmacies, and other healthcare providers are subject to HIPAA privacy obligations.

Employers with self-insured, or self-funded, health plans are typically responsible for their plan’s HIPAA requirements. However, because an employer is generally not a covered entity under HIPAA for employment functions, those HIPAA prohibitions do not apply to an employer when the employer is addressing leave and accommodation requests.

Instead, employment laws like the ADA impose limits on the scope of medical inquiries and exams that an employer can require when addressing leave and accommodation requests. Specifically, an employer is limited to only seeking medical information for which there is a business need, such as to confirm the ADA applies or to confirm the scope of any restrictions for the employee that may support the need for a working accommodation or for a leave of absence.

The ADA prohibits employment discrimination and retaliation based on a person’s disability. Under the ADA, a substance use disorder can be a covered disability if it involves a legal substance, such as alcohol or opioids.

Part 2 prohibits the unauthorized use or disclosure of substance use disorder records pertaining to alcohol, illegal drugs, and legal drugs, except nicotine and caffeine. The regulation covers information created by substance use disorder programs, treatment facilities, hospitals, and employee assistance programs (EAPs). HIPAA and Part 2 do not prevent individuals from accessing or requesting their own medical records.

Requesting Medical Documentation for Accommodations

Under the ADA, an employer may request medical documentation only if:

• the employee has requested a reasonable accommodation,
• the disability or the need for accommodation is not obvious or already known to the employer, and
• the information requested is job-related and consistent with business necessity.

The employer’s request for documentation must be limited to validation that the employee has a disability as defined by the ADA and an explanation of how the disability limits a major life activity or job function. This may include details about the nature, severity, and expected duration of the impairment, and confirmation of how the requested accommodation can help the employee perform essential job functions.

It is unlawful for employers to require information about specific diagnoses or information that exceeds the medical information actually needed to meet the business needs. Any medical information an employer obtains for a disability accommodation must be kept confidential, which means only appropriate limited information should be shared internally with those who have a business need to know. For example, a manager of the employee requesting an accommodation may have a business need to know the scope and duration of the employee’s restrictions to be able to determine any reasonable accommodation that could be provided to assist the employee in effectively performing job duties. The medical information also must be kept separate from the employee’s personnel file.

Although employers may obtain a medical authorization from an employee so that the employer can directly obtain the limited medical information needed as part of the ADA accommodation process, many employers will simply provide a healthcare questionnaire form to the employee with instructions to return the completed form from the treating healthcare provider. When the employee is seeking his or her own medical information from the treating provider, there is no need for an employer to obtain a medical authorization from the employee. Regardless of the approach taken by the employer, the employer may want to use a questionnaire form as part of the ADA accommodation process to ensure only the limited medical information needed is actually requested and obtained.

Employers often document an employee’s authorization prior to requesting records from a healthcare provider. Likewise, healthcare providers may want to confirm that the employee has actually authorized the disclosure of personal health information to the employer.

Repeated and overly broad medical inquiries, efforts to obtain medical data unrelated to the job, or a failure to keep personal health information confidential could land an employer with a lawsuit alleging discrimination, harassment, or a violation of the ADA’s limitation on medical inquiries and exams.

EAPs and Wellness Programs

EAPs are typically handled by third-party administrators that give employers aggregated and anonymized data. An employer that inadvertently gains access to personally identifiable EAP datamay want to exercise caution to avoid treating disabled employees differently, including employees with mental illnesses or substance use disorders.

The ADA stipulates that participation in employer-sponsored wellness programs must be voluntary, rather than a condition of employment. For example, health risk assessments, nutrition programs, fitness classes, exercise trackers, and smoking-cessation programs are often built into employer wellness programs. Health data obtained through such workplace wellness programs must be kept confidential.

Employers With Part 2 Information

Though uncommon, under certain circumstances, an employer may receive health information subject to Part 2’s requirements. When a medical provider releases such information, it must do so pursuant to a patient’s authorization consistent with Part 2, and an employer is generally obligated to limit the use or sharing of the information protected by Part 2 to the purposes outlined by the patient’s authorization. Regardless, the employer may want to be mindful of the restrictions set by the ADA and limit disclosure internally to only those with a business need to know the limited information that needs to be disclosed for employment purposes.

Employers that obtain health information from a provider related to substance use disorders may want to take extra care to seek the underlying authorization that allowed the release of the information by the provider.

Next Steps

Understanding and complying with the privacy provisions in HIPAA, the ADA, Part 2, and state laws can reduce legal risk for employers. Therefore, employers may wish to train managers on the their internal procedures so that they take proper steps to ensure accommodation requests, drug tests, and workplace wellness programs are properly handled in a manner compliant with state and federal laws. They may wish to highlight that mental illnesses and substance use disorders can qualify as covered disabilities under the ADA, depending on the severity and nature of the impairment.

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Cybersecurity and Privacy, Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation, Healthcare, and Leaves of Absence blogs as new information becomes available.

Tina M. Bengs is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Chicago office.

Stephen A. Riga is counsel in Ogletree Deakins’ Minneapolis office.

Tyler C. Strobel is an associate in Ogletree Deakins’ Denver office.

This article was co-authored by Leah J. Shepherd, who is a writer in Ogletree Deakins’ Washington, D.C., office. Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On August 13, 2025, the Lower Saxony Regional Labor Court ruled that an employee’s false claims in legal proceedings against the employer justified extraordinary termination without notice.
• The court found that the employee’s submission of an alleged employment contract with misleading information constituted a misrepresentation of facts, amounting to attempted trial fraud.
• The ruling emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between legal opinions and factual assertions in court.

Facts of the Case

The employee had been employed by a retailer of e-bikes since January 2016,and had been a branch manager since July 2021. The employer issued the employee an ordinary notice of termination. The employee filed an action for unfair dismissal and also sued for payment of bonus claims. To substantiate these bonus claims, the employee submitted an (alleged) employment contract dated January 15, 2016. The employee argued that, in his view, this employment contract entitled him to the bonus payment he was seeking; according to the employee the parties had agreed on this employment contract and had lived by it. The employer objected, stating that the parties had never agreed on a contract with this content. In addition, the employer submitted email correspondence showing that the parties had only negotiated a draft employment contract (with strikingly similar content) at the beginning of 2023. The employment contract submitted by the employee was a modified version of the draft employment contract from 2023. Ultimately, it could not be proven that the parties had actually agreed on the employment contract submitted by the employee. They also had not signed it. From the employer’s point of view, the employee had therefore lied when he submitted his copy of the employment contract, and claimed that the parties had agreed on and lived by a contract with this content. The employer therefore issued an extraordinary termination without notice for attempted trial fraud. The labor court had to decide whether the employee had lied and whether this justified the extraordinary termination without notice.

Legal Background

An employer may be justified in using an extraordinary termination without notice to dismiss an employee if the employee deliberately provided false assertions in an attempt to win a lawsuit against the employer. By making deliberately untruthful assertions, the employee significantly violates his duty to consider the interests of the employer. This duty also applies during the notice period in case an ordinary notice of termination has already been issued. It is irrelevant whether the untruthful assertion is ultimately relevant to the decision in the specific case. The decisive factor is that the employee irreparably destroys the employer’s trust in the employee’s integrity by lying.

However, such lies in breach of duty only apply to untrue assertions of facts, i.e., about the objective situation. These must be distinguished from value judgments. If the employee merely expresses an incorrect legal opinion in court proceedings, this does not constitute an untrue assertion of fact and therefore does not constitute a lie in breach of duty.

Judgment of the Lingen Labor Court (First Instance)

The Lingen Labor Court upheld the action for protection against dismissal. According to the Lingen Labour Court the employee has not committed an (attempted) trial fraud. Essentially, the Labor Court justified its decision on the grounds that the employee had not made an (untruthful) assertion of facts. According to the Lingen Labour Court the submission of the unsigned employment contract did not in itself contain the assertion that the parties had also agreed on this employment contract. The employee’s submission that he had “a claim under § 4 of the employment contract” was merely a legal opinion and not an assertion of fact.

Judgment of the Lower Saxony Regional Labor Court (Second Instance)

The Lower Saxony Regional Labor Court ruled differently and affirmed that the employee had attempted to commit trial fraud. This (attempted) trial fraud justified the extraordinary termination of the employment.

The Lower Saxony Regional Labor Court considered the filing of the lawsuit and the reference to the submitted “employment contract dated January 15, 2016” to be a misrepresentation of facts. The falsehood lay in the assertion that an employment contract with the submitted content had been agreed upon and lived between the parties. However, this proved to be objectively false in the course of the proceedings. Thus, the employee did not merely assess a fact as the conclusion of a contract and express a legal opinion. Instead, this assertion by the employee contained a “core of fact” beyond a legal opinion: the assertion of an agreement on the employment contract submitted, which did not exist in the claimed manner.

Conclusion

The ruling of the Lower Saxony Regional Labor Court clarifies the consequences under labor law of lies told by employees in legal proceedings against their employers. Employees cannot exonerate themselves by arguing that the untrue assertion was not made by them, but only by their lawyer. The employee must take responsibility for the untrue statements made by their lawyer (Section 85 (1) sentence 1 ZPO of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung – ZPO) in conjunction with Section 46 (2) of the German Labour Courts Act (Arbeitsgerichtsgesetz – ArbGG)). This means that even untrue assertions of facts made by a lawyer can lead to the employee being dismissed due to these lies. The ruling of the Lower Saxony Regional Labor Court thus urges both employees and lawyers to exercise caution when presenting the facts in court proceedings with the employer.

Legal opinions, as value judgments, are exempt from the procedural duty of truthfulness in civil proceedings, as the courts are free in their legal assessment and are not bound by the submissions of the parties. However, the situation is different when it comes to assertions of facts. The ruling of the Lower Saxony Regional Labor Court serves as a reminder to consider carefully checking whether legal opinions also contain a “core of fact” and could thus constitute a factual claim that may be untrue.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The comment period on the Education Department’s proposed Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) to IPEDS closed on October 14, 2025, drawing thousands of comments by universities, higher education associations, community and technical colleges, career schools, graduate and professional programs, civil rights and policy organizations, researchers, and individual citizens.
• Commenters recommended limiting ACTS to truly selective institutions and treating graduate/professional programs separately.
• Institutions anticipate risk-based reviews tied to new admissions and scholarship data if ACTS advances, especially at selective programs and professional schools.

Background

As proposed, the ACTS supplement would require selective four-year institutions to report six years of retrospective data (2020–21 through 2025–26) on applicants, admits, and enrollees, disaggregated by race and sex and further broken down by grade point average (GPA) and test score quintiles, income, Pell grant eligibility, first‑generation status, application round, aid offered/received, and graduation outcomes. Graduate reporting would be by Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP).

An analysis of the comments reveals broad support for transparency. However, the majority of commenters urged the Education Department to narrow the scope to genuinely selective institutions and to treat graduate/professional programs separately. Core concerns centered on burden and feasibility, unclear definitions, test‑optional data gaps, GPA variability, privacy risks from small cells (i.e., heightened risks that cells of data with few student counts may increase the likelihood that students are identified in violation of their privacy rights), and cybersecurity. Many asked the Education Department to delay until 2027–28, pilot with volunteers, publish detailed technical specs, and provide funding or targeted assistance. Stakeholders also urged alignment with existing IPEDS components and standards to reduce duplication.

Next Steps

Higher education institutions—particularly selective four-year schools and competitive graduate/professional programs—may want to prepare now for some level of enhanced admissions and scholarship transparency. Even if ACTS is narrowed or gradually implemented, the trajectory points toward expanded risk-based Title VI oversight anchored in detailed data. The next steps by the Education Department will determine the precise contours of reporting and enforcement. Institutions that have clarity on data availability, privacy controls, and program-level selectivity will be best positioned to adapt to whatever form ACTS ultimately takes.

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

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The Massachusetts Department of Family and Medical Leave (DFML) has issued its 2026 poster, individual notices, and rate sheets for the state’s Paid Family and Medical Leave program.
• The maximum weekly benefit amount and the state average weekly wage will increase slightly going into 2026, but for the third year in a row, the total contribution rates for employers and employees will hold steady.
• The IRS has issued tax guidance on Paid Family and Medical Payments, which the MA DFML has issued a detailed memorandum about.

The 2026 Workplace Poster

All Massachusetts employers must display a workplace poster prepared or approved by DFML that explains the benefits available under the MA 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). Posters must be in English and each language that is the primary language of five or more individuals in the workforce, if translations are available from DFML. The 2026 DFML template workplace poster can be found at the department’s website.

2026 Notices for Individual Workers

Notices for individual workers have now been issued by the department. Employers may want to assess whether they are issuing the correct version of the notices 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 employees must be issued these notices within thirty days of hire. Like the poster, the notice must be available in English and each language that is the primary language of five or more individuals in your workforce. DFML provides translations in English and many other languages on its website.

2026 Rate Sheet Notices

DFML’s 2026 rate sheets are now available. There are two versions:

• 2026 rate sheet for employers with twenty-five or more covered individuals
• 2026 rate sheet for employers with fewer than twenty-five covered individuals

The DFML website advises that for current workers and self-employed individuals who have previously signed an individual notice, employers must provide information on these new rates thirty days in advance of the rate change effective date of January 1, 2026, which is roughly December 1, 2025. Electronic issuance of the notice is allowed.

Benefit Adjustments

There are several monetary adjustments, effective January 1, 2026, to be aware of:

• The maximum weekly benefit amount that a worker can receive in MA PFML benefits per week will be $1,230.39. This is a roughly $60 increase from 2025.
• The state average weekly wage will also increase slightly by roughly $93, up to $1,922.48.
• There is no change to the total contribution rates for employers and employees. This is the third year that the total contribution rates have held steady.

IRS Guidance on Taxability of Paid Family and Medical Leave Benefit Payments

On January 15, 2025, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2025-4, which addresses the tax treatment of contributions to and benefits received from state-paid family and medical leave programs, along with reporting requirements. Generally, the ruling draws a bright line between family and medical leave benefits, and, for Massachusetts employers, ties the medical leave tax outcome to employer size and contribution obligations. Ogletree’s article on the ruling can be found here. DFML has also issued a detailed memorandum on the Revenue Ruling 2025-4, which can be found here.

Family leave benefits are fully includible in gross income but are not wages for federal employment tax purposes; Massachusetts DFML will report them on Form 1099-G, and income tax withholding remains elective. By contrast, medical leave benefits are bifurcated: the portion attributable to employee contributions (including any employer pick-up) is excluded from income and is not considered wages, while the portion attributable to employer contributions is includible in income and treated as third-party sick pay wages for FICA and FUTA purposes.

Because Massachusetts requires employers with twenty-five or more employees to fund at least 60 percent of the medical contribution, 60 percent of DFML medical benefits paid to those employees will be taxable and wage-subject; such an employer must remit its share of FICA and FUTA on the taxable portion of DFML medical benefits and must report that taxable portion as wages on the employee’s Form W-2. Employers under the twenty-five-employee threshold do not owe the employer medical contribution, so DFML medical benefits paid to their employees are not taxable and are not wages; neither FICA nor FUTA is due on the medical benefits, and no Form W-2 reporting is required. The ruling also confirms that mandatory employee PFML contributions (and any employer pick-up of those contributions) are includible in the employee’s wages and reported on Form W-2.

FY 2025 Annual Report

The MA PFML statute requires 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 2025 (i.e., July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025). DFML’s FY2025 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, Leaves of Absence / Reasonable Accommodation Practice Group, and Employment Tax Practice Group will continue to monitor developments with respect to the PFML program and will provide updates on the Employment Tax, Leaves of Absence, and Massachusetts blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• A federal judge transferred a lawsuit by a former cancer center employee from a New Jersey federal court to a federal court in Pennsylvania, ruling that the case belonged in the employer’s home state rather than where the employee remotely worked. 
• The court determined that the employee’s claims under the ADA had minimal connection to New Jersey, emphasizing that key decisions about her employment were made in Pennsylvania.
• The decision indicates that employers may face fewer legal challenges in states where remote employees reside, and instead, the proper venue may be in the states where employers are based.

On November 10, 2025, a federal district court in New Jersey transferred the former cancer center employee’s retaliation claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where her former employer is based.

The case, Khartchenko v. American Oncologic Hospital Inc. et al., involved a former employee who worked on-site for six years for a Pennsylvania-based company before transitioning to a hybrid remote schedule. She later began working fully remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic and claimed that, after undergoing surgery in January 2023, continuing her remote work arrangement was necessary during her recovery.

However, after a new supervisor implemented a plan to revoke her remote work arrangement, she filed a lawsuit alleging the move was in retaliation for her reporting the supervisor for discrimination and because she required work-from-home to recover from surgery. She initially filed a lawsuit in New Jersey state court alleging violations of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD).

The New Jersey claims were removed to New Jersey federal court, and the complaint was eventually dismissed for a lack of connection to the state. The New Jersey federal court then allowed her to file a second amended complaint in which she alleged a violation of the ADA.

Despite amending her lawsuit, the New Jersey district court found that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is the proper venue for her lawsuit, stating that the amended complaint “has little, if anything, to do with New Jersey” aside from the “plaintiff’s mere presence in New Jersey.”

“The fact that plaintiff worked from and communicated with defendants from her home in New Jersey is insufficient to establish New Jersey as the proper venue,” the court said. “Plaintiff does not assert that defendants made any decisions related to her assignment, or remote work schedule in New Jersey. Rather, defendants made such decisions from their corporate headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Defendants also maintained its employment records in Pennsylvania.”

The court further found that public interest factors did “favor transfer,” and that the employee’s preference for New Jersey federal court “does not weigh heavily against transfer.”

“Most, if not all, all [sic] of the witnesses and documents that would substantiate or refute plaintiff’s claims are located in Pennsylvania,” the court said. “While neither Pennsylvania nor New Jersey appear to have a local interest in deciding this action, practical considerations indicate that Pennsylvania is the more appropriate forum.”

Next Steps

The transfer is a win for employers, suggesting that while employers are generally required to comply with the labor and employment laws of the states where employees physically work, they may not have to face claims in out-of-state venues in those states where their remote employees are physically located. The ruling suggests that the proper venue for employment claims related to remote work arrangements may be in the states where employers are based, where decisions regarding remote work arrangements are made, and where documents and witnesses are located. It is unclear whether the employee will seek to appeal the transfer.

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the COVID-19/Coronavirus, Healthcare, Leaves of Absence, Multistate Compliance, Return to Work, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• A Virginia jury awarded $10 million to a teacher shot by a six-year-old student, highlighting the responsibilities of school administrators to address and act on threats to safety.
• The case underlines the legal and ethical duty of school officials to implement effective safety measures and policies to prevent school violence and protect students and staff.

The Virginia teacher was shot in the chest and hand in the classroom in January 2023 and suffered serious injuries, according to reports. She sued a now-former assistant principal who reportedly failed to act after multiple warnings that a student had a gun in the student’s backpack.

The jury award comes as the ex-assistant principal is also facing a separate criminal trial on eight felony counts of child neglect. The student’s mother, who owned the gun used in the incident, has already reportedly pleaded guilty to felony charges for child neglect and weapons charges, according to reports

While the ex-assistant principal can still appeal the civil damages award, the award highlights the potential liability schools and individual administrators may face from school shootings or other violent incidents, and has brought attention to appropriate responses to safety concerns and the role school administrators have in maintaining school safety.

Legal Obligations for Schools and School Administrators

Generally, school administrators have a legal duty of care to provide a safe environment for students and staff, including taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. Failure to take appropriate measures or act on credible threats can result in legal liability or negligence. Some states also have laws requiring school districts and school district administrators to create and implement safety plans, to run safety drills, and to train students and staff on incident response.  Beyond legal obligations, school administrators may have ethical duties to foster a safe and supportive school environment. This verdict highlights the need to thoroughly assess all warnings and threats to maintain that duty of care. 

Safety Steps

• Prevention and Preparedness—Implementing should consider implementing measures for safety assessment and programs for behavioral intervention when necessary. Administrators may want to review state laws and regulations, as some states require or encourage schools to implement such measures or provide behavioral health resources.  Additionally, schools may consider heeding and investigating all potential concerns, violence threats, and warnings, no matter how unlikely they may seem. School districts can partner with local law enforcement agencies to support administrators in investigating whether threats are credible. Regular training and drills for dealing with emergencies can further prepare students and staff on how to respond in the event of an emergency. Moreover, implementing clear access control measures, including secure entry points, visitor management protocols, and issuing identification badges to students and staff, can provide further protection against external threats.

• Policies and Procedures—Schools may also want to develop and regularly update comprehensive emergency response plans that cover a range of scenarios, from lockdowns, evacuations, and reunification procedures. Again, schools may want to review state laws that may require various policies and procedures to be implemented.  It is also important to establish reliable communication systems and channels to notify students, staff, and parents in the event of an emergency.

• Community Collaboration—School administrators may want to take steps to communicate and collaborate with local law enforcement agencies, parents, transportation companies, news media, and other community organizations to implement safety plans. Communication between schools and parents can further be key to identifying concerns.

• Supportive School Climate—Schools may want to implement or supplement policies that promote positive behavior among students and that provide support for students and staff, such as access to counseling and mental health services. Schools can also encourage students to report concerning behavior and offer anonymous reporting hotlines.

• Post-Incident Response—Post-incident intervention is also an important step, including communication with students, staff, parents, and local law enforcement, and providing counseling and support to students and staff following a traumatic event. Schools may also want to conduct thorough reviews of incident response and prevention policies and update procedures accordingly.

Next Steps

The Virginia teacher shooting case highlights the need for school administrators to address violent threats and take responsible steps to prevent violent incidents. School administrators who take proactive steps to implement behavioral interventions can help foster a supportive educational culture. Schools that lack such procedures and resources may be more susceptible to preventable school violence incidents and increased liability for schools and administrators.

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Higher Education, Workplace Safety and Health, and Workplace Violence Prevention blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• In July 2024, California’s comprehensive workplace violence prevention statute for general industry took effect, with the requirement that virtually every California employer implement a comprehensive workplace violence prevention plan.
• The law requires the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) to propose a workplace violence prevention standard by December 31, 2025, and adopt a standard no later than December 31, 2026.
• On November 12, 2025, an advisory committee to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board met to discuss revisions to a draft regulation. The advisory committee meeting addressed several contentious issues, including exceptions for smaller employers, the definition of “employee representative,” the inclusion of “stalking” in the definition of workplace violence, and the definition of “workplace violence hazards.”
• The Cal/OSHA Standards Board will review feedback from the meeting and issue a revised draft regulation for further consideration in early 2026, incorporating suggestions and addressing concerns raised by both employer and employee advocates.

Advisory Committee Meeting

Below is an overview of the meeting.

• The current draft includes an exception for smaller employers defined as those with fewer than ten employees in a workplace that is not accessible to the public.
• Labor advocates sought a broad definition of “authorized employee representative” or an adjusted definition of “employee representative” so that unrecognized labor organizations or employee advocates could take on a greater role in workplace violence plans, training, and recordkeeping.
• Employee advocacy groups continue to demand that the California Penal Code “stalking” definition be included in the regulation to broaden and expand the definition of “workplace violence.” Employer advocates oppose this addition for a variety of reasons, including that Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (OSHAB) judges should not be interpreting penal code statutes, and that stalking, including harassing behaviors that are not threats or violence. This area of discussion was the most robust and vigorous, with employee advocates pushing to incorporate incredibly broad stalking language as a form of workplace violence.
• A discussion regarding the definitions of “workplace violence hazards” was another area of contentious discussion. The current list includes such vague terms as “hostile work environment,” “inadequate staffing,” and “high crime areas,” as well as “working with persons with a history of violence.” Trade groups expressed concern regarding listing “working with persons with a history of violence” violates employee privacy protections and is a subjective standard.
• Lawful acts of self-defense and defense of others have been added to the required employer procedures.
• Offering trauma counseling is another contentious area of the draft regulation. Employee advocates want individual trauma counseling to be required within the Cal/OSHA regulation.

Next Steps

The Cal/OSHA Standards Board will review the meeting, written comments, and suggestions and issue a further draft regulation for consideration at the Standards Board in early 2026.

In addition, the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal tracks developments and provides real-time updates on California employment laws, including California Workplace Violence Prevention. (Full law summaries and our California General Industry Workplace Violence Prevention Toolkit 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 reach out to clientportal@ogletree.com.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts