How it Works

The DOL conducts employer surveys then plots wage data on a bell curve for a particular occupational classification in a particular geographical area.[1] The DOL then publishes four “Wage Levels” by pulling data at the 17th percentile, the 34th percentile, the 50th percentile, and the 67th percentile.

Here is what the bell curve looks like, assuming a normal distribution:

On March 27, 2026, the Department of Labor published a proposed regulation[1] that changes the percentiles as follows: Wage Level 1 from the 17th percentile to the 34th percentile; Wage Level 2 from the 34th to the 52^nd; Wage Level 3 from the 50th to the 70^th; and Wage Level 4 from the 67th to the 88^th.  Practically, it bumps the required wages up a level. It looks like this

Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity continues to increase across the United States. A recent memo fact sheet from ICE, “Form I-9 Inspection under Immigration and Nationality Act § 274A” has reclassified violations that were previously considered technical, and thus not fined during a first audit, as substantive, and thus finable. With fines as high as $2,861 per Form I-9, and increasing again in 2026, employers face a significant risk from an ICE audit.

The reclassification of errors from technical to substantive has two impacts that will increase the penalties imposed on employers. First, the change of approximately 10 violations from technical to substantive means that the errors that previously an employer could correct without fines will now result in fines during the first audit.

Second, and potentially more serious, ICE uses a formula for calculating the I-9 penalties that is based on the percentage of substantive errors versus the total number of I-9s that the employer was required to provide to ICE for inspection. For example, if the employer is required to provide 100 forms I-9 and has 20 technical errors and 9 substantive errors, the technical errors would not count towards the fine if they are corrected within 10 business days. The error rate would be 9%, resulting in a base fine per I-9 of $288 to $573, and a proposed penalty of $2,592 to $5,157.

With the reclassification of technical errors to substantive, if the 20 technical errors were of the kind that ICE now considers substantive, the error rate would be 29%, with base fines of $858 to $1,144 per Form I-9, for a proposed penalty of $24,882 to $149,553. If 50% of the forms had errors that were previously considered “technical” and are now substantive, the minimum fines would range from $1,717 to $2,861 per form I-9. These fine amounts increase annually.

Below is a general list of substantive errors, with the newly reclassified items in bold.

A. General Substantive Violations

1. failing to complete a Form I‑9 for an employee

2. failing to provide a completed Form I‑9 when requested during an inspection

3. not completing Section 1 and/or Section 2 on time or Supplement B when required

4. using the Spanish‑Language Form I‑9 outside of Puerto Rico

5. not complying with requirements for electronic Form I‑9 systems, including rulesfor completion, record retention, audit trails, electronic signatures, system security and required documentation

6. failing to ensure that Section 1 and Section 2 are timely completed (first day of work for Section 1, three business days for Section 2)

B. Section 1 Substantive Violations

1. missing employee's legal name

2. missing employee’s date of birth

3. employee checks more than one citizenship or immigration status box

4. missing Alien Registration Number (A Number) or USCIS number for lawful permanent residents, even if documents attached to the Form I-9 include the information

5. missing required information for employees authorized to work until a specified date (Box 4), including Alien Registration Number (A Number) or USCIS number, I‑94 number and work authorization expiration date, even if documents attached to the Form I-9 include the information

6. failure of employee to sign Section 1

7. failure of employee to date Section 1

C. Section 2 Substantive Violations.

1. failure to examine and record acceptable List A or List B and List C documents within three business days of hire

2. incomplete or incorrect recording of document title, issuing authority, document number or expiration date, even if document copies are retained

3. failure to properly complete receipt and replacement document procedures

4. failure to check the alternative procedure box when using authorized remote document inspection procedures

5. use of alternative procedures without being properly enrolled in E-Verify or another DHS‑authorized program

6. missing name or title of the employer or authorized representative

7. missing date of hire in the Section 2 attestation

8. failure to sign the Section 2 certification

9. failure to date the Section 2 certification

D. Supplement A Substantive Violations

1. failure to include preparer or translator's complete name, address, signature and date at the time Section 1 is completed

E. Supplement B Substantive Violations

1. failure to timely complete reverification before employment authorization expires

2. failure to provide rehire date when required

3. failure to properly record document information, including document title, document number, and/or expiration date (if any) during reverification, even if documents are maintained

4. failure to complete receipt replacement requirements

5. failure of employer or authorized representative to print name, sign and date Supplement B

6. failure to check the alternative procedure box when remote inspection is used*

7. use of alternative procedures without proper enrollment in E‑Verify or another applicable DHS program*

There may be other errors that ICE can identify on the Form I-9. The Fact Sheet from ICE is available at https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/i9-inspection

Employers should take steps to help promote I-9 and employment verification compliance, which could include but are not limited to:

1. Conduct regular internal I-9 audits and correct errors when possible, including technical errors. A good practice is to establish an annual review of the Forms I-9 for all employees hired during the past year.

2. Ensure that all employees are completing Section 1 of the Form I-9 on their first day of work and that the Company fully completes the Form I-9 by the employee’s third day. I-9s that are perfect but completed late may result in monetary fines.

3. Provide regular I-9 and immigration compliance training to all employees who will complete Section 2 of the Form I-9 on behalf of the Company. The Form I-9 may be the single most important onboarding document to get 100% correct at the time it is completed.

4. Ensure that the Company has a fully complete Form I-9 for every employee hired after November 6, 1986.

5. Implement an immigration compliance policy and an E-Verify policy (if using E-Verify).

6. Implement procedures and processes for responding to government investigations and inquiries. Train employees and managers how to respond if a government official request access to the business or information about employees. Train employees how to respond if a government official has a warrant or subpoena in a manner that does not escalate the situation. We recommend working with legal counsel.

7. Implement procedures and processes for investigating and responding to reports or allegations of identity theft, such as people calling to state their Social Security number is being used at the Company, or to reports or letters from DES, SSA or other agencies that tend to show that there are identity or Social Security number issues. Do not make assumptions, but do not ignore the reports. We recommend working with legal counsel.

Employers need to be diligent and proactive to ensure I-9, E-Verify and immigration law compliance and manage risk.

This change is effective in 2026, so it is time for HR leaders and plan sponsors to understand the changes and begin planning for potential operational and communication updates.

The New Roth Catch-Up Requirement

Under current retirement plan rules, employees aged 50 and older may contribute additional amounts to their retirement plan through catch-up contributions. Traditionally, these catch-up contributions could be made on either a pre-tax or Roth basis, depending on the options offered by the employer’s plan.

Beginning in 2026, SECURE 2.0 eliminates pre-tax catch-up contributions for certain high-earning employees. Catch-up contributions for these employees must be made as Roth contributions (post tax).  This new rule applies to employees who:

• Are age 50 or older, and
• Earn more than $145,000 in FICA wages from their employer in the prior year (indexed for inflation).

In practical terms, this means those employees will pay taxes on the contribution today, rather than deferring taxes until retirement.

What This Means for Employees

Roth contributions are made with after-tax dollars, but qualified withdrawals in retirement are tax-free, including investment growth. For many employees, this can provide valuable tax diversification in retirement planning.

Some potential benefits of Roth contributions include:

• Tax-free withdrawals in retirement if eligibility rules are met.
• Flexibility to manage taxable income in retirement.
• The ability to roll funds into a Roth IRA, which is not subject to required minimum distributions during the owner’s lifetime.

However, employees accustomed to making pre-tax catch-up contributions may be surprised by the shift to Roth taxation, making early communication from HR teams important.

Operational Considerations for Employers

This rule became effective in January 2026; retirement plan sponsors should begin evaluating whether their current systems and plan design will support the new requirement.

Plan design review
If a plan allows catch-up contributions, it must also offer a Roth contribution option for employees who fall into the higher-income category. Plans that currently do not offer Roth contributions may need to consider amendments.

Payroll and recordkeeping coordination
Payroll systems must be able to identify employees whose prior-year FICA wages exceed $145,000 and ensure that their catch-up contributions are processed as Roth contributions. Employers should work with their payroll providers and plan recordkeepers to confirm that systems will be ready.

Employee communication
Employees making catch-up contributions will need clear explanations about why their contributions may now be treated differently. Educational materials and benefits communications will play a key role in helping employees understand the tax implications and advantages of Roth savings.

Optional Roth Treatment for Employer Contributions

SECURE 2.0 also allows employers to offer employees the option to receive employer matching or nonelective contributions as Roth contributions. If a plan adopts this feature, employees may elect to treat those employer contributions as taxable income in the year they are made, allowing the funds to grow tax-free going forward.

This feature is optional, and many employers are waiting to see how recordkeepers and payroll systems support it before deciding whether to implement it.

What to Prepare for Now

Preparation can help avoid last-minute challenges. HR leaders should consider taking the following steps over the next year:

• Review retirement plan documents and confirm whether a Roth contribution option is available.
• Coordinate with plan advisors, payroll providers, and recordkeepers regarding system readiness.
• Begin planning employee education to explain upcoming changes.

Retirement benefits remain one of the most valued offerings employers provide. Ensuring a smooth transition to new requirements under SECURE 2.0 will help maintain employee confidence in these programs.

Final Thought

SECURE 2.0 reflects a continued shift toward encouraging retirement savings flexibility while modernizing retirement plan rules. For HR professionals, staying informed and working closely with benefits partners will help ensure compliance while supporting employees in making informed retirement decisions.

This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Employers should consult their retirement plan advisors or legal counsel regarding their specific plan requirements.

While this conversation becomes particularly visible around December holidays, the principles of religious accommodation apply year-round. A proactive approach now can foster inclusion, mitigate legal risk, and strengthen your culture of respect.

Understanding Religious Accommodations

A religious accommodation is an adjustment to a workplace policy or practice that enables an employee to meet their religious obligations without compromising their employment.

These requests may relate to observances, attire, grooming, prayer times, or work schedules — and they aren’t limited to major faith traditions. What matters is that the belief or practice is sincerely held.

Common Accommodation Examples

• Scheduling flexibility: Allowing shift swaps or adjusted schedules to honor religious observances such as Sabbath or daily prayer times.
• Dress and grooming: Permitting head coverings, modest clothing, or facial hair in accordance with religious practice.
• Religious expression: Allowing voluntary prayer or meditation breaks, or designated spaces for quiet reflection

These examples highlight that accommodations often require minimal effort — yet have significant impact in helping employees feel seen and respected.

Defining “Undue Hardship”

Employers are not required to implement accommodations that would cause undue hardship, but it’s important to understand that this threshold is more than minor inconvenience. To claim undue hardship, an employer must show a substantial increased cost or significant disruption to business operations.  This may involve substantial cost, compromised safety, or infringement on other employees’ rights. After the Groff v. DeJoy (2023) Supreme Court decision, the standard for undue hardship is now “substantial increased cost”, or significant disruption to business operations and not just “more than minimal cost.” This raised the bar for employers denying accommodations. It is not considered undue hardship simply because coworkers object to religious expression or customers express bias. The key is engaging in an open, good-faith dialogue with the employee to identify practical solutions — whether that’s adjusting a schedule, temporarily reassigning duties, or exploring creative alternatives.

Here are two recent examples of where the interactive accommodation review process went awry. These cases provide additional visibility into the absolute critical importance of both engaging in, and compliantly following through on, the interactive process. This includes appropriate consideration of what is considered an undue hardship – and what is not.

Department of Veterans Affairs – Compressed Schedule Denial

Decision Date: August 4, 2025

• Issue: Employee requested Friday afternoons off for prayer, proposing a compressed schedule (longer hours Mon–Thu).
• EEOC Finding: Employer offered unreasonable alternatives (working Saturdays or part-time) and failed to show undue hardship for the proposed schedule.
• Key Lesson: Employers must consider the employee’s proposed accommodation seriously and document why alternatives were chosen or rejected

Omni Hotels – Scheduling Accommodation

• EEOC Lawsuit Filed: June 26, 2025
• Key Point: Initially granted Sunday off, later rescinded; EEOC alleged failure to maintain interactive process and retaliation. 

Practical Tips for Employers This Holiday Season

1. Review policies now. Ensure dress codes, scheduling policies, and holiday observance procedures allow room for flexibility and inclusion.
2. Train your leaders. Equip managers to handle accommodation requests sensitively and in compliance with EEOC guidance.
3. Create a safe space for dialogue. Encourage employees to share accommodation needs early — no “magic words” are required for a valid request.
4. Document and communicate. Keep a record of discussions, decisions, and rationale while maintaining confidentiality and professionalism.
5. Lead with empathy. Remember that inclusion doesn’t stop at compliance — it’s about belonging.

Final Thoughts

As leaders, we set the tone for how respect and inclusion show up in our workplaces. The holiday season offers an opportunity not only to celebrate but to reaffirm our commitment to understanding, flexibility, and empathy. By thoughtfully navigating religious accommodations, employers can build workplaces where every employee — regardless of belief or background — feels valued and supported.

For further EEOC guidance, visit eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination.

In addition to the DOL, the IRS, state taxing authorities, state unemployment agencies, and workers’ compensation laws, among others, have established standards for determining when an individual is an employee and when they are an independent contractor. Companies have to negotiate a number of rules in classifying workers as employees or independent contractors. Penalties for incorrectly categorizing workers can be broad, including but not limited to, unpaid overtime or minimum wage, benefits, employment taxes, unemployment taxes, workers’ compensation, and other penalties.

I. DOL independent contractor regulations.

The current DOL regulations, which the current Administration has stated that it will revise, contains six non-exhaustive factors.  The factors are similar to the common law factors, but the interpretation is slightly different. The Trump Administration has stated that they will not enforce the regulations passed under President Biden, although individual plaintiffs may still enforce those regulations. In a DOL investigation, DOL will apply the economic realities test from Fact Sheet #13. 

1. Opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill. This factor primarily looks at whether a worker can earn profits or suffer losses through their own independent effort and decision making. Relevant facts include whether the worker negotiates their pay, decides to accept or decline work, hires their own workers, purchases material and equipment, or engages in other efforts to expand a business or secure more work, such as marketing or advertising. Taking such actions or having a real opportunity to take such actions but making a business decision not to (for example, because the potential profit to be gained may not justify the expense that would be incurred), indicates that the worker is an independent contractor. Not taking such actions or having only a theoretical opportunity to take such actions (for example, the worker must get approval from the employer), indicates that the worker is an employee. A worker who decides to work more hours or take on more jobs when paid a fixed rate per hour, day, or job is generally not exercising managerial skill like an independent contractor even if those decisions may lead to more earnings.
   
   
2. Investments by the worker and the employer. This factor primarily looks at whether the worker makes investments that are capital or entrepreneurial in nature. Investments by a worker that support the growth of a business, including by increasing the number of clients, reducing costs, extending market reach, or increasing sales, weigh in favor of independent contractor status. A lack of such capital or entrepreneurial investments weighs in favor of employee status. Costs to a worker of tools for a specific job and costs that the employer imposes on the worker are not capital or entrepreneurial investments that indicate independent contractor status. In addition to considering the nature of any investments by the worker, the worker’s investments should be compared to the employer’s investments in its overall business. The worker’s investments do not need to be equal to the employer’s and should not be compared only in dollar amounts or size. The focus should be on whether the worker makes similar types of investments as the employer (even if on a smaller scale) or investments of the type that would allow the worker to operate independently in the worker’s industry or field. Such investments by the worker in comparison to the employer weigh in favor of independent contractor status, while a lack of investments that support an independent business indicate employee status.
   
   
3. Degree of permanence of the work relationship. This factor primarily looks at the nature and length of the work relationship. Work that is sporadic or project-based with a fixed ending date (or regularly occurring fixed periods of work), where the worker may make a business decision to take on multiple different jobs indicates independent contractor status. Work that is continuous, does not have a fixed ending date, or may be the worker’s only work relationship indicates employee status. The lack of a long working relationship does not necessarily suggest that the worker is an independent contractor unless it is because of the worker’s business decision. Short-term jobs for multiple employers may be due to the seasonal or temporary nature of the work or industry, and not the worker’s business decision to market their services to multiple entities, and therefore may indicate employee status.
   
   
4. Nature and degree of control. This factor primarily looks at the level of control the potential employer has over the performance of the work and the economic aspects of the working relationship. Relevant facts include whether the potential employer: controls hiring, firing, scheduling, prices, or pay rates; supervises the performance of the work (including via technological means); has the right to supervise or discipline workers; and takes actions that limit the worker’s ability to work for others. Where the potential employer maintains more control over these aspects of the work relationship, this factor weighs in favor of employee status, and where the potential employer maintains less control over these aspects of the work relationship, this factor weighs in favor of independent contractor status. Control that is for the sole purpose of complying with a specific, applicable federal, state, tribal, or local regulation, rather than the employer’s own internal policies or customer standards, does not weigh in favor of an employment relationship.
   
   
5. Extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business. This factor primarily looks at whether the work is critical, necessary, or central to the potential employer’s principal business, which indicates employee status. Where the work performed by the worker is not critical, necessary, or central to the potential employer’s principal business, this indicates independent contractor status. This factor does not depend on whether any individual worker in particular is an integral part of the business, but rather whether the work they perform is an integral part of the business.
   
   
6. Skill and initiative. This factor primarily looks at whether the worker uses their own specialized skills together with business planning and effort to perform the work and support or grow a business. The fact that a worker does not use specialized skills (for example, the worker relies on the employer to provide training for the job) indicates that the worker is an employee. Additionally, both employees and independent contractors can be skilled, so the fact that a worker is skilled does not indicate one status or the other. The focus should be on whether the worker uses their skills in connection with business initiative. If the worker does, that indicates independent contractor status; if the worker does not, that indicates employee status.

   DOL may consider additional factors as it deems relevant.

II. IRS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR TEST,

To determine if a worker is an independent contractor or employee for tax purposes, the IRS review the entire relationship between the business and the worker, focusing on the control that the business has over the worker in three areas:

1. Behavioral control – this factor looks at whether the business has the right to direct and control how the worker does the task for which they are hired, such the whether they are instructed when, where, and how to complete the work, whether thee is any training and instruction in how to perform the work, and whether the individual is evaluated based on the manner of performing the work or solely on the final outcome. The more training and direction that are provided about the work, the more likely the worker is an employee.
   
   
2. Financial control – this factor looks at factors such as the extent to which the worker has unreimbursed business expenses, whether they incur fixed, ongoing costs in operating their business regardless of the project, the extend of the workers investment in their business, the extent to which the worker makes their services available to the relevant market versus one business, the extent to which the worker can realize a profit or incur a loss, and method of pay (i.e. projects based, hourly, etc.).If the worker is paid hourly and does not have regular business expenses, it is more likely that they are an employee.
   
   
3. The type of relationship – this factor looks at whether there is a written contract, whether it is a contract for a specific period or project or ongoing relationship, whether the worker is provided benefits such as insurance, pension, vacation, etc. and the extent to which services performed by the worker are key aspects of the business.A written independent contractor agreement is not required, but a well-written agreement that is followed in practice by the parties helps support an independent contractor relationship.

III. Arizona Declaration of Independent business.

Both the Arizona Workers’ Compensation laws and the Unemployment Insurance laws establish tests for identifying independent contractors versus employees for coverage of those laws. In general, the more closely the employer controls and oversees the work, the more likely that the individual will be considered a employee, rather than an independent contractor.

Companies in Arizona can establish a rebuttable presumption that a worker is an independent contractor by having an independent contractor complete a Declaration of Independent Business and actually operating within that agreement.  By creating a rebuttable presumption, the statute changes the burden of proof related to establishing the existence of an independent contractor relationship by placing the burden of proof on the government agency or other party that is attempting to thwart the recognition of the independent contractor relationship. Under other laws, including federal DOL and IRS rules, it is the employer who has the burden of proof to establish that the relationship is an independent contractor relationship rather than an employment relationship.

For 2025, child labor penalties under the FLSA are:

1. $16,035 for oppressive child labor
2. $72,876, if the child labor violations cause serious injury or death, and
3. $145,752 for repeated or willful child labor violations that cause serious injury or death.

DOL imposes the penalties per violation per minor, meaning that a violation of the hazardous duties restrictions and a violation of the hours of work laws would result in two separate penalties per impacted minor.

Arizona also has its own youth employment laws.  Alleged violations of the Arizona laws are investigated by the Arizona Industrial Commission Labor Department.  Violations can result in fines of $1,000.00 per violation. 

1. Hours of work limitations.

   Both the FLSA and Arizona law limit the number of hours minors may work. The employer must follow the more restrictive law when there is a conflict.

1. Hour Limitations Under FLSA.

   The FLSA does not limit the number of hours or times of day for workers 16 years and older. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the minimum age for employment in non­agricultural employment is 14 years old. Hours worked by 14- and 15-year-olds are limited to:

   1. Non-school hours;
   2. 3 hours of work in a school day;
   3. 18 hours of work in a school week;
   4. 8 hours of work on a non-school day;
   5. 40 hours of work on a non-school week; and
   6. hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. (except from June 1 through Labor Day, when evening hours are extended to 9 p.m.)

   There are exceptions for minors who have graduated from high school or for certain other permissible reasons they are not attending school.

2. Hour Limitations Under Arizona Law.

   Arizona imposes different limits on minors under the age of 16 (15 or under). In Arizona, the restrictions on employment pertaining to minors aged 16 and under are:

   1. they may work no more than 40 hours in one week when school is not in session or the person is not enrolled in any session;
   2. they may work no more than 18 hours per week when school is in session;
   3. they may not work more than 8 hours per day on a non-school day or when school is not in session or the person is not enrolled;
   4. they may not work more than 3 hours on a school day when school is in session.

   Arizona law also contains restrictions on the time of day when a 14 or 15 year old may work.  They may not work:

   1. at night (9:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m when school is in session. or 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. on a day preceding a day when there is no school)
   2. in solicitation sales or deliveries on a door-to-door basis between 7:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. when school is in session, or 7:00 p.m. and 1 1:30 p.m. on days preceding a non-school day.

   Finally, in Arizona, no minor under the age of 14 can be employed in any occupation at any time during school hours, nor shall any child under 16 be employed in underground mines, or in any occupation injurious to health or morals or hazardous to life or limb, nor for more than 8 hours in one day.

   1. Fair Labor Standards act Limitations on the type of work performed.
   2. Arizona State Limitations on the Type of Work performed.
   3. CONCLUSION.

1. Restrictions for Minor Age 17 or Under

   Minors under the age of 18 are prohibited from engaging in occupations deemed by the Secretary of Labor to be a “Hazardous Occupations.” 

   1. all occupations in or about any plant or establishment manufacturing or storing explosives or articles containing explosive components except where the occupation is performed in “nonexplosive areas” (such as retail);
   2. motor vehicle driver or outside helper on any public road, highway, in or about any mine, place where logging or sawmill operations are in progress, or excavation of any type (there is an exception for 17-year-olds, but only if the driving is occasional and incidental to employment and several other requirements are met);
   3. all coal mining;
   4. all mining other than coal, other than duties solely performed in office or repair shops located in the surface;
   5. logging, sawmill, lath mill, shingle mill, or stock mill operations or working in forest fire fighting and fire prevention, forestry services and timber tract management;
   6. the operation of power-driven woodworking machines, including power drills, including operating, supervising feeding, or assisting with the tasks, setting up, adjusting, repairing, oiling or cleaning power-driven woodworking machines;
   7. work that involves exposure to radioactive materials;
   8. operation of power-driven hoisting apparatus, including forklifts, elevators, cranes, derricks, hoists, high lift trucks, manlift, freight elevator, etc. and including operating, tending, riding on, working from, repairing, servicing, or disassembling (except that they may ride a freight elevator operated by an assigned operator);
   9. operation of power-driven metal forming, punching and shearing machines, such as rolling machines, bending machines, pressing and punching machines, hammering machines (drop hammers or power hammers), and all shearing machines, including setting up, adjusting, repairing, oiling, or cleaning these machines;
   10. operation of balers and compactors designed or used for non-paper products, such as arm-type wire stitcher or stapler, circular, or band saw, corner cutter or mitering machine, corrugating and single- or double-facing machine, envelope die-cutting press, guillotine papercutter or shear, horizontal bar scorer, laminating or combining machine, sheeting machine, or vertical slotter, scrap paper balers and paper box compactors, printing press, punch press, etc. or operation of power-driven machines used to create paper products;
   11. occupation in the operation of power-driven meat processing machines, including meat slicers, and occupations involving slaughtering meat and poultry packing, processing, or rendering;
   12. operation of power-driven bakery machines, including operating or assisting to operate, adjusting, repairing, oiling, or cleaning any horizontal or vertical dough mixer, battermixer, bread machine, doughbrake, doughsheeter, breadslicing and wrapping machine, or cake cutting bandsaw;
   13. manufacturing of brick, tile and similar products, except working in storage or shipping, the office, laboratories, or storerooms;
   14. operation and/or maintenance (setting up, adjusting, repairing, oiling, or cleaning) or assisting in operation or maintenance of circular saws, band saws and guillotine shears;operation and/or maintenance (setting up, adjusting, repairing, oiling, or cleaning) or assisting in operation or maintenance of power-driven driven chain saws, wood-chippers, reciprocating saws and abrasive cutting discs;
   15. wrecking and demolition of buildings and ship breaking, including cleanup and salvage;
   16. all roofing occupations, including application of weatherproofing materials and substances to roofs of buildings and other structures or any other work on or around a roof;
   17. trenching and excavation work of any kind, except for excavation for buildings or other structures involving manual excavation to a depth not to exceed 4 feet or working in excavation where the side walls are shored or sloped to the angle of repose and certain other exceptions.

   There are some exceptions for registered apprenticeship programs and student learners if certain strict conditions are met.  The exceptions for registered apprenticeship programs and student learners can apply to the following hazardous occupations:

   1. Power-driven woodworking machines
   2. Power-driven metal-forming, punching and shearing machines
   3. Power-driven meat-processing machines, slaughtering and meat packing plants
   4. Balers, compactors, and power-driven paper-products machines—
   5. Power-driven circular saws, band saws, guillotine shears, chain saws, reciprocating saws, wood chippers, and abrasive cutting discs
   6. Roofing operations and work performed on or about a roof
   7. Trenching and excavation operations

   The other hazardous occupations are prohibited for minors, even in an apprenticeship program.

   Note that the child labor rules do not apply to pure vocational education programs, as the students are not “employees” of the program.  A vocational education program offered in partnership with a business in which the students become employees of the business is subject to the child labor regulations.  If you would like more information on the exceptions for minors engaged in a registered apprenticeship or bona fide student learner program please let us know.

   While Arizona prohibits many of the same work as the FLSA, again, the most restrictive rule must be followed. In addition, several of the exemptions in Arizona law do not exist under the FLSA, therefore, any employer should seek advice before relying on the exemption.

1. Restrictions on Minors 15 and Under

   Fourteen is the minimum age for employment in permitted nonagricultural occupations.  In addition to being prohibited from working in any Hazardous Occupation (as discussed above), minors who are 14-15 may not perform the following types of jobs or tasks:

   1. manufacturing, mining or processing occupations
   2. the operation of a hoisting apparatus
   3. work performed in or about boiler or engine rooms or in connection with maintenance or repair of the establishment, machines or equipment
   4. occupations that involve operating, tending, setting up, adjusting, cleaning, oiling or repairing any power-driven machinery, including but not limited to lawn mowers, golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, trimmers, cutters, weed-eaters, edgers, food slicers, food grinders, food choppers, food processors, food cutters, food mixers.
   5. the operation of power-driven machinery, other than routine office machines
   6. the operation of motor vehicles or service as helpers on such vehicles
   7. the transportation of people or property by rail, highway, air, water, pipeline or other means
   8. employment as a public messenger
   9. peddling activities, sign waving or non-charitable door-to-door sales
   10. warehousing and storage (except office and clerical work)
   11. communications and public utilities
   12. poultry catching or cooping
   13. communications and public utilities
   14. construction, including demolition and repair
   15. outside window washing that involves working from windowsills
   16. any work requiring the use of ladders, scaffolds or the like
   17. cooking, except with gas or electric grills that do not involve cooking over an open flame and with deep fat fryers that are equipped with and utilize devices that automatically lower and raise the baskets in and out of the hot grease or oil
   18. baking
   19. any work in freezers or meat coolers, except minors may occasionally enter a freezer for a short period of time to retrieve items
   20. meat processing and work in areas where meat is processed
   21. maintenance or repair of a building or its equipment
   22. loading and unloading goods to and from trucks, railroad cars or conveyors
   23. workrooms where products are manufactured, mined or processed
   24. work as a ride attendant or ride operator at an amusement park or a "dispatcher" at the top of elevated water slides
   25. lifeguarding at a natural environment such as a lake, river, ocean, beach, quarry or pond (youth must be at least 15-years-old and properly certified to be a lifeguard at a traditional swimming pool or water amusement park).

   The FLSA regulations specifically allow minors who are at least 14 years of age to perform work in the following occupations:

   1. Office and clerical work, including operation of office machines;
   2. Work of an intellectual or artistically creative nature;
   3. Cooking with electric or gas grills that do not involve an open flame or cooking with a deep fat fryer equipped to raise and lower automatically;
   4. Cashiering, selling, modeling, art work, work in advertising departments, window trimming, and comparative shopping;
   5. Price marking and tagging by hand or machine; assembling orders, packing and shelving;
   6. Bagging and carrying out customer orders;
   7. Errand and delivery work by foot, bicycle, or public transportation (except public messenger service);
   8. Cleanup work, including the use of vacuum cleaners and floor waxers, and the maintenance of grounds, not including the use of power-driven mowers, cutters, trimmers, edgers, or similar equipment;
   9. Kitchen work and other work involved in preparing and serving food and beverages (except devices otherwise prohibited);
   10. Cleaning kitchen equipment (except equipment otherwise prohibited);
   11. Cleaning vegetables and fruits and the wrapping, sealing, labeling, weighing, pricing, and sticking of items, including vegetables, fruits, and meats, when performed in areas physically separate from a freezer or meat cooler;
   12. Loading onto and unloading from motor vehicles of the light, non-power-driven tools and personal protective equipment needed as part of their employment, or their personal property such as back-pack, lunch box, etc.
   13. The occupation of lifeguard at traditional swimming pools or water parks when property trained and certified – but not at lakes, ponds, rivers, or other natural environments;
   14. Certain minors can be employed under specified conditions where machinery is used to process wood products;
   15. Work in connection with cards and trucks, if confined to:
       1. Dispensing gas and oil;
       2. Courtesy services on premises of gas station;
       3. Car cleaning, washing, and polishing by hand;
       4. But not work involving the use of pits, racks, or lifting apparatus or the inflation of any tire mounted on a rim equipped with a removable retaining ring.
   16. Work in connection with riding inside passenger compartments of motor vehicles except as prohibited.Each minor must have their own seat and seatbelt, the employer must advise the minor on the proper use of the seatbelt, and the driver must be licensed for the type of vehicle being used.

1. Prohibited Occupations for Minors 17 and Under in Arizona.

   In Arizona, the prohibited occupations (unless a variance is granted), for all persons under the age of 18 (17 or under), are:

   1. Manufacturing or storing explosives, except those retail establishments handling small prepackaged arms ammunition.
   2. Occupations as a motor vehicle driver or outside helper, except for incidental driving and the person has a valid license and either the total driving time does not exceed 2 hours per day or 25% of work time, or the total mileage is fewer than 50 miles per day.
   3. Mine or quarry occupations.
   4. Logging.
   5. Occupations involving power-driven woodworking machines.
   6. Occupations involving exposure to radioactive substances and to radiation in excess of .5 REM per year.
   7. Occupations involving power driven hoists with a capacity exceeding 1 ton or an elevator, except the operation of an automatic elevator incidental to employment.
   8. Occupations involving the operation of power-driven metal working, forming, punching or shearing machines.
   9. Occupations involving, slaughtering, meat packing, processing or rendering or the operation of machines for such purposes.
   10. Occupations involving the operation of power-driven bakery machines.
   11. Occupations involving the operation of power-driven paper products machines.
   12. Occupations involving the manufacture of clay construction products or silica refractory products.
   13. Occupations involving the operation of power-driven saws.
   14. Occupations involving wrecking, demolition and shipbreaking operations.
   15. Occupations involving roofing or equipment attached to or placed on roofs.
   16. Occupations in excavation or tunnel operations, except manual excavation, etc. that do not exceed 2 feet in depth at any point from the ground surface.
   
   
2. Prohibited Employment of Persons 15 and under.

   In addition, there are other prohibited occupations (unless a variance is granted) for persons under the age of 16 (15 or younger).  Such include:

   1. Manufacturing.
   2. Processing.
   3. Laundering or dry cleaning in a commercial laundry.
   4. Warehousing.
   5. Construction.
   6. Boiler, furnace, or engine rooms.
   7. Occupations involving window washing, work from a ladder, scaffold, window sill or similar structure or place more than five feet in height.
   8. The following in retail food or gasoline service establishments:
      1. Maintenance of machines or equipment of the place, except work in connection with cars and trucks if confined to dispensing gas and oil, courtesy service, car cleaning, washing and polishing, but not involving inflation of any tire mounted on a rim with a removable retaining ring.
      2. Cooking and baking, except at soda fountains, lunch counters, snack bars or catering services.
      3. Working with power driven food slicers, grinders, choppers and cutters.
      4. All work in preparation of meats for sale, except wrapping, sealing, labeling, weighing, pricing and stocking.

The penalties for child labor violations can be quite high, including penalties that are a minimum of $16,000 per non-injury violation and over $70,000 if a minor is engaged in a prohibited occupation and is injured. Companies hiring individuals who are 17 or younger should take steps to ensure that the work being assigned to the minor are not prohibited under either State or Federal law.

Additionally, the use of AI in recruiting is receiving a lot of attention. States are introducing laws requiring transparency, bias audits, and candidate opt-outs when AI is used in hiring. While AI offers efficiency and scale, employers must proactively audit tools to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws and avoid adverse impacts on protected groups.

Together, wage transparency and ethical AI use represent a critical shift in recruiting practices. HR leaders must stay informed about specific requirements or even work to stay ahead of the trend to prioritize fairness to remain competitive and compliant in a rapidly evolving legal landscape.

What is Wage Transparency?

Wage transparency refers to the practice of disclosing salary information, such as wage ranges for job postings, internal roles, or during the hiring process. As of 2025, multiple U.S. states have enacted laws requiring employers to provide pay range information either in job postings, during interviews, or upon request. These laws are intended to promote consistent pay practices and provide applicants and employees with compensation-related information.  While some employers may be hesitant to disclose pay scales, pay transparency is gaining momentum as it fosters trust with both employees and candidates, and promotes a fair, unbiased, and equitable compensation system.

Disclosing wage ranges can:

• Inform applicants of compensation expectations before applying.
• Provide internal candidates with visibility into potential compensation for posted roles.
• Help organizations identify and address internal pay structure inconsistencies.

Posting wage ranges without an established internal compensation system may result in discrepancies, including situations where posted ranges exceed those of current employees in the same role. These differences may raise questions related to pay compression or internal equity, which may affect compliance depending on the state.  One way to support pay transparency is by establishing a clear wage scale and compensation structure, and reviewing it annually to ensure accuracy, fairness, and alignment with current market trends.

Pay Equity and Salary History Legislation

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits wage discrimination based on sex and requires equal pay for equal work. Despite this, pay disparities continue to exist.

• In 2024, the median earnings of full-time working women in the U.S. were 85% of those of men.
• However, there has been some closing the gap among workers aged 25 to 34, the ratio was 95%.

In response to pay disparity concerns, many states have enacted laws restricting the use of salary history in the hiring process. These laws generally prohibit employers from requesting or relying on a candidate’s prior pay when determining compensation. While pay has long been considered a unspoken topic, specifically among Baby Boomers and Gen X, younger generations in the workforce value and increasingly demand transparent conversations around compensation as a foundation for inclusion and trust. In fact, nearly half of workers cite a lack of pay transparency as their biggest frustration when applying for a role. (RH).

At the federal level, the Pay Equity for All Act of 2023 (H.R. 1600) was introduced in the House of Representatives (H.R.1600). The bill proposes amending the Fair Labor Standards Act to ban employers from seeking or relying on wage history when setting compensation, except in limited circumstances. As of July 2025, the bill has not passed. (Pew Research Center)

A Quick Overview of Pay Transparency Laws

Maryland was the first state to implement pay transparency requirements in 2020. Since then, other states—such as California, New York, Washington, and Illinois—have adopted similar legislation. New laws continue to be introduced and take effect throughout 2025. Some key distinctions include:

• Employer size thresholds (e.g., 15+ employees)
• When salary must be disclosed (in a job posting, prior to interview, or at time of offer)
• Additional disclosures (such as bonuses, benefits, or work schedule)

While each law differs, the trend is clear: pay transparency is becoming a national expectation. Even though there is no federal law yet mandating it, employers who operate in multiple states should proactively align their practices now.

States with Active Statewide Wage Transparency Laws (Summarized)

• California (Effective January 1, 2023)
  Employers must provide the pay scale for the position upon request by an applicant. Employers with 15 or more employees must include the pay scale in all job postings. (CA)
• Colorado (Effective January 1, 2021)
  Job postings must include the compensation rate (hourly or salary), bonuses, commissions, other compensation, a general description of benefits, and the application closing date. Employers must make a reasonable effort to respond to applicants within 30 days. (CO)
• Connecticut (Effective October 1, 2021)
  Employers must disclose the wage range upon the applicant’s request or when an offer is made, whichever comes first. (CT)
• Hawaii (Effective January 1, 2024)
  Employers with 50 or more employees must include a salary or hourly wage range in job postings. (HI)
• Illinois (Effective January 1, 2025)
  Employers with 15 or more employees must include a wage or salary range in all job postings. (IL)
• Maryland (Effective October 1, 2020)
  All employers must disclose the compensation range (including bonuses, commissions, and other forms of pay) in postings. If no posting exists, the information must be shared either before an offer is made or upon request. (MD)
• Minnesota (Effective January 1, 2025)
  Employers with 30 or more employees must include the minimum and maximum pay range in job postings, along with a general description of benefits and any other compensation. (MN)
• Nevada (Effective October 1, 2021)
  All employers must provide the pay range after a candidate completes an interview. For promotions or transfers, employees may request and receive the applicable pay range. (NV)
• New Jersey (Effective June 1, 2025)
  Employers with 10 or more employees must include the wage or salary range, a general description of benefits, and any other compensation in all postings. (NJ)
  Note: Jersey City requires compliance for employers with 5 or more employees.
• New York (Effective September 17, 2023)
  Employers with 4 or more employees must include a minimum and maximum annual salary or hourly wage in all job advertisements. (NY)
• Rhode Island (Effective January 1, 2023)
  All employers must provide the wage range upon request, at the time of hire, or when an employee changes roles. (RI )
• Washington (Effective January 1, 2023)
  Employers with 15 or more employees must disclose the wage range, a general description of benefits, and any other compensation in every job posting. (WA)
• Vermont (Effective July 1, 2025)
  Employers with 5 or more employees must include a salary range in job postings. Commission-based positions must state the commission structure, and tipped positions must disclose base wage and expected tips. (VT)

States with Local Pay Transparency Laws Only (Not Statewide)

• Ohio
  Local ordinances in Cincinnati and Toledo require that employers provide the pay scale upon request after a conditional offer has been made. In Toledo, the requirement applies to employers with 15 or more employees.

States with Enacted Laws Not Yet in Effect

• Massachusetts (Effective October 29, 2025)
  Employers with 25 or more employees must include a pay range in job postings. Pay ranges must also be disclosed for promotions and transfers, and current employees may request the pay range for any role. (MA)

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Hiring

The use of AI in recruiting continues to expand across functions such as resume screening, assessments, and candidate communication. Like wage transparency, there is no federal law that mandates the use of AI in recruiting, some states and cities have begun introducing legislation that governs how AI can be used in hiring processes.

Key compliance considerations include:

• Whether employers notify applicants about the use of AI or automated decision-making.
• Whether applicants are allowed to opt out.
• Whether employers audit tools to assess for potential bias or disparate impact.

Employers using AI in hiring may need to review their processes to ensure compliance with applicable state or local laws.

AI and the history of legislation

The EEOC has issued guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in hiring, specifically under the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, which updated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. These guidelines are intended to prevent disparate impact or adverse actions based on protected characteristics such as race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender), and more. Employers are expected to use good faith efforts to audit any AI-based hiring tools to ensure they do not result in discrimination. This includes maintaining records of audits, documenting any identified issues, taking corrective action, and updating processes to prevent future disparate impact. (EEOC)

States with AI proposed or current legislation summary:

Illinois – limits AI video use in job interviews

New York – requires audits of AI tools to ensure there is no bias although some have argued that most companies using AI have not been posting their results. (New York)

California (October 1, 2025) – Employers must disclose the use of AI in hiring, maintain records for four years, disclose automated assessments where it can cause disparate impact, and ensure any use of AI is anti discriminatory. (California)

Texas (January 1, 2026) – Employers must disclose use of AI in hiring, are prohibited from using any facial recognition with AI. (Texas)

Colorado (February 1, 2026) – Employers must disclose the use of AI in hiring to prevent discriminatory actions, and conduct audits of AI to ensure it’s mitigating any disparate impact. (Colorado)

AI offers significant benefits in streamlining the hiring process by applying defined parameters to help identify top talent more efficiently, while also promoting fairness and equity. On the candidate side, AI-driven tools have created impactful innovations such as text-to-apply systems that guide applicants directly through the application process, and chatbots that answer basic questions, provide interview details, and schedule follow-ups without requiring manual effort from the employer.

Additionally, AI is a powerful tool for quickly calculating key recruiting metrics like time-to-fill and open requisition percentages, saving companies both time and money. While these time-saving solutions are especially valuable for large organizations or those hiring at scale, it's essential to ensure that they don’t unintentionally filter out qualified candidates. Regular auditing and validation of AI tools are critical to avoiding potential legal or reputational risks. Being proactive is the best defense against unintended consequences.

Termination of Parole Programs

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 14165 titled “Securing Our Borders,” which eliminated a program called “Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans” also known as “CHNV Parole.” As of December 2024, about 531,000 individuals have entered the U.S. under this Parole program. Some of these individuals may be in your workforce, as adults are eligible for work authorization. 

Trump’s Executive Order did not automatically revoke the immigration status or work authorization for individuals under the CHNV Parole program. However, on March 25, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security announced the revocation status and work authorization would be effective April 25^th.[1]  In the background, on February 28^th, a group of affected beneficiaries had filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Massachusetts. Ten days before the slated termination of the program, Judge Indira Talwani entered a nation-wide stay of the terminations. Judge Talwani found the blanket termination of status and work authorization was unlawful and that terminations could only proceed on a case-by-case basis. The effect was a continuation of the CHNV Parole program and related work authorizations.

The Trump Administration sought emergency relief from the First Circuit Court of Appeals.  It asked that court to delay enforcement of the lower court’s order pending the First Circuit’s review of the case on the merits.  On May 5^th, the First Circuit denied the emergency relief, upholding the lower court’s stay of the program’s termination. This, again, permitted CHNV parolees to continue residing and working in the U.S.

On May 8^th, the Trump Administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking the same relief it did in the First Circuit. On May 30^th, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with the First Circuit’s findings and issued a stay of the District Court’s order while the First Circuit reviews the case on the merits.[2] The impact is that DHS “may proceed with terminating parole granted under the CHNV parole programs and with revoking any employment authorization based on being paroled under the CHNV parole programs,” according to a June 6, 2025 press release.[3]  USCIS further states that “Aliens whose parole is terminated and whose employment authorization is revoked will receive notification in their myUSCIS account.”  Employers will not receive notification.

Employers may identify foreign national employees under this program by inspecting their Employment Authorization Document for category code C(11).  This document would have been used to complete their Form I-9. It is recommended that you contact an immigration attorney if you identify any workers under this program, as employment of foreign nationals without work authorization can carry substantial penalties.

Alteration of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Authorizations

The TPS program was designed to serve as a defense to deportation and is available to citizens of counties with ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster or epidemic, or other extraordinary conditions. It is currently available to 17 countries, including Venezuela and Haiti. Adult beneficiaries in this status are eligible for employment authorization.

On February 5, 2025, DHS Secretary, Kristi Noem, terminated the TPS designation for Venezuela. Approximately 350,000 Venezuelans are in the United States in TPS status.  Under the DHS directive, work authorization was slated to terminate on either April 4, 2025 or September 10, 2025, depending on when the TPS status was conferred. However, on March 31, 2025, a federal district court in California stayed the April 4^th termination. Like with the CHNV program, the Trump Administration appealed seeking a stay of enforcement of the lower court’s order while the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals evaluated the merits of the case. The Ninth Circuit denied the emergency relief, thereby maintaining the TPS work authorizations that were slated to terminate on April 4.

The Trump Administration also appealed that determination to the U.S. Supreme Court.  And like with the CHNV Parole program, the Supreme Court issued a stay of enforcement of the lower court’s order.  This allows the termination of the program to move forward while the merits of that termination are evaluated in lower courts. During the Litigation, for a short period after the Supreme Court’s order, USCIS identified that it would extend the validity of work authorization to September 10, 2025 (2021 Designation) or October 2, 2026 (2023 Redesignation).  However, on June 10, 2025, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) announced that it would revert to the prior termination dates.[4] As of this writing, the work authorization for most Venezuelans has expired. Only those who have an EAD card with an end validity date in the future, are permitted to work.

Separately, on February 24, 2025, DHS Secretary Noem partially vacated the TPS re-designation for Haiti. Unlike Venezuela, Haiti remains a designated country.  However, the vacatur shortened the validity period of TPS status and associated Employment Authorization Documents from 18 months to 12 months.  About 200,000 Haitians are subject to this re-designation and their Employment Authorization Documents will expire on August 3, 2025 instead of February 3, 2026. In June 2025, DHS should announce whether it is extending or terminating the TPS designation for Haiti.

DACA

The DACA program was created as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.  Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for work authorization or public benefits.  However, if an undocumented alien is referred for deportation proceedings, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) makes them eligible for both.  In 2012, then DHS Secretary Napolitano created the DACA program through a memo directing DHS officers to defer indefinitely the removal of undocumented childhood arrivals.  By registering for DACA, undocumented childhood arrivals would be placed in deferred removal proceedings and could apply for Employment Authorization Documents and certain public benefits. Notably, this was done without an act of Congress.

In 2017, President Trump rescinded the DACA memo.  However, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the recission was arbitrary given the reliance interests of the DACA recipients, and the 2012 memo and program were reinstated. That legal challenge did not address whether the 2012 DACA program was legal. It only challenged the method and basis for the President’s recission. But the legal challenges did not stop.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that the DACA program violates the INA and is illegal.[5]  However, it issued a stay of enforcement, which allows for current DACA recipients to continue renewing their benefits.  The case was recently remanded back down to the U.S. District Court and is likely to wind its way back up through the 5^th Circuit and then on to the U.S. Supreme Court. USCIS reports that it will continue to process DACA renewals but will not process initial DACA requests at this time.[6]

Birthright Citizenship

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.[7]  The Executive Order denies the grant of citizenship to children born of undocumented or non-immigrant (e.g. work visa) mothers, unless the father is a U.S. Citizen or Permanent Resident.

The 14^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This constitutional amendment was intended to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court’s pre-abolition decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which held that slaves (even freed slaves) were not citizens of the United States.

The Supreme Court has since interpreted the 14^th Amendment as affirming “the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children born here of resident aliens.”[8]

Trump’s Executive Order was to take effect on February 20, 2025.  On February 5 and 6, several federal district courts, including in the states of Maryland and Washington, issued nation-wide injunctions preventing the enforcement of the Executive Order. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on May 15, 2025, not on the legality of Executive Order, but on the legality of nation-wide injunctions.  An opinion is expected in late June or early July, and the legality of the Executive Order is still being evaluated by the lower courts.

Immigration policy is changing by the day, and the courts’ stopping, re-starting, and potential later invalidation does little to clarify where employers and foreign national employees stand. Clarity is likely to be slow coming. So stay tuned. It is going to be an exciting few years.

Jon Schultz is the Managing Partner of Schultz Peña LLP, a law firm serving commercial, governmental, and individual clients in employment and family-based immigration, as well as general commercial and real estate litigation.

[1] The Federal Register Notice terminating parole status and work authorization can be found here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/25/2025-05128/termination-of-parole-processes-for-cubans-haitians-nicaraguans-and-venezuelans

[2] The Supreme Court Ruling is available here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1079_p86b.pdf

[3] The USCIS press release is available here: https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/litigation-related-update-supreme-court-stay-of-chnv-preliminary-injunction

[4] Updates to this program can be found here: https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status/temporary-protected-status-designated-country-venezuela

[5] Opinion available here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-40653-CV0.pdf

[6] Policy updates can be found here: https://www.uscis.gov/i-821d

[7] Executive Opinion Available here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

[8] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), available here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/

Current Landscape

By the end of this year there will be 21 states and Washington, D.C., that have some form of paid sick leave regulation. This number excludes the cities and counties that have regulations in place. The regulations apply not only to full-time workers but also to part-time and often temporary workers. When both local and state ordinances exist, employers should adhere to the ordinance that is most beneficial to the employee.

States with Paid Sick Leave Laws (as of this post)

The states with paid sick leave laws include:

• Alaska (AK) Coming July 1, 2025

• Arizona (AZ)
• California (CA) Updated January 1, 2024
• Colorado (CO)
• Connecticut (CT) Updated January 1, 2025
• Illinois (IL)
• Maine (ME)
• Maryland (MD)
• Massachusetts (MA)
• Michigan (MI) Updated February 21, 2025
• Minnesota (MN)
• Missouri (MO) Coming May 1, 2025, pending litigation
• Nebraska (NE) Coming October 1, 2025, pending amendments
• Nevada (NV)
• New Jersey (NJ)
• New Mexico (NM)
• New York (NY)
• Oregon (OR)
• Rhode Island (RI)
• Vermont (VT)
• Washington (WA) Update January 1, 2025
• Washington, D.C.

Commonalities in Paid Sick Leave Laws

Despite variations, many states share common requirements:

• Accrual Rate: Most states require an accrual rate of 1 hour per 30 hours worked. This common standard matches the Arizona requirements for accrual rate.
• Cap on Accrual and Usage: States may have different caps on accrual and usage. For example, California allows accrual up to 80 hours per plan year, but caps usage at 40 hours per year, with higher usage caps in cities like Los Angeles at 48 hours. New Mexico has a higher cap and usage requirement of 64 hours per year.
• Minimum Request: The smallest increment an employee can request varies, from the smallest a system will allow a request to one hour in Colorado or four hours like in New York.
• Carryover: Many states require that accrued unused time be carried over to the next plan year, with some allowing employers to avoid carryover if they frontload Sick time at the beginning of the plan year. States like California allow forfeiture of carryover of Sick time if they frontload, but some states like Colorado and New York require that you carry over all unused time even when frontloading hours.
• Wage Statement Requirement: States like Arizona, California, and Connecticut require wage statements to include information pertaining to balances of paid sick leave or usage of their leave.

Combining Sick Leave to Cover Multiple States

Options for employers with employees in multiple states can either offer different Paid Sick Leave plans to meet each state's requirements or create a single plan that meets the minimum requirements of all applicable states. It is important to always ensure the plan adheres to the most generous state requirements.

For example, if an employer has employees in both California and New Mexico, they might create a plan that allows employees to accrue up to 80 hours (California's accrual cap requirement) but allows annual usage up to 64 hours (New Mexico's requirement). This ensures compliance with both states' laws while providing a generous benefit to employees.

Paid sick leave regulations often include various additional requirements:

• Advance Notice Requirements: Employers may need to specify how much advance notice employees must provide when requesting sick leave.
• Eligible Employees and Employers: Regulations may define which employees and employers are covered under the law.
• Certification Requirements: Some states may require medical certification for sick leave usage.
• Family Members Covered: Regulations may extend coverage to family members beyond the employee, such as children, spouses, and parents.
• Reinstatement of Leave Upon Rehire: Employers may need to reinstate accrued leave if an employee is rehired within a certain period.
• Employer Notices and Posting Requirements: Employers may be required to post notices about paid sick leave rights.
• Record Keeping Requirements: Employers must maintain records of accrued and used sick leave.
• Private Right of Action: Employees may have the right to take legal action if their paid sick leave rights are violated.

Changes in 2025

The year started off with updates to some existing sick leave regulations and some newly introduced. 

• Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2025, Connecticut’s paid sick leave law extended to nearly all occupations with phased coverage thresholdsbased on employer size.

• Michigan: New legislation went into effect February 21, 2025, extending paid sick leave to all employers, with varying requirements based on employer size. Employers with more than 10 employees must offer 72 hours per year of paid sick leave. Beginning October 1, 2025, employers with less than 10 employees must offer up to 40 hours per year of paid sick leave.

• Missouri: Effective May 1, 2025, Missouri’s statewide Paid Sick Time Benefits Law included in Proposition A passed the Senate committee followingrecent litigation.The law requires employees to accrue one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked. Employees may use the time as it is earned, similar to policies in states like Colorado, New York, and New Mexico. Employers are required to provide written notice about the earned paid sick time within fourteen calendar days of the commencement of employment or on April 15, 2025.

The law, known as Proposition A, was approved by Missouri voters on November 5, 2024.  However, it has faced legal challenges questioning its constitutionality and the accuracy of its fiscal impact statements.  Despite the challenges, the paid sick leave component is scheduled to go into effect as planned.

• Alaska: Effective July 1, 2025, Alaska’s Minimum Labor Standards Initiative is requiring a minimum paid sick leave benefit.  Employers with 15 or more employees will be required to accrue at least one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked.  Employers are required to provide notice to employees within 30 days of hire or within 30 days of the new law’s effective date of July 1^st.
• Nebraska: The Nebraska Healthy Families and Workplace Act is effective October 1, 2025 with recent amendments being considered by the legislature.   The Act mandate accrual of 1 hour per 30 hours worked up to 40 hours accrual for employers with fewer than 20 employees.  Those with more will be required to accrual up to 56 hours per plan year.

Amendments under consideration include exemptions for certain workers, clarification of employer obligations, including those with existing paid leave policies, and clarification that employers are not required to pay out unused sick time when employees leave.

Combining Sick and Safe Leave into a PTO Plan/Policy

The Sick and Safe Leave ordinances allow employers to include these leaves into a PTO plan. When offering this requirement through a PTO plan, they must ensure they meet all the minimum requirements that the state or local ordinance expects. For example, in states like California, Colorado or Nebraska, where earned vacation or PTO is considered earned wages, all unused time must carry over from year to year. "Use it or lose it" policies are not allowed.

Conclusion

The landscape of paid sick leave in the US is continually evolving, with new regulations and updates emerging each year. With 21 states and Washington, D.C. now having some form of paid sick leave law, and recent updates in states like Connecticut, and Michigan, staying informed is crucial.

The changes in 2025, including new laws in Missouri, Alaska, and Nebraska, highlight the ongoing expansion of paid sick leave benefits. These regulations extend beyond full-time employees to include part-time and temporary workers, emphasizing the importance of equitable benefits for all.

By understanding commonalities such as accrual rates, caps on usage, carryover policies, and wage statement requirements, employers can better manage their obligations. Additionally, integrating sick and safe leave into a comprehensive PTO plan can simplify administration while ensuring compliance.

Ultimately, staying proactive and adaptable in response to these evolving regulations will help employers support their workforce effectively. HR professionals must remain vigilant and ensure compliance to foster a healthier, more productive work environment.