Category: Management training

From Fixable to Fineable: ICE’s Overhaul of I-9 Violation Classifications

Mark Blondman and Gabrielle I. Weiss ●

For nearly 30 years, employers completing Form I-9s operated under a forgiving framework: make a minor administrative mistake, like a missing date, an omitted title, and you had 10 days to fix it without penalty. That safety net just got a lot smaller. Without a formal announcement or rulemaking process, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) recently posted updated guidance that reclassifies many common administrative errors as “substantive” violations subject to immediate fines. The practical effect is significant: errors that used to be correctable now carry per-violation penalties ranging from $288 to $2,861, and they add up fast.

Here’s what changed, why it matters, and what employers should be doing about it.

Continue reading “From Fixable to Fineable: ICE’s Overhaul of I-9 Violation Classifications”

Same ABCs, New Rules: New Jersey Finalizes Updated Regulatory Framework for Worker Classification

Gabrielle I. Weiss ●

On May 5, 2026, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“NJDOL”) filed its final rule adopting N.J.A.C. 12:11, which provides regulatory guidance on how the state’s longstanding “ABC” test is applied to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. The final rule, which carries an operative date of October 1, 2026, arrives after a contentious rulemaking process that drew sharp criticism from financial services and insurance to construction and app-based transportation. While the ABC test itself is nothing new in New Jersey—it has been the statutory standard for nearly 90 years—these rules represent the first comprehensive regulatory framework explaining how the NJDOL interprets and applies the test. Critically, the ABC test in New Jersey governs not just unemployment insurance but also the state’s Wage and Hour Law, Wage Payment Law, Earned Sick Leave Law, and Temporary Disability Benefits Law, giving these rules a practical reach far broader than similar regulations in most other states. Employers operating in the state should begin evaluating their independent contractor relationships now to prepare for implementation.

Continue reading “Same ABCs, New Rules: New Jersey Finalizes Updated Regulatory Framework for Worker Classification”

California’s AB 692 Reins in “Stay or Pay” Provisions in California Employment Agreements

Taylor C. Morosco ●

Taylor C. Morosco's headshot photo

California’s Assembly Bill (“AB”) 692 took effect on January 1, 2026, significantly limiting the use of commonplace “stay-or-pay” clauses in offer letters and agreements, which require employees or prospective employees to repay certain costs if their employment ends.

AB 692 underscores California’s commitment to limit the use of contractual provisions restricting or disincentivizing workforce mobility. Although the new law does not apply retroactively (essentially grandfathering in “stay-or-pay” clauses entered into before January 1, 2026), employers must audit agreements and practices, and plan for compliance to avoid significant potential liability going forward.

Continue reading “California’s AB 692 Reins in “Stay or Pay” Provisions in California Employment Agreements”

New Jersey Steps Into Fray, Bans Mandatory Employee Meetings

David G. Rodriguez and Derek E. Schultz ●

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law significant amendments to the New Jersey Employer Political Communication Restrictions Act (the “Act”) on September 3, 2025. These amendments, which take effect on December 2, 2025, make New Jersey one of 12 states in the nation to prohibit employers from holding captive audience meetings to discuss unionization with employees.

KEY PROVISIONS

The Act Will Prohibit Employers from Holding Mandatory Meetings on Unionization

Employers and their agents will be prohibited from requiring employees to attend meetings or participate in communications where the purpose is to convey the employer’s opinion about unionization. This restriction will apply to all employers in New Jersey, including those in both the private and public sectors.

Continue reading “New Jersey Steps Into Fray, Bans Mandatory Employee Meetings”

Ding! Dong! U.S. DOL Assessment of Liquidated Damages Is Dead!

Jason E. Reisman ●

The United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a Field Assistance Bulletin (“FAB”) on June 27, 2025, putting to bed, hopefully once and for all, the DOL’s unauthorized practice of requiring employers to pay liquidated damages in pre-litigation wage and hour matters. For years, during administrative investigations, the DOL would seek to impose, and/or threaten litigation over the imposition of, liquidated damages when it found violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Not anymore.

Continue reading “Ding! Dong! U.S. DOL Assessment of Liquidated Damages Is Dead!”

Court Temporarily Hits the Brakes on EO 14173 Ending Illegal Discrimination: What Employers Should Know

 Anthony B. Haller, Brooke T. Iley, and Theresa A. Topping ●


Big Picture

On February 21, 2025, a federal judge in the District Court of Maryland granted a temporary injunction blocking portions of President Trump’s Executive Orders “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit Based Opportunity” (“14173”) and “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs” (“14151”) (collectively the “EOs”). To learn more about each EO’s directives read Blank Rome’s previous coverage on 14173 here and 14151 here. This is a temporary nationwide ban on certain portions of the EOs.

After pointing out that the Trump Administration has declared “DEI to be henceforth illegal”, the Court found the EOs do not “define any of the operative terms” such as “illegal DEI”, “equity-related”, “promoting DEI”, or “illegal discrimination or preferences”. This vagueness fails to provide companies and organizations with proper notice as to what types of programs are prohibited. Further, the Court found that the EOs likely violate the First Amendment by expressly threatening “the expression of views supportive of equity, diversity and inclusion.” This is a nationwide ban.

Continue reading “Court Temporarily Hits the Brakes on EO 14173 Ending Illegal Discrimination: What Employers Should Know”

Employers Are Extra Grateful This Thanksgiving After Federal Court Sets Aside DOL’s Salary Threshold Increase

Theresa A. Topping ●

Salary threshold. . .$35,568.00. . .the Eastern District of Texas. . .not the classic answers you expect to hear from your loved ones around the Thanksgiving table when you ask, “Hey guys, what are you most thankful for?” While family, friends, food, and a roof over your head are all great, the fact that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas shot down the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) attempt at increasing the overtime salary threshold to $58,656.00 is right up there for employers.

The DOL’s Not-So-Final “Final Rule”

Back on April 23, 2024, the DOL announced their “final rule,” which entailed a multi-phase increase of the “white-collar exemption” (the executive, administrative, and professional employees (“EAP”)) salary threshold from $35,568.00 to $43,888.00, starting on July 1, 2024, and then up to $58,656.00, starting on January 1, 2025 (with increases automatically occurring every three years thereafter). Notably absent were any changes to the DOL’s “duties” test, which must be analyzed in conjunction with a salary when determining whether an EAP employee is exempt from overtime. At the time of its announcement, the DOL projected their final rule would make four million workers newly eligible for overtime payments and cost employers nationwide roughly $1.4 billion in the first year alone. Being thankful for a $35,568.00 threshold is looking more and more understandable now, isn’t it?

Continue reading “Employers Are Extra Grateful This Thanksgiving After Federal Court Sets Aside DOL’s Salary Threshold Increase”

NLRB Overturns Two Decades-Old Precedents Relating to What Employers Can Say to Employees Regarding Views on Unions

Anthony B. Haller and Gabrielle I. Weiss ●

With a new administration looming, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) recently issued two decisions that radically depart from established law about what an employer can say and how an employer can lawfully meet with its employees during a union organizing campaign.

  • Employers have always been able to tell employees that one of the disadvantages of unions is that they impede direct dealing between the company and its employees. This is because employees give up their individual rights in favor of exclusive collective representation by the union, and it puts a third party in the middle of the employment relationship. Despite this being an obvious truism, depending on what is said by the company, this may now be illegal under the Board’s decision in Siren Retail Corp. dba Starbucks and Workers United affiliated with Service Employees International Union (“Starbucks”).

  • Employers have always been able to have a mandatory meeting—the so-called “captive audience meeting”—of all employees in the bargaining unit at least 24 hours before a union representation election to make its case for why it believes that a union is unnecessary for the employees. These meetings have been among the top tools employers use to fend off union organizing campaigns. This type of mandatory meeting is now illegal under the Board’s decision in Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon Labor Union (“Amazon”).

Time will tell if these decisions hold up under the new administration; but, for now, they are the law.

Continue reading “NLRB Overturns Two Decades-Old Precedents Relating to What Employers Can Say to Employees Regarding Views on Unions”

California’s New Workplace Violence Prevention Law: July 1, 2024, Compliance Deadline—Are You Ready?

Caroline Powell Donelan ●

The effective date of California’s Senate Bill 553 is fast approaching, and the law covers nearly every employer and every employment facility in California with the exception of healthcare facilities and other facilities governed by different legal standards, most remote workers, and businesses with fewer than 10 employees.

Whether you are based in California or operate a worksite in the state with more than 10 employees, compliance is mandatory. The requirements, set forth in SB 553, are detailed and complex, establishing rules for planning, logging, and record-keeping, as well as worker training, which will all be overseen and enforced by the California Occupational Safety and Health Act (“Cal/OSHA”).

Specifically, California employers must meet four broad categories of obligations that go into effect July 1, 2024, including:

  1. The creation of a workplace violence prevention plan.
  2. The creation of a workplace violence incident log.
  3. Training requirements.
  4. Recordkeeping requirements.
Continue reading “California’s New Workplace Violence Prevention Law: July 1, 2024, Compliance Deadline—Are You Ready?”

Deadlines Are Fast Approaching for Chicago and Illinois Employers

Krista P. McDonald ●

Several deadlines are on the horizon for Chicago and Illinois employers. Businesses should be aware of what they need to do to comply, or they may face significant daily penalties.

Employers Must Conduct Required New Sexual Harassment and Bystander Intervention Trainings for All Employees by June 30, 2023. The City of Chicago amended its Human Rights Ordinance last year to require all employers with employees in Chicago to provide the following annual training by June 30, 2023 (and annually thereafter):

      1. One hour of sexual harassment prevention training to all employees (with an additional hour of sexual harassment prevention training for all supervisors and managers, for a total of two hours); and
      2. One hour of bystander intervention training to all employees.

Template sexual harassment and bystander intervention trainings and other materials are available on the City of Chicago website. Employers must keep written records of the trainings for the longer of five years or the duration of any claim, action, or pending investigation. Employers that do not comply with the training and record-keeping requirements may be fined significant penalties for each day that the employer is not in compliance.

Illinois Adverse Judgments or Rulings Reports Are Due by July 1, 2023. By each July 1, every employer that had an adverse judgment or administrative ruling against it in the preceding year must disclose to the Illinois Department of Human Rights the following:

      1. The total number of adverse judgments or administrative rulings during the preceding year;
      2. Whether equitable relief was ordered; and
      3. The number of adverse judgments or administrative rulings entered against the employer within specific categories outlined in Section 2-108(B) of the Illinois Human Rights Act.

An “adverse judgment or administrative ruling” means any final and non-appealable judgment that finds sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination with the ruling in the employee’s favor and against the employer. This includes reporting adverse rulings outside of Illinois jurisdiction. The disclosure report form may be found here: Form IDHR 2-108.

For more information, contact any member of Blank Rome’s Labor & Employment practice group.