Compliance Stuff

New Jersey employers whose workers are on Medicaid health coverage instead of workplace insurance will soon have to pay a new fee. Other states are considering it, too. Democratic lawmakers and governors see it as a way to help pay for the joint federal and state insurance program that covers low-income residents as federal policy changes are expected to make the program more expensive for states and may lead to a reduction in the number of people with coverage. New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed a measure Tuesday night to charge employers that have at least 50 workers covered by Medicaid , and the state budget she approved earlier in the week counts on raising $145 million this year from the program. Under the plan, companies will be billed for each employee and employee's dependents receiving Medicaid, the joint state-federal insurance program . The fees per person would start at $325 a year for companies with 50 to 249 Medicaid beneficiaries and top out at $725 annually for ...

On April 27, a jury handed down what is reported to be the first verdict in Massachusetts validating a retaliation claim under the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFMLA). In Boyle v. Wayfair, LLC , the jury found that Wayfair retaliated against plaintiff Mary Boyle for taking PFMLA leave, despite Boyle’s poor — and well-documented — performance reviews that predated her leave. The verdict resulted in a $4.7 million award, including $4 million in punitive damages, $600,000 for emotional distress, and more than $75,000 in back pay, emphasizing the significant risk employers face when terminating employees within six months of their return from PFMLA leave.  The Six-Month Presumption and Its Evidentiary Burden  Typical claims of unlawful retaliation place the initial burden of proof on the employee, but not for adverse actions occurring within the six months following an employee’s return from PFMLA leave. In this window, the Massachusetts legislature codified a...

Takeaways In  Laughlin,  a Massachusetts Superior Court clarified that the Massachusetts PFMLA does not impose individual liability to corporate officers or agents because the law’s definition of “employer” does not extend liability to individuals. The court also rejected an aiding-and-abetting theory under the PFMLA. Employers should consider  Laughlin  when evaluating claims dismissal strategies when plaintiffs name individuals as defendants in claims and limit interactions with employees on approved PFMLA leave. Related links Laughlin v. BinStar, Inc. (Delaware), et al. Article A Massachusetts Superior Court judge has dismissed Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFMLA) claims against two individual defendants, holding that the PFMLA does not extend individual liability to a corporate employer’s officers or agents, including individual investors or board members.  Laughlin v. BinStar, Inc. (Delaware), et al. ,  No. 25-1625-BLS1 (Feb. 26, 202...

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...

In this episode of our  Defensible Decisions  podcast, Scott Kelly (Birmingham/Washington, D.C.), who is chair of the firm’s Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group, is joined by Kiosha Dickey (Columbia) and Jay Patton (Birmingham) to discuss the increasingly complex landscape of workforce reporting requirements for 2026 and beyond. The speakers cover essential federal obligations like the EEO-1 and VETS 4212 reports, while exploring the expanding state-level requirements in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York City that are adding new layers of compliance challenges for multistate employers. The speakers provide practical guidance on California’s enhanced reporting fields, mandatory penalties, upcoming transition to SOC codes, and critical action items employers should prioritize now to ensure accurate, timely filings and avoid costly enforcement consequences. Transcript Announcer: Welcome to the Ogletree Deakins podcast, where we provide listeners wit...