Compliance Stuff

Despite months of intense lobbying and a last-minute legislative scramble, Colorado’s sweeping AI anti-bias law is still set to take effect on February 1, 2026 . But the tech industry isn’t done fighting. After lawmakers just adjourned the 2025 legislative session without passing any changes to the artificial intelligence law, a coalition of tech companies and business groups is now pressuring Governor Jared Polis to call a special session to delay or revise the law before it kicks in . The latest developments mark a dramatic turn in the most closely watched state AI battle in the country, but they leave employers wondering how to face an uncertain regulatory landscape. What do you need to know about these developments and what should you do as we await final resolution? Starter Pack of FP Resources on Colorado’s AI Law 📄  Read our summary of the law’s core provisions. 📄  See what the state’s AI task force said about compliance complexity. 📄  Track Colorado’s earlier ...

Working from home has become the new norm for many workers. Even before COVID-19 forced businesses to send their employees home, there were around 4 million Americans who worked remotely for at least half of the week. In addition, many companies now see remote or hybrid work as a benefit to attracting and retaining workplace talent. This article covers: Payroll requirements Foreign qualification Permits for your remote employees Tax nexus considerations Classification of remote workers Privacy and data security Workers compensation Unemployment insurance Hybrid employees Properly document working arrangements But there may be additional compliance requirements when an employee works outside a business’ home state. With remote workers, there may be tax implications, new registration requirements, and more. Unfortunately, such considerations are sometimes a surprise to employers who don’t have an HR department or lack an understanding of the implications of having remote employees. Here...

In our March 24 2025, blog  post  we discussed the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) recent  guidance  regarding what constitutes unlawful “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) policies. Among other things, the guidance specifies that employees may claim a “hostile work environment’ (a form of unlawful “harassment”) by showing that an employer’s DEI training was discriminatory in content, application, or context. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), harassment based on race, sex, or another protected characteristic is unlawful where (1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or (2) the conduct is sufficiently  severe  or  pervasive  to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider  intimidating, hostile, or abusive . According to the  EEOC , “Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise...

SHRM testified before the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections on March 25 to call for modernization of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) .  To reach the U.S. workforce’s full potential, SHRM believes in turning three essential keys — modernizing the FLSA, closing the workforce participation gap, and shaping the future of work — all of which will open doors that lead to innovation, economic growth, and a more dynamic, competitive workforce, testified Paige Boughan, M.S., SHRM-SCP, a senior vice president and director of human resources . She testified in her capacity as legislative director for the Maryland SHRM State Council. Clarity, consistency, and compliance are needed, Boughan noted in her oral testimony, including clarity of the definition of who is an employee versus an independent contractor and who is qualified for overtime. “The world has undergone significant changes since the FLSA was first passed and since Congress last made significant chan...

Fees A lot of employers don’t think too much about how their 401(k) administration fees are structured. If the costs seem reasonable and the provider is doing its job, why fix what isn’t broken? But here’s the problem: many 401(k) providers charge administration fees as a percentage of plan assets, and that setup can quietly siphon thousands—sometimes hundreds of thousands—of dollars away from participants’ savings over time. Worse yet, it can expose plan sponsors (that’s you, employers!) to major fiduciary liability if those fees are deemed excessive. So, let’s break it down: How do asset-based fees hurt participants? What’s the legal risk for employers? And what’s a smarter way to structure 401(k) fees? The Problem with Asset-Based 401(k) Fees Let's compare two 401(k) plans, each with 50 participants and $1 million in plan assets. They pay their 401(k) provider the following fees for identical administration services: Plan 1:  Pays a flat fee ($2,500 base + $50 per participant) ...