Compliance Stuff

Takeaways Illinois employers may not rely solely on SSA “no-match,” IRS discrepancy notices, or similar third-party notifications to take disciplinary or termination action. Employers must meet strict notice , timing, and communication requirements, including providing employees an opportunity to respond and to involve a representative. Employees, the attorney general, and designated advocacy organizations may bring civil actions. Illinois has enacted a significant expansion of the Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, imposing new substantive and procedural requirements on how employers must respond when they receive notices reporting discrepancies in an employee’s Social Security number , Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or other identifying information. While the notices themselves are not new, I llinois SB 2339 has established a comprehensive framework governing how employers may act upon them, with heightened litigation exposure for employers. The law takes effect imme...

Outgoing Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed some 400 bills passed by the Virginia legislature over the past four years, far more than any of his predecessors. Several of the vetoed bills would have directly impacted employers operating in the commonwealth, including bills aimed at raising the minimum wage and increasing protections for warehouse workers. With incoming Democratic Governor Abigail Spanberger at the helm and a Democratic-held legislature, several bills that Gov. Youngkin previously vetoed are now back in play and could become law in the coming years. Here are a few laws that Virginia employers should keep an eye on in 2026 and beyond. House Bill 1928 – Minimum Wage Increase to $15 per hour by 2027 This bill would have gradually raised Virginia’s hourly minimum wage from roughly $12.41 to $13.50 in 2026 and $15.00 in 2027. Gov. Youngkin vetoed it in 2024 and 2025, on the grounds that such a mandate would burden businesses . Raising the minimum wage remains a pop...

The Supreme Court will likely rule in favor of President Trump in a critical pending case that should be decided in early 2026, vastly expanding the president’s power to remove members of independent agencies. That’s according to the consensus predictions of our firm’s thought leaders monitoring  Trump v. Slaughter , a high-stakes case that centers on challenges to statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). But whatever the court decides could ultimately have sweeping implications for other independent agencies like the Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) – not to mention the fundamental structure of the federal government itself. Read on for an analysis of the issues, our specific predictions on h ow SCOTUS will decide the case, and how a final decision in 2026 could impact employers for years to come. Quick Background Earlier this year, President Donald Trump  fired two Democratic Comm...

On December 10, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a  final rule  removing liability for disparate impact discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . This rule applies to recipients of federal funding, including state and local government agencies, nonprofits, schools, and government contractors. Quick Hits The U.S. Department of Justice recently published a final rule eliminating liability for disparate impact discrimination for organizations that receive federal money . Intentional discrimination, including disparate treatment based on race, color, or national origin, remains unlawful under Title VI. The rule took effect immediately. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives federal funding. Title VI prohibits employment discrimination only if employment is a primary objective of the federal investment, and the alleged discr...

Conducting a reduction in force (RIF) is one of the most challenging and sensitive actions a company can take. They are inherently emotional, exhausting and distressing. They can also create significant legal and employee relations risks, even when conducted with the best of intentions. To mitigate potential litigation exposure and business disruption, it’s critically important to carefully plan and execute against that plan. Below are some best practices to keep in mind when conducting a RIF. Note that this article focuses on requirements for US employees. If your company is laying off employees in other countries, consult with local counsel early in the process. Employment laws vary widely across jurisdictions, and you may encounter a very different – and potentially more stringent – set of requirements for layoffs outside the US. Consider and document the business rationale First, consider whether job eliminations are truly necessary. For example, if financial considerations are dri...