April 23, 2026

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

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 >>

August 6, 2025

Department of State Narrows Nonimmigrant Visa Interview Waiver Eligibility

Ann Lee

By Ann Lee

Beginning on September 2, 2025, U.S. consulates will implement a more restrictive version of the nonimmigrant visa (NIV) interview waiver (IW) program. The IW program is also commonly referred to as “drop box” visa appointments, which allows applicants to renew visa applications without an in-person interview. The Department of State announced the new restrictions on July 25, 2025 (IW Update).

Background

In February 2025, the Department of State (DOS) significantly scaled back the COVID-era expanded IW program, which had allowed waivers for applicants whose prior visa in the same classification expired within 48 months, and in some cases, for first-time visa applicants. The February revision limited eligibility to applicants renewing a visa in the same category that was still valid or had expired within the past 12 months. Under the IW Update, the circumstances when interviews will be waived will narrow even further. Read more >>

July 23, 2025

Significant Reductions in Nonimmigrant Visa Validity for Dozens of Countries

Chris Thomas

By Chris Thomas

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) recently revised its visa reciprocity schedules for numerous countries, significantly reducing the duration of nonimmigrant visa validity to three months and a single entry in many cases. These changes affect a broad range of visa categories, including B (visitor), F (student), H (temporary worker), J (exchange visitor), M (vocational student), and O (extraordinary ability) visas.

The updated reciprocity terms apply to visas issued on or after early July 2025. Visas issued before these changes remain valid under their original terms. For example, a July 8, 2025, notice on the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria website confirms that visas issued prior to that date are not affected. Read more >>

July 1, 2025

The Supreme Court “Clarifies” ADA Title I Protections for Retired Workers

Patrick Bernal

By Patrick Bernal and Joseph Robertson

On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Stanley v. City of Sanford, No. 23-997, addressing the scope of protections available to retired workers under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (ADA), which generally prohibits disability discrimination against employees. In sum, the Court held that the ADA’s antidiscrimination protections do not extend to retired workers who no longer hold or desire a job at the time of the alleged discrimination.

Joseph Robertson

Specifically, the City of Sanford reduced health insurance benefits for its disabled retirees. At that time, the City employed Karyn Stanley as a firefighter, and Ms. Stanley was not disabled. Two years into her retirement, Ms. Stanley filed an ADA employment-discrimination claim against the City. But Ms. Stanley did not specify when she became disabled, so lower courts and the Supreme Court denied Ms. Stanley’s ADA claim, finding that she was not a “qualified individual,” under the meaning of the ADA, and thus not entitled to receive ADA protections. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled that a “qualified individual” must be a current or prospective employee only. Read more >>