Compliance Stuff

Takeaways The risk of FCA retaliation complaint is rising as courts broadly interpret protected activity (including internal complaints), heightening employer exposure and underscoring the need for strong compliance and anti-retaliation programs. The first 72 hours after a complaint are critical. Employers should separate investigations from employment decisions, assign roles early, preserve evidence, and assess timing and comparators to reduce litigation risk. Recent case law reinforces the importance of complaints signaling potential fraud on the government to qualify for FCA protection, providing a key defense for employers. Related link Lewis v. AbbVie Inc. Article Employers are seeing an increase in False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation claims stemming from what claimants often characterize as adverse action because of purported whistleblowing . In many cases, these actions are taken as a result of non-discriminatory business decisions. The FCA is the federal government’s primary civ...

Takeaways In MCG Therapy Group, LLC v. Maestre Rivera, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court ruled contractual non-compete provisions may remain enforceable following a valid assignment when a contractor’s consent to an assignment is express or implied through conduct. Exclusivity provisions restricting an independent contractor from providing services to third parties during the contract term are valid under Puerto Rico law. Restrictive covenants involving independent contractors are enforceable if they are reasonable and protect legitimate business interests. Related link MCG Therapy Group, LLC v. Maestre Rivera Article In a significant decision for businesses operating in Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court held in MCG Therapy Group, LLC v. Maestre Rivera , 2026 TSPR 56 (May 28, 2026), that a contractual non-compete provision may continue to be enforceable following a valid assignment of a contract, including in the context of an independent contractor relationship. The court also ...

Takeaways A new Virginia law expands paid sick leave to nearly all employees, with phased coverage beginning 07/01/27. Employees accrue at least one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked (up to 40 hours annually) , with carryover required and expanded permissible uses . Employers should review and update leave policies and payroll systems as well as prepare for new notice and compliance requirements. Related links Virginia SB199 - 2026 Regular Session Virginia Paid Sick Leave for Home Health Workers Virginia Employers Face Major Workplace Policy Shifts Under New Gov’t Leadership: How to Prepare Now Article Virginia’s 2026 General Assembly was one of the busiest seasons for employers. A bill expanding paid sick leave requirements to nearly all Virginia employees by 2029 was signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger on May 20, 2026. Virginia first adopted paid sick leave requirements in 2021 ( Virginia’s Paid Sick Leave Law ) for home health workers. Now, SB199 /HB5 will significantl...

Employers are increasingly using artificial intelligence and other algorithmic tools to support workplace decisions, including recruiting, screening, interviewing, promotion, workforce planning, and performance management. These tools can improve efficiency and consistency, but they also introduce important compliance, reputational, and employee-relations considerations. Two concepts that often arise in AI governance are bias audits and validation testing. Although related, they serve different purposes. A bias audit generally evaluates whether the use of a tool is associated with materially different outcomes across protected or demographic groups. Depending on the jurisdiction and the tool at issue, a bias audit may be legally required before use. For example, New York City’s automated employment decision tool law requires certain employers and employment agencies to obtain a bias audit within one year before using covered tools and to provide related notices and disclosures . And o...

State breach-notification laws continue to evolve, and legislatures are using 2026 sessions to tighten consumer protections and shift the civil liability landscape that often follows a cyber event. For businesses, the practical takeaway is that incident response planning increasingly needs to account not only for “whether notice is required,” but also for hard timelines, regulator-facing deliverables, and the cost of consumer support services. Several state laws have died without passing out of the legislature, including bills in Connecticut, Hawaii, and Oklahoma. However, we continue to watch two pending state laws on the East Coast. New Jersey – Assembly Bill 1852 New Jersey’s pending proposal is more about standardizing notice practices and ensuring ongoing consumer access to credit reporting. As introduced, the bill narrows permissible notice methods to written notice or electronic notice. It removes the existing substitute-notice pathway that many companies rely on when notice cos...

On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) submitted a proposal to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) concerning federal equal employment opportunity reporting and recordkeeping requirements. According to the OIRA entry, the proposal concerns the rescission of EEO-1, EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5, and reporting requirements under Title VII, the ADA, GINA, and the PWFA. Currently, the EEO-1 Component 1 Report requires certain private employers and federal contractors to submit annual workforce demographic data categorized by job category, race, ethnicity, and sex. At this stage, the EEOC has not issued the text of any proposed regulatory changes, and details regarding the scope or effect of the proposal are not yet available. Employers should not assume any existing reporting or recordkeeping obligations have changed unless and until the EEOC issues additional guidance or completes further administrative action. Employers also may remain...

Takeaways Colorado’s new law replaces its 2024 AI statute, shifting from system-level compliance requirements to decision-by-decision accountability for employers. Employers must provide post-decision transparency, including notice, access to the data used, and an opportunity for correction and human review. The change moves risk downstream, requiring employers to consistently explain and defend individual AI-assisted decisions, rather than rely on upfront system compliance. Employers should evaluate their AI tools under this framework, including whether to conduct a privileged review of their AI tools, such as a bias audit or validation study. Related links Colorado SB26-189 (Automated Decision-Making Technology) Colorado Enacts Artificial Intelligence Legislation Affecting AI Systems Developers, Deployers Article On May 1, 2026, Colorado lawmakers introduced a bill that would repeal and replace the state’s 2024 artificial intelligence (AI) statute weeks before its June 30, 2026, eff...

California employers should take note that the Cal/OSHA workplace posting titled “Safety and Health Protection on the Job ” was updated in April 2026. The poster summarizes key workplace safety and health obligations under California law and must be displayed in a conspicuous location where employee notices are customarily posted. Failure to display the notice may result in penalties. The posting reminds employers of their obligation to provide safe and healthful workplaces, comply with applicable Cal/OSHA standards, and maintain a written and effective Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP). It also emphasizes that employees and their authorized representatives must have access to the IIPP. Employers should confirm their IIPP is current, implemented, and supported by documentation, including records demonstrating that employees have been trained on hazards specific to their job assignments. The poster also highlights several critical employer obligations. Employers must correct...

Takeaways Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bristol-Myers decision, the Second Circuit held in Provencher that out-of-state plaintiffs cannot join an FLSA collective action.  The Second Circuit joins the solid majority of federal circuits in its holding. As a result, employers will be less vulnerable to nationwide collective actions in any jurisdiction where they are not incorporated and also do not have their principal place of business. Related link Provencher v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distrib. LLC Article The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has joined a growing number of federal circuits to hold that would-be opt-in plaintiffs from outside the state where the case is pending cannot join a collective action under Sec. 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) unless the court has general jurisdiction over the employer. Provencher v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distrib. LLC , No. 24-3112-cv, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 12829 (2d Cir. May 4, 2026). The appeals court joins the...