Compliance Stuff

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers from making disability inquiries or requiring employees to undergo medical examinations unless they show the inquiry or examination to be job-related and consistent with business necessity. In a recent case,  Nawara v. Cook County , 132 F. 4th 1031 (7th Cir. 2025), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit underlined that an illegal inquiry or examination counts as discrimination under the ADA. The court also rejected the employer’s arguments against recovery of lost wages. This warrants a refresher on when employers can legally inquire with their employees about their medical condition and require fitness-for-duty exams. As one court put it, “ An employer is generally allowed to use fitness-for-duty exams to determine whether an employee can safely do the job.” Still, an exam that is n ot job-related and consistent with business necessity violates the ADA . What does “job-related and consistent with business necess...

Entities covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), such as group health plans, that receive or maintain substance use disorder (SUD) treatment records from programs subject to federal requirements must ensure that their Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP) complies with new regulations by  February 16, 2026 . Employers that sponsor self-funded group health plans should review their current NPP and make necessary changes to maintain compliance ahead of this important compliance deadline. What Is Changing in NPPs? In 2024, the  Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule  modifying the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information (Privacy Rule) under HIPAA. The Privacy Rule requires HIPAA-covered entities to update their NPP to reflect new requirements for protecting SUD records, as mandated by Congress in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020. SUD records...

Recent legislative developments in multiple states have targeted “ stay-or-pay” clauses—contract terms that obligate employees to repay certain bonuses and educational or training expenses if the employee does not stay for a required period of time. Historically, these provisions were intended to safeguard employer investments in training and onboarding. However, state lawmakers are increasingly viewing them as restrictive and unfair to workers. Employers, particularly those with employees across multiple states, should carefully examine current agreements and prepare for compliance with these evolving state standards to mitigate risk and maintain lawful practices. California Effective January 1, 2026,  California Assembly Bill 692 (AB 692)  prohibits employment contracts that require employees to repay employment related costs upon early separation. If the employer violates the law, they may be exposed to penalties, fees, or costs such as liquidated damages. The California le...