Compliance Stuff

President Trump just injected fresh urgency into the national AI regulatory debate by asking Congress to resurrect an initiative to block or curb states from passing their own AI-related laws. In a social media post on Tuesday, the president urged Congress to once again pursue legislation to block state-level AI regulation and instead create one federal standard, warning that a patchwork of state rules threatens US innovation and global competitiveness. This development marks the beginning of the next chapter of a remarkable six-month saga in D.C. over whether states should be allowed to regulate AI at all. What will happen? And what should employers and tech developers do? The Message Trump’s message that reignited the debate  came on Truth Social late yesterday afternoon : Investment in AI is helping to make the U.S. Economy the “HOTTEST” in the World, but overregulation by the States is threatening to undermine this Major Growth Engine… We MUST have one Federal Standard instead ...

On September 3, 2025, Governor Ned Lamont  announced  that the minimum wage in Connecticut will rise from $16.35 per hour to $16.94 per hour, effective January 1, 2026 . This increase is the result of the indexing mechanism under Public Act 19-4, which ties the state minimum wage to the federal Employment Cost Index. Quick Hits Effective January 1, 2026, Connecticut’s minimum wage will increase 59¢ to $16.94 per hour. Connecticut will rank second in the nation for the highest statewide minimum wage in 2026. Key Details This upcoming adjustment will keep the Constitution State at the forefront of the national wage landscape, reflecting a 3.6 percent increase based on the annual period ending June 30, 2025. The statutory framework mandates that the rate adjustment be announced by October 15 each year, with the new rate becoming effective on January 1 of the following year. Ranking second in 2026 after Washington state ($17.13/hour), Connecticut’s seemingly modest minimum wage ...

From the employer’s perspective, the EEOC’s policy of closing charges that allege only disparate impact discrimination—without investigation—could significantly increase the risk of private litigation. The EEOC’s investigative process has traditionally served as a critical filter, screening out non-meritorious or weak claims before they reach the courts. Without this step, employers are more likely to face lawsuits from private litigants based on disparate impact allegations, regardless of their underlying merit. This shift means employers may need to defend more claims in court, leading to higher legal costs and resource burdens. The absence of an EEOC investigation also removes opportunities for early resolution or conciliation, which can clarify misunderstandings or resolve disputes before litigation . As a result, employers may encounter more protracted and expensive legal battles, even in cases that might have been dismissed or settled at the administrative level. At issue is the ...

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is officially back to work now that the government shutdown has ended. Now that OSHA has a full complement of agency staff available, employers should be prepared for agency  operations that had temporarily ceased because they were not deemed “essential ” to resume, including inspections under OSHA’s recently announced  Site-Specific Targeting (SST) program . Likewise, new agency positions related to rulemaking and other policy positions may soon emerge. During the shutdown, inspections were primarily limited to high-gravity serious violations, imminent danger situations, and responses to fatalities and catastrophes . OSHA also continued necessary enforcement activities on certain open cases when needed to meet the agency’s six-month statutory deadlines, including issuing citations. Thus, employers should be mindful of any deadlines associated with receipt of citations or other enforcement activities during the shutdown ...

When an employee requests a reasonable accommodation for a health condition, it may be confusing for employers to parse out the various privacy protections embedded in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and  42 CFR Part 2 (Part 2),  a federal regulation restricting the disclosure of substance use disorder records. This article will explain the legal obligations under the three standards and how they intersect in this tricky area of compliance. Quick Hits The ADA, HIPAA, and the 42 CFR  Part 2 regulation  seek to protect patients’ private medical information with different requirements for healthcare providers and employers. When employers receive a request for a reasonable accommodation, they can request a doctor’s letter or limited medical records for which there is a business need for the information. Non-healthcare employers typically are not subject to HIPAA and Part 2 for their employment...