Protected Concerted Activity and the NLRA: When Employees Speak Up, Employers Should Slow Down

By Lanie Read on July 27, 2026 Posted in Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention, Labor Relations

Many employers believe that federal labor law, such as the National Labor Relations Act, only applies to unionized workforces. In reality, most private-sector non-unionized employees are protected by the NLRA too, which means employee conversations, complaints, petitions, or other shared workplace concerns may qualify as protected activity, even when there is no union, no organizing campaign, and no collective bargaining agreement.

Missteps in responding to protected concerted activity can result in unfair labor practice allegations, scrutiny of workplace policies, and remedial obligations.

Employer-Sponsored Immigration Programs Amid Litigation: Key Developments and Planning Considerations

By Andres Urdaneta Brylkin on June 23, 2026 Posted in Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention, Immigration Planning & Compliance

In June 2026, two federal court decisions created potential implications for employers sponsoring foreign national employees and individuals with pending immigration benefit applications. Although the cases involve different USCIS policies and arise from separate legal challenges, both have immediate operational implications and underscore the uncertainty that ongoing immigration litigation can create for employers.

DOL Proposes Joint Employer Rule: Key Implications for Employers

By Megan Coughlin on June 16, 2026 Posted in Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention, Employment Litigation, Wage & Hour

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed a new joint employer rule that could significantly expand employer liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA). The new proposal would create a single nationwide standard for determining when multiple entities may be deemed joint employers — an important development for businesses that rely on staffing agencies, subcontractors, franchise models, or other multi-entity workforce arrangements. The proposed rule, which was announced April 22, 2026, is now open for a 60-day public comment period.

AI-Enhanced Misappropriation: When Departing Employees Leave with More Than Just Client Lists

By M. Adil Yaqoob on June 9, 2026 Posted in AI, Employee Handbooks & Policies, Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention, Non-Compete & Trade Secret Litigation

Consider the scenario: a higher-up employee uploads six months of internal strategy documents into a generative AI tool, generates a ten-page competitive playbook synthesizing the company’s pricing models, customer relationships, and go-to-market plans, and resigns the next morning. Nothing was forwarded, downloaded, or copied in the traditional sense—but the employer’s most valuable information just walked out the door in a new form.

Artificial intelligence has rapidly transformed workplace productivity. Employees now routinely use generative AI tools to summarize documents, organize information, draft communications, and analyze large datasets. But those same tools are also creating new trade secret, confidentiality, data security, and restrictive covenant risks that many employers have yet to confront.

When a Third‑Party Investigator Is the Smart Move

By Devon Mills on May 27, 2026 Posted in Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention, Employment Investigations & Audits

Choosing the right investigator for a workplace complaint is one of the most consequential decisions an employer will make once concerns are raised. Whether the investigation is conducted internally by an HR team member or by a neutral third‑party investigator can influence how critical evidence is preserved, how credible the findings are, and whether the employer’s ultimate decisions are defensible. Making the right choice can help the complainant feel heard, surface key facts quickly, and support informed decision‑making. The wrong choice, on the other hand, can turn an otherwise manageable issue into a costly and time‑consuming problem if litigation ensues.

New York Joins the Growing Wave of States Restricting Credit Checks in Employment

By Andrew C. Karter on May 19, 2026 Posted in Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention, Employment Discrimination Harassment & Retaliation

A new amendment to New York’s Fair Credit Reporting Act has significantly restricted employers’ use of consumer credit history in employment decisions. The amendment follows the lead of New York City’s existing Stop Credit Discrimination in Employment Act, which already prohibits most city employers from requesting or using an applicant’s or employee’s credit history when making employment decisions.

Here’s what employers need to know about the new amendment, and when credit checks may still be on the table.

Religious Accommodations in the Post-Groff Era: Navigating the Supreme Court’s “Substantial Increased Cost” Standard

By Lanie Read on April 28, 2026 Posted in Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention, Employment Discrimination Harassment & Retaliation

According to the EEOC, religious discrimination charges have increased steadily over the past decade. Post-Groff, the stakes for getting accommodation decisions wrong have never been higher. Whether you’re fielding a request for schedule flexibility, dress code exceptions, or vaccination exemptions, the legal framework has fundamentally shifted.

When an employee requests a religious accommodation, employers often have practical, time-sensitive questions: What information should we gather? What can we ask (and what should we avoid)? How do we assess whether a belief is “sincerely held”? How might the requested change affect operations? And what does “undue hardship” mean, especially after Groff?

New Jersey’s Proposed Ban on Height and Weight Discrimination: What Employers Should Know

By Katie Johnson on April 16, 2026 Posted in Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention, Employment Discrimination Harassment & Retaliation

State and local employment laws continue to evolve in ways that can catch even well‑prepared employers off guard. New Jersey’s latest legislative effort is a good example. A bill pending in the New Jersey Legislature would add height and weight to the list of protected characteristics under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), placing the state among a small but growing group of jurisdictions that expressly regulate appearance‑based bias in the workplace. While the proposal is still working its way through the legislative process, it reflects a broader national trend that employers — particularly those with multistate operations — should not ignore.

FY 2027 H-1B Cap Petition Filing Opens April 1: Key Considerations for Employers and Employees

By Michael Castiglione on March 30, 2026 Posted in Immigration Planning & Compliance

The release of H‑1B lottery results has significant consequences for both employers and their foreign national employees. Although selection is welcome news, it does not confer H‑1B status; it merely authorizes the employer to file an H‑1B petition during the April 1–June 30 filing window. The H-1B petition must be approved by USCIS before an employee can obtain H‑1B status.

While H-1B petition approval rates have exceeded 90 percent in recent years, approval is not automatic. USCIS has historically scrutinized H-1B petitions for issues, including whether an H-1B position qualifies as a specialty occupation — requiring at least a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in a field directly related to the role; whether the beneficiary possesses the required degree or equivalent credentials; whether a valid employer–employee relationship exists; and whether the beneficiary has maintained lawful immigration status.

While these adjudication issues remain relevant, recent developments in immigration law introduce additional considerations for employers and employees selected in the FY 2027 H‑1B lottery.

When One Harassment Claim May Put the Whole Case in Court

By Diana Martinez on March 23, 2026 Posted in Employment Counseling & Workplace Claims Prevention, Employment Discrimination Harassment & Retaliation

A single sexual harassment allegation may do more than add one more claim to an employment complaint — it may also affect where the entire case gets litigated. In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed a question that could have significant consequences for employers with arbitration agreements: when a plaintiff brings a sexual harassment claim alongside other employment claims, can the employer still compel arbitration of the non-harassment claims? At least under the Sixth Circuit’s reading of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), the answer may be no.