Compliance Stuff

Takeaways Chicago’s updated Fair Workweek Ordinance rules (effective 06.01.26) expand and clarify employer obligations across scheduling, predictability pay, recordkeeping and more. The rules add detailed compliance requirements, including for good faith estimates and work schedules. They also increase administrative and compliance burdens. Employers should consider reviewing their policies and procedures to ensure compliance. Related links Chicago Fair Workweek Rules (effective 06.01.26)   Fair Workweek Rules – Summary of Changes Article Effective June 1, 2026, updated the Chicago Fair Workweek Ordinance (FWO) rules require substantive changes to covered employers’ scheduling, predictability pay, access to hours, right-to-rest practices and recordkeeping obligations. The FWO requires large employers in the building services, healthcare, hotel, manufacturing, restaurant, retail, and warehouse services industries to provide workers with at least two weeks’ advance notice of their wo...

Tennessee has joined an increasing number of states specifically regulating use of AI in the mental healthcare space. In particular, Tennessee recently enacted Senate Bill 1580 (the “Bill”), which provides that a person who develops or deploys AI in the mental healthcare space may not advertise or represent to the public that the AI is or is able to act as a qualified mental health professional .[1] Failure to comply with the Bill carries serious risks, with the Bill specifying that violations constitute deceptive trade practices under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and authorizing civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation.[2] The Bill is significantly abbreviated when compared to legislation in other states, such as Illinois,[3] Nevada,[4] and Utah.[5] For example, Nevada prohibits the advertisement of AI as being capable of providing professional mental or behavioral health care, and a chatbot or other avatar from providing such care.[6] Similarly, Utah requires that mental ...

It started as merely trying out artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Now, more and more employers (and their employees) are relying on AI for their everyday operations, including drafting emails and summaries, screening and ranking applicants, managing employee performance, and answering routine questions. This expanded role has changed AI from a casual acquaintance into a new “co-worker” that can influence employment decisions, outcomes, and experiences. Employers are reviewing AI tools, assessing risks and deciding which tools are authorized in their workplace and for what purpose. Courts and regulators are also reviewing AI tools more closely, focusing on discrimination, transparency, monitoring, and protection of confidential information. AI Is No Longer Just a Tool – It’s a ‘Co-Worker’ As AI becomes embedded in workflows, its role can be difficult for employees to distinguish from the input or output of employees. For example, an employer might not know that some resumes never rea...

A  recent Illinois federal court decision  shows that when AI listens in on calls, legal questions follow. The putative class action case is  Megan Lisota v. Heartland Dental, LLC, et al . It was brought against two entities: Heartland Dental, LLC and its partner, RingCentral, Inc. Heartland Dental provides administrative and overflow call center services to dental clinics. In providing its services, it contracts with RingCentral. RingCentral is a provider of cloud-based, AI-supported telephone services. According to plaintiff’s complaint, RingCentral's AI software is designed to capture and transcribe real time call details from patient, payer, and provider calls. Heartland used these details, the plaintiffs alleged, to identify and triage callers. It also used them to identify missed opportunities to schedule dental appointments. The plaintiff, a patient, alleged these activities constituted eavesdropping in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act . The court ruled the pl...

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Illinois that the state’s minimum wage law does not incorporate the federal Portal-to-Portal Act’s (PPA) exclusion for “preliminary or postliminary” employee activities could open the door to a wave of new wage-and-hour lawsuits by employees over time spent undergoing health or security screenings or other required activities before and after their shifts. 0:00 6:08 Quick Hits The Illinois Supreme Court held that Illinois’s Minimum Wage Law does not adopt federal exclusions for preliminary and postliminary activities. The ruling came in a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and revived a class of employees’ state wage-and-hour claims over mandatory pre-shift COVID-19 screenings. The ruling highlights a trend of state courts holding that their states’ wage-and-hour laws do not necessarily follow the federal understanding of compensable time. On March 19, 2026, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a decision answe...

Overview State legislatures continue to reevaluate the role of employee non-compete agreements, with 2026 shaping up to be another consequential year in the ongoing movement to restrict or eliminate their use. Current pending legislation reflects two dominant strategies: (1) bans on non-compete agreements either entirely or limited to specific industries and (2) increasing wage thresholds that condition enforceability on exceptionally high compensation levels. This alert only focuses on legislation that proposes an outright ban to non-compete agreements or imposes new or increased wage thresholds. Although details vary significantly by jurisdiction, the cumulative effect of these legislative efforts is a steady contraction of the circumstances in which non-competes are likely to remain enforceable. Further, the patchwork of state-level enforcement means employers operating across multiple states must closely track these developments and continually reassess their approach to restrictiv...