November 6, 2026

Do We Owe Overtime for More Than 14 Hours’ Work In One Day?

Steven Eheart

Question: Must a nonexempt employee who is scheduled to work 14 hours in a two-week pay period be paid overtime if they work more than the 14 hours?

Answer: This question gets at four core things to know about overtime:

First, overtime is based on hours an employee works, not hours the employee is scheduled to work. When evaluating whether overtime is owed, ignore any scheduled hours, and focus only on hours the employee actually worked.

Second, whether you must pay overtime is based only on hours worked during each regular workweek. So, if the regular workweek is Sunday at 12:00 a.m. to Saturday at 11:59 p.m., only the hours worked during that period are relevant to whether overtime is owed. The regular pay period is immaterial to whether overtime is paid, and you shouldn’t average hours worked in two or more workweeks to compute overtime.

Third, overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is due only if an employee works more than 40 hours during a regular workweek. Read more >>

November 6, 2026

DOL Guidance Pushes Back on Wave of Tobacco Surcharge Lawsuits

Alex Smith

by Alex Smith

Over the past couple of years, numerous large employers and their health plan fiduciaries have faced lawsuits regarding their health plan’s tobacco surcharge. A tobacco surcharge wellness program typically charges a higher monthly premium to employees and covered dependents who smoke or otherwise use tobacco products to account for some of the higher medical costs associated with tobacco use. Tobacco users can typically avoid the surcharge by completing a smoking cessation program, regardless of whether they actually quit.

This wave of putative class action lawsuits began in 2024 even though employer tobacco surcharges have been around for years and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations permitting the surcharges were last updated in 2013. Since then, numerous lawsuits challenging employer health plan tobacco surcharge programs have been filed. Courts have tended to side with employers, but rulings have been mixed.

What the lawsuits claim

The lawsuits typically allege that the employer and its health plan fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by impermissibly discriminating against tobacco users by charging higher premiums because of some combination of the following:

The wellness program doesn’t provide a compliant, reasonable alternative standard because the individual must become tobacco-free.
A participant who completes the smoking cessation program alternative isn’t able to avoid the full amount of the surcharge for the plan year.
A reasonable alternative standard, such as a smoking cessation program, wasn’t disclosed to participants.

The 2013 HIPAA regulations require health plans that use a tobacco surcharge wellness program to provide a reasonable alternative standard that doesn’t involve becoming tobacco-free and to enable individuals who complete the reasonable alternative standard to avoid the penalty or receive the reward. Read more >>

October 27, 2026

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

Steven Gutierrez

by 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 >>