All posts by Legislative Update

Nebraska Legislative Alert 847 Change Notification Nebraska LB 847 revises how the combined unemployment insurance (UI) tax rate is allocated between the employer contribution rate and the state unemployment insurance tax rate when the state UI tax rate is greater than zero. Under prior law, at least 80% of the combined rate was required to be assigned to the contribution rate and no more than 20% to the state UI tax rate. This measure changes that formula so that at least 50% of the combined rate must be attributed to the contribution rate and no more than 50% may be assigned to the state UI tax rate. The existing provision remains in place for employers with a combined tax rate of 5.4% or greater, where the state UI tax rate is zero and the full rate is assigned to the contribution rate. Effective Date April 7, 2026 Nebraska Legislative Alert 847 Implication to Stakeholders While the total combined UI tax rate may not necessarily increase, this change allows for a greater portion of the rate to be allocated to the state unemployment insurance tax component rather than the experience-rated contribution portion. As a result, employers may experience a shift in how their rates are structured, potentially reducing the direct impact of claims experience on a portion of their overall tax rate. However, it may also reduce predictability in how rates are distributed year-over-year, depending on how the state applies this flexibility. Recommended Action for Employers Employers should review their unemployment tax rate notices carefully to understand how their combined rate is being allocated under the revised formula. It is advisable to continue focusing on effective claims management practices, as the contribution rate component remains experience-based and subject to employer control. Employers may also want to consult with their unemployment insurance advisor to evaluate any shifts in tax rate composition and ensure they are prepared for potential changes in how their UI taxes are calculated going forward.

Maryland House Bill 242 Change Notification Maryland House Bill 242 updates the state’s unemployment insurance (UI) confidentiality provisions to align more closely with federal requirements. Specifically, the measure revises how the Maryland Department of Labor handles, safeguards, and discloses UI-related information so that it complies with governing federal statutes, including the Social Security Act, the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), and implementing regulations such as 20 C.F.R. Part 603. These federal rules establish strict standards for the confidentiality, disclosure, and permissible use of UI data, and the bill ensures Maryland law is consistent with those standards. Effective Date Upon enactment Maryland HB 242 Implication to Stakeholders For employers, this change primarily affects how unemployment insurance information, such as wage data, contribution records, and claim details, may be shared or accessed. Employers may experience tighter controls around the release of UI information and potentially more formalized processes when requesting or responding to information from the state. While the change does not directly alter tax rates or benefit eligibility, it reinforces data privacy requirements and may limit informal or broad access to claim-related information, emphasizing compliance and proper authorization. Recommended Action Employers should review their internal processes for handling unemployment insurance information to ensure they align with stricter confidentiality standards. This includes confirming that only authorized personnel access UI data, maintaining secure recordkeeping practices, and responding appropriately to state requests for information. Employers may also want to coordinate with their third-party administrators or legal advisors to ensure continued compliance and to understand any procedural changes in how UI information is requested or disclosed under the updated law.

Washington Senate Bill 6134 Change Notification Washington Senate Bill 6134 updates the state’s unemployment insurance (UI) law by requiring the Employment Security Department (ESD) to provide clear notice to workers who apply for benefits due to a strike. Specifically, workers must be informed that if they later receive retroactive wages, such as back pay following a strike resolution, for weeks in which they also collected UI benefits, they may be subject to an overpayment determination. The law does not change the state’s authority to recover overpaid benefits but formalizes the requirement that workers be notified of this possibility in advance. It also outlines acceptable methods of delivering this notice, includes a federal conformity provision to ensure continued federal funding and tax credit eligibility, and establishes that this notice requirement will remain in effect through December 31, 2035. Effective Date Immediately Washington SB 6134 Implication to Stakeholders While the primary obligation under this law falls on the state, employers may see increased scrutiny and coordination around strike-related claims and any subsequent retroactive wage payments. If retroactive wages are issued following a strike, those payments could trigger overpayment determinations for impacted employees, potentially leading to administrative follow-up or inquiries involving the employer. This may also influence how claims are adjudicated and how employer accounts are impacted, particularly if benefit payments are later reversed or recovered. Recommended Employer Action Employers should ensure accurate and timely documentation of any strike activity and clearly track any retroactive wage payments made to employees following a labor dispute. It is advisable to coordinate closely with internal payroll and HR teams to ensure consistency in reporting and to respond promptly to any ESD inquiries. Employers may also benefit from reviewing their internal processes for handling strike-related claims to minimize administrative complications and ensure compliance with evolving UI requirements.

Pennsylvania House Bill 274 Change Notification Pennsylvania House Bill 274 expands eligibility for unemployment compensation by allowing individuals who are victims of domestic violence to qualify for benefits under certain circumstances. The measure permits claimants to confidentially submit “reasonable evidence” of recent domestic violence when applying for benefits. Importantly, the law removes the requirement that individuals provide formal documentation such as a police report or protective order, broadening the types of acceptable proof and lowering barriers to eligibility. Effective Date Immediately Pennsylvania HB 274 Implication to Stakeholders This change may result in an increase in unemployment claims that are approved under circumstances where an employee voluntarily leaves employment due to domestic violence. Because the evidentiary standard is more flexible and confidentiality is emphasized, employers may have limited visibility into the specifics of the claim and fewer opportunities to contest eligibility based on lack of traditional documentation. As a result, employers could see a potential impact on their unemployment tax rates if more claims are charged to their accounts. Recommended Employer Action Employers should review and update their internal policies and procedures related to employee separations and unemployment claims to account for this expanded eligibility category. It is advisable to ensure that HR and management teams are trained to handle sensitive situations involving domestic violence appropriately and to document separations carefully, while respecting employee privacy. Additionally, employers should monitor unemployment claims closely and work with their unemployment cost management partners to evaluate chargeability and respond appropriately within the bounds of the updated law.

Washington Senate Bill 5874 Change Notification Washington Senate Bill 5874 updates and clarifies employer reporting requirements under the state’s unemployment insurance (UI) program. Employers are now explicitly required to maintain accurate employment records and report detailed information, including employee wages, hours worked, and job titles or standard occupational classifications. The law allows employers to correct reporting errors in a timely manner without penalty, which provides some flexibility for compliance. Additionally, the measure refines reporting obligations for certain entities such as contractors and federally recognized tribes and establishes default methods for calculating hours worked when employers fail to report them. It also revises penalty provisions by introducing a graduated structure for late, incomplete, or inaccurate reports, along with clearer standards for waivers and stronger enforcement authority in cases of misrepresentation or unpaid contributions. Effective Date June 2026 Washington SB 5874 Implication to Stakeholders This change increases the level of detail and accuracy expected in employer wage and hour reporting, which may require adjustments to payroll systems and internal processes. Employers face greater exposure to penalties if reports are late or inaccurate, particularly under the enhanced enforcement provisions. However, the ability to make timely corrections without penalty offers some protection for employers who identify and fix errors quickly. Overall, employers should expect closer scrutiny of their reporting practices and a greater administrative emphasis on compliance, especially for organizations with complex workforces or contractor relationships. Recommended Employer Action Employers should review and, if necessary, update their payroll and reporting systems to ensure they can capture and report all required data elements accurately, including hours worked and job classifications. Internal processes should be evaluated to confirm that reporting deadlines are consistently met and that there are controls in place to identify and correct errors promptly. Employers may also benefit from training HR and payroll personnel on the updated requirements and documenting procedures for handling corrections. For organizations that utilize contractors or have unique reporting structures, consulting with a UI specialist or advisor is recommended to ensure full compliance and minimize the risk of penalties.

Main LD 2101 Change Notification Maine LD 2101 introduces a new financial penalty for employers whose unemployment insurance (UI) payments are returned unpaid under the state’s Employment Security Law. If a payment fails for any reason, such as insufficient funds, a closed or invalid account, or a stop-payment order, the Maine Department of Labor is required to assess a penalty. The penalty will be the greater of $25 or 1% of the unpaid contribution amount. This formalizes a consistent consequence for invalid or rejected UI payments. Effective Date Maine LD 2101 introduces a new financial penalty for employers whose unemployment insurance (UI) payments are returned unpaid under the state’s Employment Security Law. If a payment fails for any reason, such as insufficient funds, a closed or invalid account, or a stop-payment order, the Maine Department of Labor is required to assess a penalty. The penalty will be the greater of $25 or 1% of the unpaid contribution amount. This formalizes a consistent consequence for invalid or rejected UI payments. Main LD 2101 Implication to Stakeholders This change increases the financial and administrative risk associated with errors in UI payment processing. Even inadvertent issues, such as banking errors or timing mismatches, can now result in additional costs. Employers with high contribution volumes or frequent transactions may be particularly exposed, as even small percentage-based penalties can accumulate. Additionally, repeated payment failures could draw increased scrutiny from the state and potentially impact an employer’s compliance standing. Recommended Action Employers should review and strengthen their internal payroll and payment processes to ensure all UI contributions are accurate and successfully processed on the first attempt. This includes verifying bank account information, maintaining sufficient account balances, and coordinating closely with payroll providers or third-party administrators. Implementing internal controls or payment verification steps prior to submission can help prevent avoidable penalties. Regular reconciliation of UI payments and prompt resolution of any rejected transactions will also be critical under this new requirement.

Indiana Senate Bill 162 Change Notification This measure makes several changes to Indiana’s unemployment insurance law that may affect benefit eligibility, employer coverage, and claims processing: Vacation and sick pay excluded from deductible income Payments for accrued vacation or sick leave will no longer be treated as deductible income when determining unemployment benefits. As a result, individuals may be eligible to receive full unemployment benefits even if they receive these types of payments at separation. “Suitable work” definition limited to extended benefit claims The definition of suitable work has been narrowed to apply primarily to extended benefit claims. This change may impact how refusals of work are evaluated outside of extended benefit periods. Revised definition of employment for certain organizations The law removes the requirement that religious, charitable, and educational organizations must employ four or more individuals to be considered subject to unemployment insurance. This change may expand coverage to smaller organizations that were previously excluded. Limited direct deposit disbursements authorized The Department of Workforce Development is now permitted to issue certain unemployment benefit payments via direct deposit, allowing for more efficient distribution of benefits. Additional benefits for disaster unemployment assistance claims Individuals filing for Disaster Unemployment Assistance may qualify for expanded benefits under qualifying circumstances, increasing the potential duration or amount of assistance available. Effective Date July 1, 2026 Indiana SB 162 Implication to Stakeholders These changes may result in increased unemployment benefit payouts on certain claims, particularly due to the exclusion of vacation and sick pay from deductible income, which could impact employer chargeability and future unemployment tax rates. Employers, especially smaller religious, charitable, and educational organizations, should review their status to determine if they are now subject to unemployment insurance coverage and related reporting requirements. Additionally, adjustments to how “suitable work” is defined may influence claim determinations involving job refusals. Overall, employers should be prepared for potential changes in claims handling, benefit costs, and compliance obligations under Indiana law. Recommended Action Employers should review their separation and payroll practices to account for the exclusion of vacation and sick pay from deductible income, as this may increase potential claim costs. Organizations, particularly smaller religious, charitable, and educational employers, should evaluate whether they are now subject to unemployment insurance coverage and ensure proper registration and reporting compliance. Employers should also monitor unemployment claims more closely, including job refusal issues, and respond promptly to agency requests. Finally, consider consulting with your unemployment insurance representative or advisor to assess potential impacts on your tax rate and claims strategy.

Washington House Bill 2264 Change Notification Washington House Bill 2264 expands the definition of when an employee is considered unemployed “through no fault of their own” for unemployment insurance purposes. Individuals who voluntarily elect to be included in a layoff or workforce reduction, after the employer initiates the process, may still qualify for unemployment benefits. Specifically, if the employer announces a planned reduction in force and an employee volunteers to be part of that reduction, the separation will still be treated as employer-initiated. The law also clarifies that allowing an employee to rescind their offer to be included in the layoff does not impact eligibility, and it excludes situations involving voluntary early retirement incentives or benefit modifications. Effective Date 90 days after adjournment Washington HB 2264 Implication to Stakeholders This change broadens eligibility for unemployment benefits in workforce reduction scenarios, which may lead to an increase in chargeable claims against employer accounts. Even when employees proactively volunteer for separation, these separations will generally be treated as employer-driven if the layoff process was initiated by the employer. As a result, employers may see higher unemployment insurance costs and reduced ability to contest claims on the basis that the separation was voluntary. Recommended Action Employers should review and potentially revise their workforce reduction policies and communication strategies to ensure clarity around layoff processes. It is advisable to carefully document that the employer initiated the reduction and maintain detailed records of all employee communications and decisions. Additionally, employers should anticipate potential increases in unemployment claims tied to voluntary layoff participation and consider incorporating this into workforce planning and cost projections. Consulting with unemployment insurance advisors or legal counsel can also help ensure compliance and effective claim management under the new standard.

California Senate Bill 854 Change Notification This measure updates the California Unemployment Insurance Code to clarify how official notices can be delivered. Specifically, it expands the definition of “mail,” “mailed,” or “mailing” to include not only traditional paper documents sent through the U.S. Postal Service or other carriers, but also electronic communications such as emails or online notifications. Effective Date January 1, 2026 California SB 854 Implication to Stakeholders For employers, this means that important unemployment insurance notices—such as claim determinations, requests for information, or appeal deadlines—may be sent electronically rather than by paper mail. As a result, it is important to regularly monitor any designated email addresses or online accounts to ensure timely responses and avoid missing critical deadlines that could impact claims or your unemployment tax rate. Recommended Action Employers should review and update their internal processes for receiving unemployment insurance communications. This includes confirming that the correct email addresses are on file with the state, regularly monitoring designated inboxes and employer portals, and assigning responsibility to a specific individual or team for timely review and response to all notices. Employers may also want to implement backup monitoring procedures, such as shared inboxes or alerts, to reduce the risk of missed communications that could negatively impact claims outcomes or unemployment tax rates.

West Virginia Senate Bill 1053 Change Notification West Virginia Senate Bill 1053 authorizes the creation of a new Unemployment Automation and Administration Fund. This fund will be financed by assessing an annual fee of 7% of the employer’s taxable wages for the twelve-month period ending the preceding June 30. The assessment is subject to an annual cap of $18 million and only if the state’s unemployment trust fund balance remains above $300 million. Employers with a rate equal to zero are exempt from the payment of this assessment. Each liable employer will be notified of the amount due by March 31 of each year. The amount due will be considered delinquent if not paid within 30 days of the mailing date. The purpose of the fund is to modernize the state’s unemployment insurance systems, enhance job search and workforce development services, and support administrative operations. The Commissioner of WorkForce West Virginia is granted authority to implement and manage the fund through rulemaking. Effective Date July 1, 2026 West Virginia SB 1053 Implication for Stakeholders While this measure does not increase overall employer contribution rates, it creates an additional tax to be paid outside of the employers’ quarterly tax payment and is for administrative and system improvements rather than directly into the unemployment trust fund. Employers may indirectly benefit from more efficient claims processing, improved system functionality, and enhanced workforce services. However, there may be some concern around how long this assessment may be in place.  Once the fund reaches $60 million or July 1, 2031, whichever comes first, the assessment will be discontinued.  Recommended Action Employers should monitor communications from WorkForce West Virginia regarding any operational or procedural updates tied to system modernization efforts. It would also be prudent to stay informed on any future rulemaking that could affect reporting, claims handling, or employer responsibilities. Internally, employers may want to review their unemployment claims management processes to ensure they are prepared to take advantage of improved system capabilities as they are implemented.

USCIS has updated its guidance to clarify that automatic extensions of TPS based EADs are now significantly reduced for many beneficiaries due to three major changes: Country specific Federal Register notices DHS interim final rule effective Oct. 30, 2025 Implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1) on July 22, 2025 As a result, many TPS applicants can no longer rely on the longer, up to 540 day automatic EAD extensions previously available. Key Change: 1 Year Limit on Certain Automatic Extensions If you have TPS, hold a TPS based EAD, and filed your EAD renewal on or after July 22 but before Oct. 30, 2025, USCIS will only grant an automatic extension of: Up to 1 year, or The remaining duration of the country’s TPS designation,whichever is shorter. Even if your Form I 797C receipt notice lists a 540 day extension, you cannot use it if it falls under this time window. Exception: Renewal Applications Received on or Before July 21, 2025 If your I 797C receipt notice shows a Received Date of July 21, 2025, or earlier, then: The up to 540 day automatic extension still applies. However, any portion after July 22, 2025, is also capped at: 1 year from July 22, 2025, or The end of the TPS designation, whichever is sooner.

Following a federal court order on February 2, 2026, the termination of Haiti’s Temporary Protected Status (TPS), originally scheduled for February 3, 2026, is currently stayed. As a result, work authorization for eligible Haitian TPS beneficiaries remains valid through July 1, 2026. What This Means for Employers & Employees Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) issued under Haiti TPS with any of the following original expiration dates are automatically extended by court order: Feb 3, 2026 Aug 3, 2025 Aug 3, 2024 Jun 30, 2024 Feb 3, 2023 Dec 31, 2022 Oct 4, 2021 Jan 4, 2021 Jan 2, 2020 Jul 22, 2019 Jan 22, 2018 Jul 22, 2017 All are valid through July 1, 2026. Form I 9 Guidance Section 1 – Employee: Enter: “as per court order” in the expiration date field. Section 2 – Employer: Enter the EAD document info and use expiration date: “July 1, 2026.” Add a note in the Additional Information box referring to the court order. Example: per Miot et al. v. Trump et al., No. 25 cv 02471 ACR (D.D.C.). Employers may also attach the DHS Alert and TPS Haiti webpage printouts to the Form I 9 for documentation purposes. E-Verify Guidance Use July 1, 2026 as the expiration date when updating or creating an E Verify case.

Federal courts have issued stays on the termination of TPS designations for Syria, Ethiopia, Burma, and South Sudan. As a result, certain TPS‑related Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) remain valid beyond their printed expiration dates. Below is the updated breakdown. Syria – TPS Termination Stayed Original termination date: Nov. 21, 2025 Court case: Dahlia Doe v. Noem, 25‑cv‑8686 (S.D.N.Y.) EADs extended: Printed expiration dates of Sept. 30, 2025 March 31, 2024 Sept. 30, 2022 March 31, 2021 I‑9 instructions: When completing the Expiration Date (if any) fields on Form I-9 Section 1: “as per court order” Section 2: “July 1, 2026” o This guidance supersedes the Update on Termination of TPS for Syria posted on March 17, 2026 Add note in Additional Information: Dahlia Doe v. Noem, 25‑cv‑8686 (S.D.N.Y.) E‑Verify: Use July 1, 2026. Upload: Employers may download the Alert and TPS Syria webpages and attach them to Form I-9. Ethiopia – TPS Termination Stayed Original termination date: Feb. 13, 2026 Court case: African Communities Together et al. v. Noem, 26‑cv‑10278‑BEM (D. Mass.) EADs extended: Printed expiration dates of June 12, 2024 Dec. 12, 2025 I‑9 instructions: When completing the Expiration Date (if any) fields on Form I-9 Section 1: “as per court order” Section 2: “April 8, 2026” Add note in Additional Information: African Communities Together et al. v. Noem, 26‑cv‑10278‑BEM (D. Mass.) E‑Verify: Use April 8, 2026. Upload: Employers may download the Alert and TPS Ethiopia webpages and attach them to the Form I-9. Burma – TPS Termination Postponed Original termination date: Jan. 26, 2026 Court case: Aung Doe et al. v. Noem, 25‑cv‑15483 (N.D. Ill.) EADs extended: Printed expiration dates of Nov. 25, 2025 May 25, 2024 Nov. 25, 2022 I‑9 instructions: When completing the Expiration Date (if any) fields on Form I-9 Section 1: “as per court order” Section 2: “April 15, 2026” o This guidance supersedes the Update on Termination of TPS for Burma posted on March 17, 2026. Add note in Additional Information: Aung Doe et al. v. Noem, 25‑cv‑15483 (N.D. Ill.) E‑Verify: Use April 15, 2026. Upload: Employers may download the Alert and TPS Burma webpages and attach them to Form I-9. South Sudan – TPS Termination Stayed Original termination date: Jan. 5, 2026 Court case: African Communities Together et al. v. Noem, 25‑cv‑13939‑PBS (D. Mass.) EADs extended: Printed expiration dates of Nov. 3, 2023 May 3, 2025 Nov. 3, 2025 I‑9 instructions:  When completing the Expiration Date (if any) fields on Form I-9 Section 1: “as per court order” Section 2: “April 10, 2026” Add note in Additional Information: African Communities Together et al. v. Noem, 25‑cv‑13939‑PBS (D. Mass.) E‑Verify: Use April 10, 2026. Upload: Employers may download the Alert and TPS South Sudan webpages and attach them to Form I-9. ** USCIS recommends checking their site regularly for updates, as court orders may change.

A recent federal court order has paused the planned termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti. As a result, work authorization and legal protections for eligible Haitian nationals remain in effect beyond the previous deadline. Approximately 200,000 Haitian nationals are working in the United States with work authorization under TPS, according to data from FWD.us. What is happening? Originally, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) scheduled Haiti’s TPS designation to end on February 3, 2026. However, on February 2, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a stay in the case Miot et al. v. Trump et al. The termination is currently suspended. This means Haitian TPS beneficiaries can continue to live and work in the U.S. while the legal challenge proceeds in court. Who is affected? This update applies to employees who hold Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) issued under the Haiti TPS designation (Category A12 or C19) with the following original expiration dates:  February 3, 2026  August 3, 2025  August 3, 2024  June 30, 2024  February 3, 2023  December 31, 2022  October 4, 2021  January 4, 2021  January 2, 2020  July 22, 2019  January 22, 2018  July 22, 2017 How to Update Your Records (Form I-9 & E-Verify) Per USCIS guidance, employers and employees should follow these specific instructions to reflect the court-ordered extension: Section 1 (Employee) : In the "Expiration Date" field, input: “as per court order”. Section 2 (Employer): In the "Expiration Date" field, input: “03-15-2026”. Additional Information: Add a note in the box mentioning the court order stay for Haiti TPS. E-Verify: Use the expiration date “03-15-2026” when completing the case. Employers are encouraged to download and attach the official USCIS TPS Haiti Alert page to the Form I-9 for compliance documentation. When does this take effect? This extension is effective immediately.  The stay remains in place until further notice from the court.  Because this situation is tied to ongoing litigation, the "03-15-2026" date serves as a placeholder for administrative tracking; however, the actual duration of the stay could be adjusted by future court rulings.

The U.S. government is ending the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program for Somalia. The program and all its benefits will officially stop on May 18, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. What does it mean for employees? If you have an Employment Authorization Document (EAD), also known as a work permit under Somalia’s TPS, your card will expire on May 18, 2026. This applies to cards with any of the following "Card Expires" dates: March 17, 2026 September 17, 2024 March 17, 2023 What does it mean for employers (Form I-9)? You must take action to ensure your workforce remains legal. You must check the work authorization (reverify) of any employee using a Somalia TPS work permit before they start work on March 18, 2026 Look for cards labeled with category A12 or C19. Ensure every affected employee provides a new, valid document to continue working legally.

Beginning March 19, 2026, Ohio’s new E‑Verify Workforce Integrity Act introduces major compliance requirements for employers engaged in non‑residential construction. The law expands verification obligations, increases penalties for violations, and tightens expectations for subcontractor oversight. Below is a breakdown of what the act requires and the steps employers should take now to prepare. Who Is Affected? The new law applies to employers (including contractors, subcontractors, and labor brokers) engaged in non-residential construction, including: Commercial building projects Road, highway, and bridge construction Utility and related infrastructure work The mandate does not apply to residential construction, manufactured homes, mobile homes, or agricultural‑use structures. What the E-Verify Workforce Integrity Act Requires Use E‑Verify for All New Hires. The new law does not replace federal Form I‑9 obligations. Employers must complete and retain I‑9s as required under federal regulations. Employers must keep all E‑Verify documentation for three years from the date of hire or one year after termination, whichever is later. Any employee who receives a Final Nonconfirmation in E‑Verify must be terminated. Violations may result in Fines starting at $250, increasing to $10,000 for repeated violations. Up to $1,500 for failing to create an E‑Verify case. Up to $25,000 for continuing to employ someone after a Final Nonconfirmation. Disqualification from state contracts for up to two years for multiple willful violations. Enforcement actions initiated by the Ohio Attorney General, including anonymous complaints. Recommended Employer Action Enroll in E‑Verify (if not already enrolled) and train responsible staff. Update onboarding workflows to ensure E‑Verify cases are opened promptly. Review contracts with subcontractors to confirm they meet E‑Verify obligations. Document your internal procedures for addressing Tentative and Final Nonconfirmation. Use Compliance Library to centralize policies, workflows, and subcontractor certifications. Staying ahead of these new E‑Verify Workforce Integrity Act requirements will help employers reduce risk and maintain compliance as enforcement ramps up. Schedule a meeting if you would like to learn more ways to prepare.

As we move into 2026, California employers are facing a wave of new compliance requirements. One of the most significant changes comes from Senate Bill 294 (SB 294), the "Workplace Know Your Rights Act." Signed into law in late 2025, this legislation introduces new notice and communication obligations that every employer in the state regardless of size must follow. "Workplace Know Your Rights Act" Compliance Requirements Starting February 1, 2026, all California employers are required to provide a stand-alone written notice to their employees detailing their workplace and constitutional rights. This isn't a one-time task; it must be distributed annually thereafter. The notice must cover several core areas, including information on workers’ compensation benefits, access to medical care, and disability wage replacement; protections against unfair immigration‑related practices such as retaliation or document abuse; employees’ right to receive advance notice when an immigration agency plans to inspect I‑9 employment eligibility records; constitutional rights during law enforcement interactions in the workplace, including the right to remain silent; labor rights such as the ability to organize a union or engage in protected concerted activity; updates on any new laws the Labor Commissioner considers significant; and contact information for the enforcement agencies responsible for safeguarding these rights. By March 30, 2026, employers must offer all employees the opportunity to designate an emergency contact specifically for cases of arrest or detention. You must ask employees if they want a specific person notified if they are arrested or detained at the worksite or during work hours (if the employer has actual knowledge of the event). Existing employees must be given this choice by March 30, 2026. For new hires after this date, the option must be provided during onboarding. Employers can deliver the notice via personal delivery, email, or text message, provided the employee is reasonably expected to receive it within one business day. The notice must be provided in the language the employer normally uses for employment-related communications and maintain proof of delivery (digital receipts, logs, or signed acknowledgments) for at least three years. The Labor Commissioner has already published model templates in English and Spanish. Penalties Failing to comply can lead to significant financial consequences. Employers may face penalties of up to $500 per employee for each notice‑related violation. Violations involving emergency contact requirements carry even harsher consequences, with fines of up to $500 per employee for every day the violation continues, capped at a maximum of $10,000 per employee. Action Plan for Employers Visit the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) website to get the latest template. Integrate the annual notice (February 1, 2026, deadline) and the emergency contact designation (March 30, 2026, deadline) form into your new hire packets immediately. Ensure you have a system in place to prove that every employee received their notice by the February 1st deadline. Ensure HR and supervisors understand the new protocols regarding employee arrests and detention to avoid costly daily penalties. Schedule a meeting to learn steps you can take to meet these new compliance requirements

On January 6, 2026, the Trump administration announced it will release only 35,000 supplemental H-2B visas for the year. This is nearly a 50% cut from the approximately 64,700 additional visas provided annually over the last three years. The Change: Every year, there is a "base cap" of 66,000 H-2B visas. Because this is rarely enough, recent administrations have added a "supplemental" batch of about 64,700 more. President Trump has reduced this extra batch down to 35,000. The Result: There will be roughly 30,000 fewer legal seasonal workers available nationwide compared to last year. Impact on Industries Various industries that often rely on H-2B workers may see changes in operations or ability to provide the same level of service if the reduction in visas translates to staffing shortages. These industries include hotel and hospitality, restaurants and bars, gas stations and convenience stores. Agriculture may also be affected, specifically landscaping and seafood. Field work typically relies on H-2A visas. Impact on Business Owners A smaller worker pool may result in higher wages to compete, driving up service prices. With demand far exceeding the 35,000 cap, many businesses may struggle to fill open positions, limiting their ability to operate at full capacity. Stricter "irreparable harm" standards mean businesses that lose the lottery face permanent financial loss.