Quick Hits

• By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court in Lau held that border officers may “parole” a returning LPR based on suspected “commission” of an inadmissibility offense—not based on a conviction or on “clear and convincing” evidence of the commission of an inadmissibility offense—at reentry.
• Paroled LPRs can be physically present in the United States but are not legally admitted, which can disrupt employment authorization and other benefits tied to permanent resident status.
• The ruling primarily affects LPRs with unresolved criminal or other inadmissibility issues.

On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Blanche v. Lau, addressing how the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) treats returning LPRs with potential inadmissibility issues at the border.

In a 6–3 decision, with the majority authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that the INA permits border officers to “parole” returning LPRs suspected of inadmissibility issues, rather than admit them in the usual course, without establishing by “clear and convincing evidence” that they are inadmissible. The government may instead establish the relevant inadmissibility basis later during removal proceedings.

Most foreign nationals, including those in nonimmigrant status, such as H-1, L-1, or F-1, must prove admissibility each time they seek to enter the United States. Returning LPRs have traditionally been treated differently. The INA generally treats them as simply returning—not applying for admission.

Background

Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national, became an LPR in 2007. In May 2012, New Jersey authorities charged him with third-degree trademark counterfeiting. While that charge was pending, Lau traveled abroad, and upon return to JFK Airport on June 15, 2012, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) paroled him into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) rather than admitting him outright. In June 2013, Lau pled guilty to the offense charged and received two years’ probation.

DHS then began removal proceedings, charging Lau as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) based on a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude. Lau argued that DHS should not have treated him as an arriving alien based only on a pending, unproven charge. The immigration judge ordered him removed in 2018, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision and dismissed Lau’s appeal in November 2021. In December 2021, Lau petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision.

The Second Circuit vacated the removal order in 2025, holding that DHS had lacked clear and convincing evidence at reentry to treat Lau as an applicant for admission. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split as to when DHS must justify treating a returning LPR as seeking admission.

The Supreme Court’s Holding in Lau

The central question before the Supreme Court was whether border officers must have “clear and convincing” evidence at the time of reentry that an LPR has committed a qualifying offense before they may parole, rather than admit, the person as a returning resident. The Court answered no, adopting a two-step framework: “commission,” not “conviction,” of a disqualifying offense is enough at the border to place an LPR on parole. Conviction may then be established later in criminal proceedings, and immigration authorities can remove the LPR based on that conviction.

The distinction between “parole” and “admission” matters because they carry different consequences. If admitted, an LPR remains in the ordinary posture of a returning resident. If paroled, the person may physically enter the United States but is not legally admitted, which threatens immigration status and work authorization. Picking up on these practical consequences, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented, warning that the ruling could leave some LPRs in limbo with a loss of benefits, including employment disruptions.

Key Takeaways

For employers and foreign national employees, the ruling does not affect most green card holders returning from routine international travel. However, LPRs with pending or unresolved criminal issues should obtain immigration advice before international travel, because reentry may now carry a greater risk, even before a conviction. Future cases may clarify the exact burden border officers must meet to make a parole determination in cases such as this.

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

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On June 25, 2026, GSA published a notice confirming that Executive Order 14398, applies to “all non-FAR based-contracts,” with GSA, including real property leases, concession contracts, and outleases.
• The clause turns on race- or ethnicity-based actions across five domains, not on whether a program carries a “DEI” label, so a review limited to programs branded as DEI may miss what the clause actually prohibits.
• The notice is a request for public comment, with comments due on or about August 24, 2026 (sixty days after publication).

As a reminder, Section 3 of Executive Order (EO) 14398, “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors,” requires executive departments and agencies, including independent establishments subject to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA), to ensure, in particular, that “contracts and contract-like instruments” include a model clause. That clause contains compliance obligations including providing access to books and records, reporting known or reasonably knowable subcontractor conduct that may violate the clause, reporting filed litigation about conduct that may violate the clause, and more.

The clause is also easy to misread. It applies to agreements above the micro-purchase threshold (currently $15,000) with U.S. performance, flows down to subcontracts at any tier, and carries suspension and debarment as other consequences of noncompliance. Substantively, it prohibits disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity across five domains: recruitment; employment, such as hiring and promotion; contracting, such as vendor agreements; program participation; and the allocation or deployment of resources. A program need not be branded as a diversity initiative to fall within scope, and the clause’s notion of “disparate treatment” is not tied to established frameworks under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so a prior privileged assessment conducted under traditional discrimination standards may not answer the question the clause now poses. The clause also affords the government broad access to a contractor’s books, records, and accounts to ascertain compliance, and contractors should assume that information furnished to a contracting officer could be reviewed by other federal enforcement agencies.

For federal procurement contracts, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council implemented this executive order and clause via deviation on April 17, 2026 (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.222-90).

Now, the GSA notice seeks clearance, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, for a new information collection that will require certain GSA contractors to furnish the information needed to demonstrate compliance with EO 14398. The collection covers GSA’s non-FAR-based agreements, which the agency describes as “contract-like instruments” and identifies as including leases of real property, concession contracts, and outleases.

The notable feature in this GSA notice is confirmation of the expansive scope. Attention to EO 14398 has so far centered on procurement contracts and FAR 52.222-90. But this notice is separate. It is agency confirmation of the broader scope: “all non-FAR based-contracts.” Specifically, GSA reads the clause to cover lessors, concessionaires, and outlease holders, many of which have not historically considered themselves federal contractors. Leases are a logical starting point for the agency: GSA maintains a public Inventory of Owned and Leased Properties identifying its lessors, a readily available population of counterparties. Affected organizations should not assume that leases mark the limit of the clause’s reach, or that falling outside this particular collection means falling outside the clause.

The GSA notice also estimates 31,384 contracts would be subject to its information collection requirements, with one percent or 314 requiring annual responses. In determining the scope of the information requested, GSA seeks to “mirror the FAR usage of OMB Control # 9000-0034, Examination of Records by Comptroller General and Contract Audit.” That collection requirement, for example, allows the contracting officers “to examine and audit all records and other evidence sufficient to reflect properly all costs claimed to have been incurred or anticipated to be incurred directly or indirectly in performance of a contract” and to interviews of “any current employee regarding such transactions.” GSA estimates that its contracting officers will need sixteen hours to review the information submitted for each response.

Next Steps

Affected organizations, particularly those whose government relationships run through leases, concessions, or outleases, may wish to consider the following:

• Confirming coverage. Organizations may want to determine whether the clause applies to existing instruments and whether it has been, or is expected to be, incorporated by modification.
• Privileged review. Consider an attorney-client privileged review of programs and initiatives across the five domains, together with privileged statistical analyses of hiring, promotion, compensation, performance, and discipline outcomes. A privileged posture allows an organization to identify and address genuine exposure while controlling whether and how sensitive analyses are later disclosed.
• Avoiding overcorrection. The objective is an accurate, defensible assessment of conduct. Eliminating lawful, race-neutral programs out of an abundance of caution may create separate legal risks.
• Commenting. The notice invites public comment for sixty days after publication. Organizations that believe GSA has understated the burden, or that its assumptions do not reflect the realities of leasing and concession arrangements, have until August 24, 2026, to submit comments before the deadline.

Ogletree Deakins’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance Practice Group, Government Contracting and Compliance Practice Group, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Employment Law, Government Contracting and Compliance, 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

SCOTUS: President May Terminate TPS for Haitians, Syrians. On June 25, 2026, in a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected claims that the administration had unlawfully terminated the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for Syria and Haiti. The administration defended its termination of TPS for Syria (made in September 2025) and Haiti (made in November 2025) by relying on federal law, which states, “There is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary of Homeland Security] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state.”

Challengers to the termination of the TPS designations claimed that the statute’s language barring review did not apply to the process leading up to the actual decision. The Court found this argument to be “inconsistent with the plain meaning of the statutory text” and explained, “If the final agency action is unreviewable, then so too are subsidiary determinations.” The Court further rejected claims that the termination of TPS for Haiti was grounded in racial animus because public statements made by President Trump and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem were not “overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications.” Ultimately, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief that pauses the terminations of the two TPS programs while the underlying litigation proceeds. Jack R. Haverkate has additional details.

In April 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill by a vote of 224–204 that would extend TPS for Haiti for three years. The bill is unlikely to gain traction in the U.S. Senate.

Final Duration-of-Status Rule on the Way. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has completed its review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) proposed rule that would establish a four-year maximum period of stay for students on F-1 and J-1 nonimmigrant visas. This means that ICE may publish the final rule at any moment.

FLSA Joint Employer Comments Take Procedural Step Forward. On June 22, 2026, the public comment docket closed on the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division’s proposal on “Joint Employer Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.” The proposal largely tracks the DOL’s 2020 joint-employer rule, which was mostly struck down by a federal court, by setting forth a four-factor test for determining joint-employer status. That test examines whether the alleged employer: (1) “hires or fires the employee”; (2) “supervises and controls the employee’s work schedule or conditions of employment to a substantial degree”; (3) “determines the employee’s rate and method of payment”; and (4) “maintains the employee’s employment records.” At this stage in the rulemaking process, the DOL will review the public’s comments on the proposal and make any necessary changes to the proposal. A final rule will likely be issued in late 2026 or early 2027.

Coming Soon … the Regulatory Agenda? Speaking of rulemaking, the administration’s last Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions was published on September 4, 2025. The Buzz previously noted how this lack of rulemaking transparency creates uncertainty for the employer community. Now that we are at the time of year when the Spring Regulatory Agenda is often released, the Buzz is hopeful that it will soon be issued. This will give employers—and all stakeholders—much-needed clarity with regard to the administration’s rulemaking plans for the months ahead.

House Committee Advances AI Information Collection Bill. On June 25, 2026, the House Committee on Education and Workforce voted to approve the AI Workforce Assessment and Research Enhancement (AWARE) Act (H.R. 9381). The bill would require the Bureau of Labor Statistics to collect and compile data on the usage of AI in the workplace. The bill now heads to the House floor.

Lights, Camera, Action … in the Court? The Senate Judiciary Committee has advanced two bills that would allow federal court proceedings to be televised:

• The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2025 (S. 1133) would allow federal district and appellate court judges (including those on the Supreme Court) “to permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising” of court proceedings. Pursuant to the bill, no media coverage of jurors shall be permitted if the “judge determines the action would constitute a violation of the due process rights of any party,” nor is such coverage of jurors allowed.
• The Cameras in the Courtroom Act (S. 1146/H.R. 2361) applies specifically to the Supreme Court but goes further by mandating “television coverage of all open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such coverage in a particular case would constitute a violation of the due process rights of one or more of the parties before the Court.”

The Judicial Conference of the United States opposes the bills, arguing that “camera coverage can do irreparable harm to a citizen’s right to a fair and impartial trial.” The conference also notes that media coverage of federal court proceedings raises privacy and safety concerns for participants, including federal judges. Finally, the conference warns against the potential creation of “deepfake” judicial proceedings, as well as the cost of retrofitting courtrooms.

Next week’s edition of the Buzz will be published on Thursday, July 2, 2026.

Quick Hits

• Side gigs supported by digital apps are becoming more common.
• State laws may regulate whether an employer can fire a worker for moonlighting.
• Most employees are considered at will, but some have job protections from a union contract or individual employment contract.

It is becoming more common for employees to have side gigs, particularly in roles like food delivery, ridesharing, online tutoring, social media management, creating content as a social media influencer, and reselling goods on online marketplaces.

Several factors govern whether an employer can legally fire or discipline a worker for moonlighting, including whether a union contract, individual employment contract, or noncompete agreement is in place. Without a contract, most employees are considered at will, meaning they can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, unless it constitutes discrimination or retaliation.

Many employers maintain written moonlighting policies, which may require workers to get HR or supervisor approval before starting any outside employment. Likewise, many employers have language in their employee handbooks to bar conflicts of interest or working for a competitor. For example, it may create a conflict of interest if an employee for a well-known multinational hotel chain becomes a popular travel influencer earning money by commenting on a range of hotels, destinations, and tourist attractions.

The purpose of these corporate policies is to prevent damage to the employer’s brand, public reputation, and trade secrets. Companies also may have concerns that outside employment will compromise an employee’s duty of loyalty or create problems related to scheduling, absenteeism, tardiness, and using work time and/or work resources for a side gig. It is generally legal for employers to have policies that prevent workers from using company resources or company time on their outside employment. Some employers’ policies also prohibit employees from mentioning the company’s name or brands, or wearing company merchandise, on personal social media posts without prior written approval.

However, some states have laws that restrict employers from firing or disciplining workers for legal off-duty activities, which may include moonlighting, unless there is a conflict of interest. California, Colorado, and North Dakota protect all lawful off-duty activities, while other states protect certain types of lawful off-duty activities, such as serving in the state legislature, working as an election official, or owning a gun. Washington State has a law stipulating that employers “may not restrict, restrain, or prohibit an employee earning less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from having an additional job, supplementing their income by working for another employer, working as an independent contractor, or being self-employed.”

Frequently, religious and political employers are exempt from these types of provisions. For example, a church could legally fire a pastor for having outside employment that conflicted with church doctrine.

Next Steps

Employers may wish to include clear language in employee handbooks about what types of outside employment and conflicts of interest will not be permitted. If moonlighting causes an employee to be late, absent, or less productive at work, it may be helpful to carefully document the dates, times, and other details related to work performance. If employers handle employee discipline and employment termination decisions in a fair and consistent manner, it may reduce the risk of discrimination lawsuits based on race, gender, or other legally protected characteristics.

Ogletree Deakins’ Employment Law Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Employee Engagement and Employment Law blogs as additional information becomes available.

David C. Castleberry is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Salt Lake City office.

Michael D. Wilson is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ San Francisco 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

• Employers may want to ensure they obtain formal employee acknowledgment of every internal policy; without proof that employees knew about a policy, enforcing it becomes extremely difficult.
• Policies must align with Mexican law—including the Federal Labor Law (Ley Federal del Trabajo), the Mexican Constitution, and applicable Official Mexican Standards (Normas Oficiales Mexicanas or NOMs)—rather than relying solely on global standards.
• To lawfully impose disciplinary sanctions, employers must have internal work regulations (reglamento interior de trabajo) in place that comply with the Federal Labor Law.

Mexico is a heavily regulated country, from the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States to the Federal Labor Law to Normas Oficiales Mexicanas (NOMs) governing health and safety, as well as other secondary provisions. These local requirements could limit or impact global policies, as mandatory local compliance is required.

Below are key tips to ensure that policies have a better chance of being enforceable:

1. Formal Employee Acknowledgment

If an employer cannot demonstrate that an employee was made aware of a particular policy, enforcing that policy whether through disciplinary measures or in proceedings before labor authorities becomes significantly more difficult.

2. Alignment With Mexican Law

Internal policies built on the foundation of Mexican labor law, not merely imported from a global template, are better positioned for enforceability. The Federal Labor Law, the Mexican Constitution, Official Mexican Standards, and local regulations all impose specific requirements. A policy that is perfectly lawful in another jurisdiction may conflict with Mexican rules and become unenforceable or even expose the employer to liabilities.

3. Language Considerations

Even when an organization operates globally in English, Mexican employees and authorities expect documentation in Spanish. A policy that exists only in English can face serious enforceability challenges.

4. Periodic Review and Updates

Mexican labor law evolves frequently. Recent years alone have brought reforms related to outsourcing, telework, vacation entitlements, workplace violence prevention, and workweek reduction. Employers may want to review their internal policies periodically to ensure they reflect both current legislation and the way the company actually operates.

5. Preservation of Unwaivable Rights

Global policies sometimes include provisions such as broad liability waivers, noncompete clauses with no temporal or geographic limits, or benefit structures that fall below statutory minimums that may conflict with protections Mexican employees are entitled to by law. Under Mexican labor law, employee rights are generally considered unwaivable. Employers may want to verify that their policies preserve local entitlements before rolling them out in Mexico.

6. Local Culture and Operational Realities

What feels proportionate and reasonable in one country may not translate effectively in Mexico. Policies should be practical, written in clear language, and proportional to the conduct they address.

7. Internal Work Regulations: A Prerequisite for Disciplinary Sanctions

As an additional and critical consideration, employers may want to be aware that to lawfully impose a disciplinary sanction on an employee, they must have internal work regulations (reglamento interior de trabajo) in place. Without properly established internal work regulations, an employer’s ability to impose workplace sanctions lacks the legal foundation required under Mexican law.

In light of these considerations, employers may want to prioritize audit-ready documentation, ensure internal policies reflect current Mexican law, and conduct periodic compliance reviews. Companies with operations in Mexico that have not yet localized their global policies or formalized their internal work regulations may want to take action now to reduce enforceability risks and ensure they are prepared for future regulatory developments.

Ogletree Deakins’ Mexico City office will continue to monitor developments and will post updates on the Cross-Border, Leaves of Absence, Mexico, Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets, Wage and Hour, and Workplace Safety and Health blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The updated pilot program bill’s requirements would apply only to accidents occurring within Alameda County and Santa Clara County.
• The bill would require the BOI to “immediately notify” the district attorneys’ offices in Alameda or Santa Clara counties upon learning of a fatal accident or an “incident in which there is a serious injury to five or more employees.”
• If enacted as proposed, AB 2321’s provisions would remain in effect until January 1, 2032.

At yesterday’s Senate committee hearing, Assembly Member Liz Ortega (D–District 20) introduced AB 2321 with the dire admonition that “Cal/OSHA [was] broken” and that Cal/OSHA was performing “so-called investigations” in California.

Labor groups voiced support for the legislation, while Ogletree Deakins shareholder Karen F. Tynan, chair of the firm’s Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group, testified in opposition, offering analysis that the local prosecutors are lacking in expertise in workplace safety matters and that early referrals to district attorneys’ offices would slow down investigations, with employers balancing the heavy risk of criminal prosecution with the desire to cooperate with Cal/OSHA inspectors.

Prior to the committee’s vote on AB 2321 (4–1 in favor of the bill’s advancement), Chairperson Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D–District 28) opined that the legislation would address the problem of Cal/OSHA’s needing “more boots on deck.”

Next Steps

Having received approval from the Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement, AB 2321 will be referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee. It is likely that there will be no further revisions to the bill.

Ogletree Deakins’ California offices and Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group will continue to monitor AB 2321’s progress and amendments and will provide updates on the California and Workplace Safety and Health blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• New York City Executive Order No. 17 directs city agencies to create guidance, gather data, improve worker protections, expand restroom and cooling information, and prepare for stronger rules addressing extreme heat in the workplace.
• Although it does not directly impose new duties on private employers, the order creates a citywide framework for heat illness prevention that employers should monitor and may wish to follow in advance of future regulation.
• The order responds to growing heat risks for outdoor, indoor, construction, gig, delivery, and municipal workers by requiring multilingual guidance, agency heat plans, data review, strict restroom access enforcement, and public heat relief messaging.

The order is grounded in findings that roughly 1.4 million New Yorkers—about a third of the city’s workforce—work outdoors for prolonged periods, and that the city could experience more than four times as many heat waves each year by the 2050s. While the order’s obligations fall primarily on city agencies rather than private employers, it sets out a detailed framework and timeline that employers should understand. The order took effect immediately.

Background and Findings

The order’s preamble sets out the rationale for action. It finds that “hundreds of thousands of workers in New York City” face heat-related illness and death on hot days, and that extreme heat increases the risk of all categories of workplace injury while reducing productivity. It cites scientific evidence that worker productivity decreases by approximately 2 percent for every one degree Celsius above the comfort range.

The order also notes that many construction workers, street vendors, app-based delivery workers, day laborers, and other gig workers lack paid breaks and easy restroom access, leading some to limit water intake and increase their risk of dehydration and related conditions.

Worker Heat Illness Prevention Guidance

At the heart of the order is a mandate for new heat illness prevention guidance. The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH), working with NYC Emergency Management and the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, must develop best-practice guidance and educational materials for both indoor and outdoor workers. Importantly, the materials must be produced in the languages commonly spoken by the city’s workers and must cover not just employees but independent contractors, gig workers, and day laborers.

A long list of agencies will help disseminate the materials. DOHMH must prepare outdoor worker guidance “as soon as practicable” and submit indoor worker guidance by March 1, 2027.

Construction and Municipal Worker Protections

The order singles out two groups for heightened attention. The Department of Buildings (DOB) must review whether existing construction safety and training requirements adequately protect against heat illness, consult with worker organizations, and may issue new recommendations—also due by March 1, 2027.

Separately, all mayoral agencies must develop and implement their own indoor and outdoor heat illness plans so that city employees and contractors are protected whenever the city’s Heat Emergency Plan is activated. When that plan is triggered, New York City Emergency Management (NYCEM) will push out heat illness prevention information and employer recommendations tied to the forecasted temperature.

Data Collection and Reporting Requirements

Several provisions focus on building a heat-illness evidence base. The order directs DOHMH to review workers’ compensation claims filed by city employees to identify patterns related to temperature, including excess risk during hot weather. DOHMH will study whether to add heat-related illnesses to the Diseases and Conditions of Public Health Interest that are reportable under the City Health Code. This step could eventually require health care professionals to report such conditions, including the patient’s employer and place of employment.

The DOB is directed, during periods of high heat, to remind property owners, contractors, and others in control of construction sites of their existing obligation to report heat-related incidents requiring emergency transport or immediate emergency care.

Restroom Access and Heat Relief

The order also addresses access to restrooms and relief from the heat. During periods of high heat, city agencies with jurisdiction over worker protection measures must strictly enforce laws and rules that increase restroom access for outdoor workers, including the Administrative Code provision granting food delivery workers the right to use the restrooms of the restaurants for which they make deliveries, regardless of whether they are employed by the restaurant.

The city must also continue implementing free public restrooms and must include information about restrooms, cooling centers, Parks Department cooling locations, water features, drinking fountains, and shaded locations in its messaging to workers.

Implications for Employers

Although Executive Order No. 17 directs city agencies rather than imposing direct obligations on private employers, employers should monitor its implementation closely. Today’s guidance often becomes tomorrow’s requirements. The forthcoming DOHMH guidance is likely to become the practical benchmark for heat-safety measures in New York City. The order also notes that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed a federal rule requiring employers to take heat-protection steps for indoor and outdoor workers, signaling the broader regulatory direction. While this rule has stalled, states across the country are beginning to enact their own heat injury and illness prevention regulations. New York City (and possibly the state) may not be far behind.

Employers that align their practices with the city’s guidance and the proposed federal standard will be better positioned as those requirements take shape.

Next Steps

Even though this order does not create any new requirements for private employers, there is still room for proactive action. Employers can consider taking the following steps now: developing a written heat illness prevention plan covering both indoor and outdoor work; incorporating rest, water, and shade during high-heat periods; ensuring restroom access for field and delivery staff; training supervisors to recognize the early signs of heat illness; providing safety materials in the languages spoken by their workforce; and documenting hot-weather response protocols.

Employers should also monitor the release of the city’s outdoor worker guidance and the progress of the OSHA rule in order to align their policies as the regulatory framework develops.

Ogletree Deakins’ New York office and Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and provide updates on the Construction, New York, and Workplace Safety and Health blogs as the city’s heat illness prevention guidance and related requirements are issued.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The Rhode Island General Assembly wrapped up its 2026 legislative session on June 11, 2026, after passing several bills impacting employers.
• New enactments address grocery store self-service checkouts and employee monitors, provide warehouse worker protections, and expand Rhode Island’s Fair Employment Practices Act to cover domestic workers.
• Lawmakers failed to pass some notable proposals, including bills that would have regulated AI use and electronic monitoring in workplaces, provided protections against workplace bullying, and expanded caregiver leave.

Enacted Legislation Impacting Employers

Senate Bill (S) 2342 Sub B / House Bill (H) 7290 Sub A—Restrictions on Self-Service Checkout Stations Act—Effective January 1, 2027

This statute places limits on the number of self-service checkout stations a grocery store can have and on the workload of employees assigned to monitor those checkout stations. The law mandates that grocery stores “have a minimum of one manual checkout station in operation for every three (3) self-service checkout stations in operation” with at least one manual checkout station that complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

S 2504 Sub A / H 7364 Sub A—Warehouse Worker Protection Act—Effective January 1, 2027

This law requires employers to provide each employee of a warehouse distribution center, upon hire, with a written description of each applicable quota within defined time periods and of the adverse employment action for failure to meet the quota. The law prohibits employers from requiring workers to meet quotas that prevent them from taking required meal and rest periods or using the bathroom.

S 2921 / H 8504—Domestic Service Workers Added to the Definition of ‘Employees’ Under FEPA—Effective June 10, 2026

Rhode Island lawmakers have recently taken legislative steps to treat domestic workers like other employees under Rhode Island’s labor and employment laws. In 2024, Rhode Island amended its minimum wage law to include domestic workers. This year, lawmakers passed and enacted S 2921 / H 8504, amending the definition of “employee” under the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA), Rhode Island General Law Section 28-5-6, to similarly include individuals employed in domestic service.

Notable Bills That Failed to Pass

S 2502 / H 8505—Proposed Workplace Psychological Safety Act

For the past few legislative sessions, lawmakers have proposed the Workplace Psychological Safety Act to prohibit bullying and psychological abuse in the workplace. Business-interest and civil-rights groups have raised various concerns about past versions of this legislation. Although this year’s version of the bill attempted to address some of those concerns, it failed to address all of them and did not pass in the Rhode Island House of Representatives.

S 2166 / H 7490—Overtime Wages for Exempt Workers

This bill would have required small employers with fifty or fewer employees and large employers with more than fifty employees “in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity” under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to pay overtime wages to exempt workers if their salaries exceed varying multipliers of minimum wage for a forty-hour workweek. This bill failed to pass.

S 2499 Sub A / H 7767—AI Use in the Workplace

This bill would have created a comprehensive statutory framework to address and regulate the use of AI technology, defined as “automated decision system[s] (ADS),” in the workplace to make employment decisions (i.e., hiring, promotion, or disciplinary decisions) when such decisions rely on data collected through electronic monitoring. H 7767 sought to impose requirements for “prior notice” of electronic monitoring, certain recordkeeping obligations, and employee anti-retaliation protections. Although this bill passed in the Rhode Island Senate, it failed to gain traction in the House.

S 2737 Sub A / H 7968—Temporary Caregiver Leave Benefits Expansion

In recent years, lawmakers have considered expanding temporary caregiver benefits to extend to a broadened class of individuals for whom an employee can serve as a caregiver, lengthen the time an employee can receive temporary caregiver benefits, and increase the amount employees can receive through wage-replacement benefits under the temporary caregiver program. This year was no exception: Lawmakers introduced a bill that would have expanded the definition of individuals for whom an employee may serve as a caregiver to include a grandchild and a “care recipient,” as well as increased the amount of time an employee could receive temporary caregiver benefits from eight weeks to ten weeks in 2027 and twelve weeks in 2028. The Senate passed this bill, but the legislation failed to pass in the House.

Staying Informed

Ogletree Deakins’ Providence and Boston offices will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Employment Law and Rhode Island blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Mullin v. Doe that the TPS statute bars judicial review of nonconstitutional challenges to the DHS secretary’s termination of a country’s TPS designation.
• When the terminations take effect, Haitian and Syrian employees’ TPS-based employment authorization and protection from removal will end.
• Employers should expect further guidance from governmental agencies on timing and on how to handle Form I-9 reverification.

The 6–3 decision in Mullin v. Doe lifts lower-court orders that had paused prior TPS Haiti and Syria terminations, clearing the way for TPS holders to lose work authorization and protection from removal.

Background

The TPS designation was created to provide temporary status to foreign nationals in the United States unable to return to their home countries due to events or circumstances present in the countries, such as natural disasters, armed conflicts, or other extraordinary conditions. During the designated TPS period, TPS beneficiaries are not removable from the United States, can obtain work authorization (EAD), and can apply for travel authorization.

DHS designated Haiti for TPS in 2010 following a devastating earthquake and designated Syria in 2012 because of conditions related to the country’s civil war. In 2025, then-secretary of homeland security Kristi Noem announced the termination of both designations: Syria through a September 2025 Federal Register notice and Haiti through a November 2025 notice, with the Haiti termination set to take effect February 3, 2026.

TPS holders challenged the terminations in federal court. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Syria) and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Haiti) each granted interim relief postponing the terminations, finding, among other things, that DHS had likely failed to consult appropriate agencies about current country conditions as the statute requires. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to stay those orders. The Supreme Court granted review before judgment and consolidated the cases.

Analysis and Impact

The Supreme Court ruled that courts generally cannot review TPS termination decisions and lifted prior interim pauses, allowing the termination of TPS Haiti and TPS Syria to move forward. Further, the court dismissed an equal protection challenge arguing Haiti’s termination was motivated by race, concluding the claim was unlikely to succeed.

Key Takeaways for Employers

Employers should expect employees on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Haiti or Syria to lose work authorization. As terminations take effect, affected employees’ TPS-based EADs and protection from removal will lapse, which may trigger Form I-9 reverification obligations for their employers.

Governmental agencies are expected to publish further guidance on exact termination timelines and proper I-9 reverification.

Reviewing ongoing compliance requirements and understanding I-9 documentation obligations remain the most proactive methods for ensuring employers remain compliant. A Status Change Report is available for E-Verify employers through the E-Verify system to monitor rescission of EADs under humanitarian programs that were valid when E-Verify was initially completed. Humanitarian-based EAD programs, including TPS, are subject to frequent updates, and it is important for employers to stay informed. Employers may want to develop and implement an internal protocol for tracking updates and monitoring compliance.

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

For more insight into this development and other critical immigration issues facing employers today, please join our Virtual Immigration Insights Symposium on Wednesday, October 7, 2026, from noon to 2:30 p.m. ET. Register here.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts

Quick Hits

• The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that employees may bring wrongful termination claims if fired for acting in self-defense, even if their lawful exercise of the right to self-defense violates employer policies prohibiting confrontations.
• The court identified a public-policy exception to at-will employment, emphasizing that termination cannot penalize employees for exercising their statutory and constitutional right of self-defense.
• The decision highlights potential wrongful termination liability for employers if they discharge employees for lawful actions taken in self-defense in the workplace.

Answering a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a landmark 5–2 ruling, holding that the right to self-defense, as expressed by both statute and the Colorado Constitution, supports a public-policy exception to the doctrine of at-will employment.

The certified question stemmed from a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by a convenience store employee after she was discharged following her response to an alleged armed robbery. The certified question was:

Does Colorado law recognize a public-policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine that allows an employee to bring a wrongful termination claim in the event the employee is terminated for actions taken in self-defense?

The store’s policy prohibited employees from confronting shoplifters, though the employee claimed she had acted in self-defense.

Public-Policy Exception to At-Will Employment

While the doctrine of at-will employment generally allows employers and employees to terminate their employment relationship at any time, the Colorado Supreme Court has recognized a public-policy exception, whereby employers are prohibited from discharging employees for reasons that would be “detrimental to the public good.”

The Colorado high court pointed to its prior precedent and its four-part test for determining whether an at-will employee has established that a discharge violated public policy by showing:

(1) that the employer directed the employee to perform an illegal act as part of the employee’s work related duties or prohibited the employee from performing a public duty or exercising an important job-related right or privilege;

(2) that the action directed by the employer would violate a specific statute relating to the public health, safety, or welfare, or would undermine a clearly expressed public policy relating to the employee’s basic responsibility as a citizen or the employee’s right or privilege as a worker; …

(3) that the employee was terminated as the result of refusing to perform the act directed by the employer[; and] …

(4) that the employer was aware, or reasonably should have been aware, that the employee’s refusal to comply with the employer’s order or directive was based on the employee’s reasonable belief that the action ordered by the employer was illegal, contrary to clearly expressed statutory policy relating to the employee’s duty as a citizen, or violative of the employee’s legal right or privilege as a worker.

The Colorado high court found that both section 18-1-704 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and article II, section 3 of the Colorado Constitution establish a right to self-defense. Reasoning that the right to self-defense is “an essential, inalienable right guaranteed to all people,” the court found that employees may not be prohibited from defending themselves at work. The court thus concluded that the right to self-defense “is job-related insofar as the need to exercise the right to defend oneself from an unprovoked attack can occur anywhere, including at work.”

Self-Defense Can Apply in the Workplace

The court answered the certified question in the affirmative: Colorado law recognizes a public-policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine that allows an employee to bring a wrongful termination claim in the event the employee is terminated for actions taken in self-defense.

The court’s majority essentially viewed the question as whether an employee must choose between his or her job and following the employer’s policies, or between the job and exercising a public right of self-defense. The court stated, “[A]n employer may not use termination to penalize an employee for exercising a constitutional or statutory right that reflects an important, clearly expressed public policy that affects the public.” The court noted that “this does not mean that an employer may not place reasonable limitations on these broader, societal rights to maintain the efficiency, safety, and stability of a workplace.”

Still, the court noted that it had not decided whether the convenience store’s policy barred employees from acting in self-defense or whether it simply prohibited employees from confronting shoplifters. Further, the court did not determine whether the employee had lawfully acted in self-defense.

The Dissent

Two justices dissented, reasoning that the Colorado Constitution restrained only government action and that the majority’s ruling was divorced from the facts of the case, which, they found, suggested that the convenience store employee had done more than act in self-defense and had attempted to stop a shoplifter. They criticized the majority for holding that a constitutional protection against state action could restrict a private employer from lawfully discharging an at-will employee for conduct that violated the employer’s policies. The dissent expressed concern that the court had equated a “job-related right,” as stated in precedent, with a more generic right guaranteed to “everyone.”

Key Takeaways

The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling is a significant development for employers with operations in the state. The decision establishes that employers may face wrongful termination liability if they discharge an employee for lawfully exercising the right to self-defense in response to an unprovoked attack at work.

However, the decision indicates that the right to self-defense is “narrow,” applying “only when an employee lawfully exercises the right in response to an unprovoked attack at work,” and that there are bounds on what actions constitute lawful self-defense under the circumstances. The court noted that the ruling “does not mean that an employer may not place reasonable limitations on these broader, societal rights to maintain the efficiency, safety, and stability of a workplace.”

This ruling thus suggests that employers may still be able to enforce properly tailored workplace “no confrontation” or de-escalation policies in certain circumstances. Indeed, the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling did not analyze the specific facts of the underlying case, determine whether the employee had lawfully acted in self-defense, or find that the employee had violated the employer’s no-confrontation policy.

In light of the decision, Colorado employers may want to review their workplace policies and examine the extent to which they might inadvertently infringe employees’ right to self-defense.

Ogletree Deakins’ Denver office will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Colorado, Employment Law, Retail, Workplace Safety and Health, and Workplace Violence Prevention blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts