October 27, 2026

EEOC Cuts Position Statement Deadline to 15 Days: What Employers Should Do Now

Steven Gutierrez

Employers facing a Charge of Discrimination now have far less time to respond than they traditionally have. According to a recent Bloomberg Law report (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/eeoc-slashes-timeline-for-employers-to-respond-to-bias-charges), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has cut the time for respondents to file position statements to 15 days, half the 30 days employers have long relied on. The agency has not formally announced the change, but EEOC district offices, including in Colorado, are already sending requests with the shorter 15-day deadline.

What Changed

The shorter deadline comes with less flexibility. Historically, a good-cause request typically bought an employer weeks of additional time, and practice differed from office to office. Under the new approach, employers should plan on getting one short extension, which based on this practitioner’s experience, has been no more than 10 days at most. The irony is that the EEOC’s side of the process has not accelerated. A position statement filed on day 15 may still sit for a month or more before an investigator picks up the file. Read more >>

July 20, 2026

Border Czar Homan Signals Major Increase in Employer-Focused Immigration Enforcement

Ann Lee

by Ann Lee

In an interview with the Center for Immigration Studies, White House Border Czar Tom Homan provided insight on July 16, 2026 into the Administration’s plans to significantly expand worksite enforcement and increase scrutiny of employer compliance.

For employers, the primary takeaway is that the Administration intends to significantly increase worksite enforcement efforts. Employers should anticipate more I-9 audits, renewed follow-up on Social Security no-match letters, and closer coordination among Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Department of Labor (DOL), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Homan also emphasized that investigations will increasingly focus on employers, particularly where HSI develops evidence of trafficking, forced labor, or the knowing employment of unauthorized workers. Businesses that utilize staffing agencies or subcontractors, especially in industries historically subject to worksite enforcement, such as agriculture, meatpacking, construction, and hospitality, should consider proactively reviewing their I-9 compliance programs, vendor oversight, and audit procedures. Read more >>

May 28, 2026

California’s New AI Workforce Executive Order Signals a Broader Shift in Employment Regulation

Adam Bouka

By Adam Bouka

California has spent the past several years positioning itself at the forefront of artificial intelligence regulation. Much of the early focus has centered on AI-driven hiring tools, automated decision systems (“ADS”), and the potential for discriminatory outcomes in recruiting and employment decisions. As discussed in our prior articles, California’s New AI Employment Rules and the Workday Lawsuit: What HR Needs to Know and New AI Hiring Rules and Lawsuits Put Employers on Notice: What HR Needs to Know, California regulators and courts have increasingly scrutinized how employers deploy AI in hiring and employment decisions.

Governor Newsom’s May 21, 2026 Executive Order N-6-26 signals that California’s AI workforce policy may now be expanding beyond hiring discrimination and automated decision-making into a broader framework focused on workforce disruption, labor-market impacts, worker protections, retraining, and collective bargaining.

Importantly, the Executive Order does not itself impose immediate new compliance obligations on employers. Rather, it directs state agencies to study, evaluate, and make recommendations regarding the workforce implications of AI and other emerging technologies. But the Order provides a meaningful roadmap for where California policymakers may be headed next. Read more >>

April 23, 2026

RIFs in the Age of AI: Why Data-Driven Decisions Are Increasing Employer Risk

Adam Bouka

By Adam Bouka

Employers have long used reductions in force (“RIFs”) as a high-risk but familiar response to economic pressure, restructuring, or strategic change. Traditionally, employers evaluated RIF-related risk through relatively discrete lenses: compliance with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act, potential discrimination claims, and the adequacy of internal documentation.

That approach today, may no longer be sufficient.

As employers increasingly rely on data-driven tools, including AI-assisted systems, in their RIF processes, the reductions are becoming more complex. They may now include structured, data-rich decision systems that can be reconstructed and challenged under multiple legal frameworks. At the same time, regulators—particularly in jurisdictions like California—are making clear that using these tools does not necessarily reduce liability exposure.

It could actually increase it. Read more >>

April 16, 2026

How ICE Is Raising the Stakes on I-9 Audits

Chris Thomas

By Chris L. Thomas

ICE’s recent Fact Sheet signals a long-anticipated escalation in worksite enforcement that warrants immediate attention from employers. We have observed a consistent and concerning shift in enforcement patterns over the past several months with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) taking worksite enforcement to steps to increase legal exposure for employers.

Historically, after serving a Notice of Inspection (which initiates a formal I-9 audit), ICE would typically follow up with a Notice of Suspect Documents. That second notice provided employers with a defined period (usually 10 days, and often negotiable) to reverify affected employees and, where necessary, take appropriate employment action. More recently, however, ICE appears to be bypassing this step entirely. Instead of issuing a Notice of Suspect Documents, the agency is using information gathered during I-9 audits, including copies of employee documentation, to support criminal warrant applications and conduct enforcement actions, including workplace raids. We have seen this ongoing pattern in a number of recent cases. Read more >>

December 23, 2025

DHS Issues Final Rule Implementing Weighted H-1B Cap Selection Process

Ann Lee

by Ann Lee

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a final rule, Weighted Selection Process for Registrants and Petitioners Seeking to File Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions, that significantly reshapes how H-1B cap-subject registrations are conducted from a random selection process to a weighted selection process that prioritizes higher-wage, higher-skilled H-1B beneficiaries while preserving access to the program across all wage levels. This rule is scheduled to take effect on February 27, 2026, in time for the FY 2027 H-1B registration season and represents one of the most consequential changes to the H-1B cap selection framework in recent years. Read more >>

December 2, 2025

California Labor and Employment Law Updates for 2026

Adam Bouka

By Adam Bouka

As we move into 2026, California continues its trend of enacting expansive and complex new employment laws. The legislative updates for 2026 span a wide range of critical workplace issues, including pay transparency, layoffs, training repayment requirements, workplace rights notices, protected leave, minimum wage, and the increasingly regulated use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions. Employers should promptly update policies, agreements, and HR practices to align with these significant changes. Below is a summary of the most impactful new laws and what employers need to know.

Training Repayment and “Stay-or-Pay” Restrictions

AB 692 establishes one of the most consequential changes for 2026 by banning most hiring-related “stay-or-pay” repayment provisions. Employers may no longer require workers to reimburse training costs, repay signing bonuses based on early resignation, or pay “quit fees,” unless the repayment fits within narrow statutory exceptions such as certain legally required training, government-backed educational programs, or approved apprenticeships. Agreements imposing prohibited repayment obligations are void, and employees may seek statutory damages and attorneys’ fees. Read more >>

November 13, 2025

Who’s Responsible for Uniform Costs, Employee or Employer?

Dana Dobbins

By Dana Dobbins

Question: Can an employer have employees sign an agreement authorizing the employer to deduct from employees’ paychecks to cover the cost of employee uniforms?

Answer: In Colorado, whether a deduction is permissible depends on the type of uniform.

If the employer requires clothing with a special color, make, pattern, logo, or material, the employer must furnish the uniform, cannot deduct the cost from an employee’s wages, and cannot require a deposit.

If the employer’s uniform is more basic (for example, dark pants and a light blue[1] collared shirt, without any limitations on the material or supplier), the employer can require employees to purchase the uniform themselves or can deduct for the cost of the clothing (though, to avoid a gray area, the safest bet is simply to let employees purchase their own). Read more >>

November 12, 2025

Colorado Expands FAMLI to Include 12 Weeks of Neonatal Care Leave

Dana Dobbins

By Dana Dobbins

On January 1, 2026, parents of newborns receiving inpatient care in a neonatal intensive care unit (“NICU”) will be eligible for up to 12 weeks of leave while their newborns are in NICU. This leave is in addition to the 12 weeks of parental bonding leave already available under Colorado’s FAMLI Act. Colorado is the first state to offer special Neonatal Care Leave.

The FAMLI Division is currently engaging in the rulemaking process and has posted proposed amendments on its website, so the specifics of Neonatal Care Leave are still coming into focus.

Neonatal Care Leave will be available to the parents of infants born before January 1, 2026 who are still receiving inpatient treatment in the NICU as of the new year. The leave benefit is only available, however, for qualifying absences from work on or after January 1, 2026. Read more >>

August 25, 2025

Nevada NEST Program Compliance: September 1, 2025, Deadline Approaches for Private Employers

JT Washington

by JT Washington

Effective September 1, 2025, Nevada’s private-sector employers must provide employees with a tax-favored Individual Retirement Account (IRA) in accordance with the Nevada Employee Savings Trust (NEST) Program. The NEST Program was established by 2023 Senate Bill 305, which was codified in Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 353D. NEST facilitates automatic employee payroll contributions to state-administered Roth IRAs, providing a retirement savings solution for an estimated 500,000-plus private-sector Nevada workers who do not have an option to save for retirement directly through their employer. Here is how it works:

Covered Employers and Their Responsibilities

Employers that have been in business for at least 36 months, with six or more employees in the State of Nevada, and who do not maintain a tax-favored retirement plan for their employees, such as a 401(k), 403(b), Simplified Employee Pension (SEP), or Simple IRA, must self-enroll in NEST. Employers that enroll in NEST must automatically enroll all eligible employees into NEST or a similar program offered by a trade association or chamber of commerce. Employers that enroll in NEST must also deduct applicable employee contributions from their compensation, submit the contributions to NEST, and distribute designated NEST program materials to their workforce. To remain complaint with NEST, employers must continue to send payroll contributions and maintain employee records, including updating contribution rate changes when needed, adding new employees, and marking former employees as terminated. Read more >>