Employer Health Plans Must Report Number of Covered Children in New Mexico
Employers will be required to report, by July 1, 2025, the number of children in New Mexico covered by their employer-sponsored group health plans. The reporting requirement comes from regulations under the state’s Vaccine Purchasing Act, one of a handful of state laws that put surcharges on health insurers, group health plans, third-party administrators, or some combination, to fund states’ purchases of vaccinations for children in the relevant state.
Quick Hits
New Mexico’s Vaccine Purchasing Act requires employers that sponsor plans and health insurers to report the total number of children covered during the past year.
The purpose of the reporting is to help the state determine the quantity of vaccines to purchase.
The deadline to report the information is July 1, 2025.
Employers and health insurers must report to the New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance the total number of children in New Mexico who were enrolled in the plan during any part of the previous year and were under the age of nineteen as of the previous December 31. Not included are any children who are not residents of New Mexico, children who are members of a Native American tribe, and children who are enrolled in Medicaid or another medical assistance program administered by the state.
Each year, the state will estimate the amount of money needed to purchase, store, and distribute vaccines to all insured children in the state, including a reserve of 10 percent of the amount estimated.
Dark Side of Cannabis: Personal Injury Risks and Consumer Protection Lawsuits Arising from Mislabeling, Testing Fraud, and Potency Inflaction
The cannabis industry has undergone a rapid transformation over the past decade, spurred by evolving federal and state legislation. Yet, beneath the promise of legalization and medical innovation lies a growing public safety and misinformation crisis—rooted in testing fraud, labeling inaccuracies, and potency inflation. This article explores the darker undercurrents of the cannabis marketplace, examining how systemic deficiencies in testing, regulation, and enforcement are leading to consumer harm, lawsuits, and a breach of public trust.
Conditioned to believe THC potency correlates with quality and efficacy, many consumers gravitate towards products that purportedly have higher levels of THC. When faced with an array of choices, labels, numbers, and strain names, a flower or pre-roll customer will likely pick the item with the higher THC potency even if just by one or two percent. But if the product is mislabeled and instead of the advertised 42% THC pre-roll it is actually 25%, the consumer is dupped into buying a product he may not have otherwise bought. This not only stifles fair competition – based on true product quality, attention to detail, grow/processing methods, source ingredients, and genetics – but also puts the consumer at a disadvantage in not being able to fully trust labels and the lab reporting they are based on.
The Testing Crisis: Lab Shopping and Potency Inflation
Laboratory testing is the linchpin of cannabis product safety and consumer trust. Yet, despite stringent testing regulations and requirements, the practice of lab shopping—where producers seek laboratories that provide favorable results—has become pervasive and widespread. The biggest motivators that result in lab shopping are potency inflation (to sell at a higher price) and passing contaminated products (to not have to destroy products). Some microbial methods that are used to test cannabis do not recover common molds like botrytis (aka bud rot), leading to extreme under-reporting of mold and yeast.
For example, a recent NBC10 Boston news report highlighted these issues in Massachusetts where off-the-shelf marijuana sold at licensed dispensaries had elevated levels of mold and fungi. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsiD_1aXj0g. While the risks are low for most healthy consumers who purchase contaminated flower, for those who are immunocompromised mold exposure can lead to serious lung infections, systemic illness, and even hospitalizations. The owner of ProVerde Labs has warned the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission for years about these issues with little movement and says more oversight and off-the-shelf testing is needed.
Inaccurate labeling can lead to misdosing, unexpected effects, and potentially more serious health concerns. Prolonged exposure to heightened levels of mold, bacteria, and mycotoxins can lead to chronic health issues especially for immunocompromised individuals who are susceptible to fungal infections.
MJBizDaily highlights the probability that many of the products sold at licensed dispensaries in regulated states do not conform to applicable health and labeling laws. See https://mjbizdaily.com/colorado-cannabis-testing-experiment-yields-damning-pesticide-microbial-potency-results/. A frustrated manufacturer had flower and pre-rolls randomly purchased at local Denver area dispensaries tested for potency and contaminants by a state-regulated cannabis laboratory and the results were astounding:
Only 2 of the 15 purchased products (13%) complied with state regulations
Some products were found to have dangerous levels of contaminants
80% of products had THC content outside the 15% variance allowed under Colorado law
Four of the 15 cannabis samples tested (27%) revealed the presence of coliform bacteria (essentially feces) above the state limit for industrial hemp, and one pre-roll was found to have 12,000 CFU (colony-forming units) per gram, 120 times the legal limit for hemp products
One pre-roll sample was shown to have 780,000 CFU per gram, meaning it had 78 times the legal limit of viable microorganisms
Potency levels printed on labels averaged 34.2% higher than what was discovered in the tests
Besides the obvious health issues associated with clearing marijuana products for sale that should fail for pesticides, yeast, mold and/or microbial contamination, unreliable potency tests create an unfair marketplace where consumers often make purchases based on high-THC claims that are unfounded.
At the end of January, a Massachusetts testing laboratory filed a lawsuit accusing a slew of competitor labs of “fraudulent” practices that have led to inflated THC potency and manipulation of safety results thereby causing potentially tainted and contaminated products to flood the market. See https://www.wbjournal.com/article/framingham-cannabis-testing-lab-sues-competitors-claiming-deceptive-practices-result-in. Combating “lab shopping,” plaintiff MCR Labs LLC called out eight labs for purposefully reporting inaccurate test results to cater to the whims of cultivators and manufacturers looking to boast high THC levels. MCR Labs alleged that its unscrupulous competitors stole clients and business from honest labs that diligently and faithfully report accurate test results.
MCR Labs claims that because all competing laboratories should follow accepted and reliable scientific testing methodologies customers should receive consistently similar results across the board. Therefore, the differentiators for labs competing for the same clients should be price points and customer service, and not a willingness to artificially inflate potency results, conceal found contaminants, and provide favorable rather than accurate test results.
This is happening everywhere. Towards the end of 2024, representatives from two of New York’s 16 licensed testing labs wrote a letter to the New York cannabis regulatory body, the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM), asserting serious problems with testing laboratories inflating THC potencies and reporting impossible cannabinoid profiles for vape cartridges. Recently, a study conducted in New Jersey revealed that pre-rolls purchased at licensed dispensaries contained high levels of mold, yeast, and contaminants as well as did not have the THC potency advertised. In two of the tested products, yeast and mold levels were five times higher than the allowable limit.
Lab testing fraud, skewed results, data manipulation, and false reporting for profit and market share is a widespread problem affecting nearly every legalized state and recreational market resulting in mislabeling, deception, and increased consumer safety risks.
Lawsuits and Injuries
Mislabeled products with overinflated THC and/or CBD potencies may spur lawsuits from competitors for unfair competition, deceptive practices, and false advertising. The Lanham Act provides a cause of action for anyone harmed by “any false or misleading description of fact” or misrepresentation of the quality of the marketed goods, however, given the intrastate nature of cannabis commerce, competitors and consumers may fail to satisfy the “interstate commerce” requirement, especially as it relates to strictly state-regulated THC products as opposed to federally legal hemp-derived products. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B); see also Warner-Lambert Co. v. BreathAsure, Inc., 204 F.3d 87, 91-92 (3d Cir. 2000). Nevertheless, many states, including New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania have state specific unfair competition, deceptive practices, and consumer protection laws that may be invoked.
In August 2023, the Missouri Division of Cannabis Regulation (the “DCR”) initiated a recall of products sold by Delta Extraction “due to a credible and imminent threat to public health or public safety” arising out of Delta’s use of out-of-state hemp derived THC-A, which it then converted to THC distillate that it used to infuse vape cartridges, gummies, and edibles. Missouri regulations like those of most regulated states prohibit licensed producers from using THC products, including hemp-derived THC-A, that were produced or sourced outside of the state’s regulated program.
In other lawsuits consumers have alleged Δ8 products they consumed contained more Δ9 than legally permissible. In February 2024, a Georgia consumer brought a class action against Cloud 9 Online Smoke & Vape and other sellers of Delta-8 vape pens alleging that their products contained an unlawful concentration of Delta-9 THC. See Ledbetter, et al. v. Cloud 9 Online Smoke & Vape, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00538 (N.D. Ga. 2024). A recent class action filed against popular cannabis brand Stiiizy Inc. in Illinois federal court is the second lawsuit involving Delta-8 THC and THC potency, and should put Δ8 THC manufacturers on alert for similar lawsuits. See Byron, et al. v. Stiiizy, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-1082 (S.D. Ill. 2024). The lawsuits assert consumer protection violations, negligent misrepresentation and fraud due to health and safety risks posed by cannabis products said to contain more Δ9 THC than the federal limit.
In California, Central Coast Agriculture faced a class-action lawsuit alleging that their cannabis products contained lower THC levels than advertised. The court, however, dismissed the case, citing insufficient evidence connecting the lab test results to the specific products purchased by the plaintiffs.
In the underbelly of cannabis manufacturing plants workers sometimes perform their daily tasks in less than favorable conditions, exposed to potentially harmful molds, dust, contaminants, and allergens. Following the unexpected death of a 27-year old cannabis employee who collapsed while rolling joints in cannabis manufacturing facility in Massachusetts, the family filed a wrongful death suit against the company. Other such lawsuits including a flurry of recent lawsuits alleging Neptune’s Resources manufactured and sold a product dubbed “gas-station heroin” it knew or should have known could cause serious injury and death. See https://feldmanshepherd.com/firm-news/feldman-shepherd-files-wrongful-death-lawsuit-against-maker-of-neptunes-fix-following-death-of-32-year-old/. Plaintiffs contend that Neptune’s Fix contained tianeptine, which has been linked to seizures, coma and death and the subject of various FDA and state health department public warnings and announcements.
Lawsuits are expensive and the potential for multi-million-dollar verdicts, judgments, and liability exposure, it would behoove cannabis operators, re-sellers, and dispensaries to have indemnity contracts with manufacturers, adequate and appropriate insurance, and legal stewardship.
EPA Announces Availability of Updated Interim Maps Developed under Its Endangered Species Protection Program
On June 12, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of updated refined interim core maps that identify areas that EPA states are important to 12 threatened or endangered (listed) species and their critical habitats as designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). These refined interim maps are based on information developed by FWS and were developed by EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), and Compliance Services International (CSI). The maps identify areas where listed species are likely to be located and areas where they are not, thus attempting to ensure that measures to protect listed species are only required in the areas where listed species are located. According to EPA, releasing these maps is “another important step to reduce potential impacts to farmers while continuing to protect endangered species.” EPA states these maps will be used for developing pesticide use limitation areas (PULA), which EPA notes will allow it to protect listed species from the use of pesticides through geographically specific mitigations.
According to EPA, when developing a PULA for a specific species, it starts by developing a core map identifying areas where listed species need additional protection. A core map may include information regarding:
The species range;
Its designated critical habitat; or
Other locations where the species is known to occur.
If existing range maps are broad and include areas where a species is no longer thought to exist, the core maps would only include areas within the species range where the species are likely to occur. After developing a core map for a species, EPA states it would develop a PULA that accounts for pesticide movement from a use site, such as spray drift and run-off, by adding adjacent areas to the core map. Developing a core map or a PULA does not alter FWS’s range maps.
According to EPA, it released its mapping process in anticipation of public interest in developing species maps. If a draft map was not developed specifically by EPA, it will review the draft map to ensure that (1) the map and documentation are consistent with EPA’s process; (2) areas included or excluded from the map are consistent with the biology, habitat, and/or recovery needs of the species; (3) data sources are documented and appropriate; and (4) the Geographic Information System (GIS) data and mapping process are appropriate and are identifying the types of areas that the map developer is intending to identify.
The maps released are considered interim maps, which means that “the maps were developed using EPA’s process and that EPA has reviewed them and agree that the maps are reasonable and can be used to develop pesticide use limitation areas.” These maps will be considered final after review by FWS species experts.
Information on the interim core maps can be found on EPA’s “Process EPA Uses to Develop Core Maps for Pesticide Use Limitation Areas” and maps can be viewed here. EPA notes it expects that dozens more refined maps will be released within the next several months.
Commentary
The maps, and then the PULAs, are among the more potentially controversial elements of the developing EPA program. If the PULA is too large, there will be criticism that EPA has “over-regulated” restricting pesticide use providing no additional species protection. If the PULA is too small (e.g., missing some of the habitat that should be included), then there will be criticism that the EPA plan would not be sufficiently protective. The maps and how they are proposed, evaluated, and refined may be the most fluid element of EPA’s proposed label restrictions. Where EPA might propose restrictions in an area that some current product users believe is essential for their cropping system, the appropriateness of the PULA will be subject to more scrutiny and possible changes. Not unlike what EPA has done historically when human health “risk-cup” issues arose, EPA’s conservative assessments will be subject to refinement before final mitigation restrictions are imposed on the revised label as part of registration reviews.
Protecting the Education Institution and Yourself When Engaging in Programming with Minors
K-12 schools and institutions of higher education should be keenly aware of the laws and best practices for engagement with minors (i.e., persons under the age of 18). Teachers, non-instructional staff, coaches, and volunteers in every school district interact with minors on a daily basis. In higher ed, faculty, staff, and even college students themselves regularly interact with minors in the context of collegiate athletics and recruiting; college and university admissions programs; and summer school sessions and internships for high-school students.
Here are five recommendations to consider before engaging with minors:
Understand Legal and Institutional Responsibilities – Familiarize yourself with applicable federal and state laws governing the protection of minors, including mandatory reporting of suspected abuse or neglect, parental rights, and student privacy, and ensure that they are addressed by your institutional policies. Understand the role of all federal, state, and local agencies in the reporting and investigation of child abuse or offenses involving children.
Conduct Background Checks – K-12 schools must follow state laws on required background checks. Institutions of higher education should implement procedures to ensure faculty, staff, and college students who have direct contact with minors undergo background checks, including criminal history, child abuse and neglect history, and sex offender registry checks. State laws will direct what an institution must do to obtain informed consent to a background check, and the type of information a background check can gather.
Implement Clear Behavioral Expectations – Adopt clear, written policies that are designed to ensure that adults working with minors serve as positive role models and avoid any behavior that could be considered inappropriate boundary-crossing, including inappropriate comments or jokes, private communications, and any form of physical or emotional abuse. Ensure any communication with minors outside of the determined program times and settings is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the institution and the minor’s parents. Set clear rules and expectations around casual forms of communication, such as email, text messages, and social media. Establish procedures to report, investigate, and address conduct that fall short of expectations.
Develop Mandatory Training and Awareness Programs – Require all adults working with minors to complete training on legal requirements and institutional policies. Update your training regularly and document each individual’s compliance with mandated training obligations.
Involve Parents – Use consent forms, emergency contact forms, parental information sessions, and liability waivers to ensure that parents are informed about their child’s participation, including risks and expectations around conduct and communications. Establish rules and guidelines regarding when and under what circumstances parents will be contacted.
Navigating Maritime Evidence: The Power and Practice of Using Demonstrative Aids in Litigation
Navigating the complexities of maritime litigation presents unique challenges distinct from other areas of law. The cases are often steeped in technical detail, involving complex vessel operations, intricate navigation principles, and highly specialized equipment. For judges and juries—many of whom may have little or no maritime experience—grasping the nuances of such cases can be a daunting task. This is where demonstrative aids help to transform dense, technical evidence into clear, compelling presentations that illuminate the facts and arguments at the heart of a dispute. Drawing on recent developments in the Federal Rules of Evidence and illustrative case law, demonstrative aids can be the difference between confusion and clarity, disengagement and persuasion, and, ultimately, between losing and winning a case.
Legal Framework: Federal Rules of Evidence and Demonstrative Aids
The use of demonstrative aids is governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”), local court rules, and case law. Two rules are particularly central: FRE 107 and FRE 1006.
FRE 107: Illustrative Aids
Enacted on December 1, 2024, FRE 107 clarifies the distinction between demonstrative aids (also called illustrative aids) and demonstrative evidence. Demonstrative aids are not evidence; they are presentations designed to help the trier of fact understand the evidence or argument.
FRE 107 establishes a balancing test: a demonstrative aid may be used if its utility in assisting comprehension is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, undue delay, or wasting time. The rule also provides guidance on discovery, notice, instruction, and preservation of demonstrative aids, and restricts their use during jury deliberations unless all parties consent or the court orders otherwise.
FRE 1006: Summaries to Prove Materials
FRE 1006, recently amended, governs the use of summaries, charts, or calculations to prove the content of voluminous admissible writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot be conveniently examined in court. Such summaries are admissible as evidence, provided the underlying materials are admissible and available to the other parties. Importantly, if a summary functions only as an illustrative aid, it falls under FRE 107, not FRE 1006.
Other Relevant Rules
FRE 401 & 402: Define and govern the admissibility of relevant evidence.
FRE 403: Allows exclusion of relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by risks such as unfair prejudice or confusion.
FRE 611: Grants courts control over the mode and order of presenting evidence.
FRE 901 & 902: Address authentication and identification of evidence.
Case Study: SCF Waxler Marine L.L.C. v. Aris T M/V
The successful use of an accident reconstruction video in litigation, incorporating automatic identification system (“AIS”) footage into the video, is exemplified in SCF Waxler Marine L.L.C. v. Aris T M/V, 24 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2022).
On the evening of January 31, 2016, the Aris T was upbound on the Mississippi River at the same time towboats Elizabeth and Loretta, each pushing loaded red-flagged (petroleum) barges, were downbound. An allision occurred in the Hahnville Bar, a bend between mile markers 124.5 and 126 in the Mississippi River where a number of moorings are located. Aris T was passing Loretta and Elizabeth at the same time Loretta was overtaking Elizabeth. Given their relative positions, there simply was not enough room for the three vessels to be adjacent to each other simultaneously. Id. at 466. To avoid colliding with Loretta’s loaded petroleum barges, Aris T veered to starboard and allided with docks owned by Valero and Shell, causing a massive amount of damage.
A video reconstruction of the allision was used as part of Valero’s case-in-chief. The video reconstruction of the allision showed the path of the vessels and included relevant audio recordings from Aris T’s vessel data recorder (“VDR”), which recorded all transmissions sent or received by Aris T’s VHF radio and all voices recorded on the four microphones located on Aris T’s bridge. At the inception of trial, the court admitted the video reconstruction into evidence and no party contested its accuracy. Id. at 466, n. 2. In effect, the court accepted the video, not just as an illustrative aid, but as an admissible summary of the evidence. The video dominated the ensuing two weeks of trial.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s causation findings as not clearly erroneous. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit outlined that the district court did not err in discounting eye-witness testimony about the timing of the failure of certain equipment and instead crediting other expert testimony and evidence (e.g., radar and video footage) that the equipment failed earlier and contributed to the allision. Id. at 474.
The accident reconstruction video played a pivotal role in shaping the Fifth Circuit’s decision in SCF Waxler Marine L.L.C. v. Aris T M/V. By combining AIS data with audio from the Aris T’s VDR, the video provided a comprehensive and accurate depiction of the events leading to the allision. Its unchallenged reliability allowed the court to weigh it heavily over contested eyewitness testimony, reinforcing the district court’s findings. This case underscores the value of demonstrative evidence in litigation, as accident reconstruction videos can distill complex scenarios into clear and compelling evidence, enabling courts to make well-informed decisions.
Conclusion: The Strategic Value of Demonstrative Aids
In the high-stakes, technically complex world of maritime litigation, demonstrative aids are invaluable. They educate, engage, and persuade, transforming intricate evidence into compelling narratives that resonate with judges and juries. The legal framework—anchored by FRE 107 and FRE 1006—provides clear guidelines for their use, while case law demonstrates their potential to shape outcomes.
The power of demonstrative aids derives from careful planning, creativity, and strict adherence to evidentiary standards. In the end, the strategic use of demonstrative aids can be the key to navigating the complexities of maritime litigation, turning the tide in favor of clarity, comprehension, and justice.
Student Visa Pause Lifted; Social Media Will Be Screened
News sources reporting on a U.S. Department of State internal cable have announced that the temporary pause on scheduling new student visa interviews for F, M, and J visas has been lifted. This pause was initially implemented while the State Department implemented steps to expand social media screening for student visa applicants. Under the new directive, consular officers are now required to screen the social media and online presence of student visa applicants.
Quick Hits
The U.S. State Department has lifted the temporary pause on scheduling new student visa interviews for F, M, and J visas and is now requiring consular officers to screen applicants’ social media and online presences.
Enhanced vetting procedures for student visa applicants, including detailed social media scrutiny, are expected to increase processing delays and refusals, impacting international students’ plans to study or train in the United States.
Analysis and Impact
The screening process involves checking for any signs of hostility “towards the citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles of the United States.” Additionally, officers will vet for support of terrorism, antisemitic harassment, violence, or militant groups. This scrutiny is part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to address stated security concerns with universities that enroll foreign national students.
Consular officers are instructed to flag applicants with a history of political activism and to consider the likelihood of such activities continuing in the United States. Consulates will take detailed case notes and screenshots of online content. The screening applies to both new and returning student visa applicants and includes a broad definition of “online presence,” encompassing social media and online databases.
While the factors identified do not automatically disqualify applicants, they trigger further review to ensure compliance with U.S. immigration admissibility laws. The cable also directs embassies to prioritize interviewing physicians applying for a J-1 visa for medical residency and educational exchange, and students enrolled at universities where international students constitute 15 percent or fewer of the total student population.
University and Employer Impacts
Although the recent State Department cable lifts the Trump administration’s pause on visa interviews for F, M, and J visa applicants, the heightened vetting procedures, particularly enhanced scrutiny of applicants’ social media histories, are likely to increase visa processing delays and refusals. International students planning to enter the United States for academic study or work-based training can expect:
Longer processing times due to expanded vetting and limited appointment availability, especially as demand grows over the summer ahead of the fall academic term.
Consular backlogs and capacity constraints that may further slow visa issuance.
Additional documentation requirements, including:
usernames for social media platforms;
detailed biographic and travel histories; and
sensitive personal information covering the last five years.
Greater risk of delays or denial, as adjudications may hinge on subjective interpretations of social media content and other discretionary factors.
It Is Not Always Sunny in Philadelphia for Employers—Meet the POWER Act
On May 27, 2025, Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle L. Parker signed into law Bill No. 250065 —titled, the “Protect Our Workers, Enforce Rights (POWER) Act”—which took effect immediately. The POWER Act amends Title 9 of the Philadelphia Code related to paid sick leave, wage theft, domestic worker protections, fair workweek law, victims of retaliation, and enforcement of worker protection ordinances.
Quick Hits
On May 27, 2025, Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle L. Parker signed the “Protect Our Workers, Enforce Rights (POWER) Act” into law, which strengthens worker protections and enforcement mechanisms in the city.
The POWER Act empowers the Philadelphia Department of Labor’s Office of Worker Protections to conduct independent investigations, maintain a “Bad Actors Database,” and revoke business licenses for noncompliant employers.
The POWER Act includes provisions for retaliation protections, immigrant worker support, increased sick pay for tipped employees, extended recordkeeping requirements, and allows workers to file civil actions for violations without exhausting administrative remedies.
Significant measures in the POWER Act include:
Strengthening Philadelphia’s Department of Labor. The act provides the Philadelphia Department of Labor’s Office of Worker Protections (OWP) with the ability for more thorough workplace investigations and to hold employers accountable under already existing local labor laws, including the wage theft ordinance, paid sick leave ordinance, and Domestic Worker Bill of Rights. This includes the authority to initiate investigations independently (without any formal complaints), broaden the scope of investigations unilaterally, and subpoena records and testimony.
The OWP will also maintain a publicly accessible “Bad Actors Database,” consisting of employers with three or more infractions from separate incidents or circumstances who have failed to comply with ordered remedies in a timely manner. Of note, the Act further empowers the OWP to revoke business licenses and city procurement contracts from employers listed on the “Bad Actors Database.”
Retaliation Protections. The act reaffirms that employers are strictly prohibited from retaliating against employees for exercising their rights under its provisions—such as filing complaints, taking sick leave, or participating in investigations. Critically, the act presumes unlawful retaliation whenever an employee faces an adverse employment action within ninety days of filing a complaint with the OWP, informs any person about an employer’s alleged violation of the act, cooperates with an investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation, or opposes any policy, practice, or act made unlawful by the act. The burden, therefore, lies with the employer to prove that retaliation did not occur. Employers must demonstrate nonretaliatory intent by clear and convincing evidence, a higher legal burden.
Immigrant Worker Protections. The act creates clear guidelines for the OWP to certify and submit statements of interest on behalf of immigrant workers who may be eligible for a U Visa or T Visa under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (2000), or for the Deferred Action Program under 6 U.S.C. § 202(5) and 8 U.S.C. § 1103.
Sick Pay for Tipped Employees. The act raises the hourly rate for paid sick leave for tipped workers under the Philadelphia paid sick leave ordinance. The hourly rate for paid sick time is calculated by taking the numerical average of the hourly wage for “Bartenders,” “Waiters & Waitresses,” and “Dining Room & Cafeteria Attendants & Bartenders Helpers,” as defined under the Standard Occupational Classification, published by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor.
Notice to Employees. The act requires employers to notify all employees of their rights. To provide slight relief for employers, however, the act removes the requirement that notices of rights be included in handbooks distributed to employees.
Recordkeeping. The act extends the duration that employers must keep required records from two years to three years. Employers must maintain records of (a) hours worked by an employee, including dates; and (b) hours of sick time taken by an employee and payments made to an employee for the sick time.
Private Right of Action. A worker who believes he or she has been harmed by a violation of the act may file a civil action in court without first exhausting administrative remedies. The person who allegedly violated the act, however, must be given written notice of the alleged violation and afforded fifteen days to cure the harm. The statute of limitations for bringing such an action is three years from the date the employee knew or should have known of the alleged violation, subject to the exceptions under Section 9-6602(6) and Section 9-6607(5).
Key Takeaways
The POWER Act introduces enhanced mechanisms to enforce compliance with Philadelphia’s existing employment and labor protection laws. Employers may want to:
monitor the Philadelphia Department of Labor webpage and familiarize themselves with the POWER Act’s requirements;
provide employees with a notice of their rights under the act, though this notice does not need to be included as a formal amendment to the employee handbook; and
review their recordkeeping protocols and practices and update their systems to ensure all required records are retained for at least three years.
In addition, employers may wish to educate supervisors and managers about the impact of disciplinary actions issued after complaints or protected activities.
FMC Announces Investigation Into Flags of Convenience and Unfavorable Conditions Created by Flagging Practices
The U.S. Federal Maritime Commission (“FMC”) announced on May 21, 2025 that it is initiating a non-adjudicatory investigation into whether the: 1) vessel flagging laws, regulations, and/or practices of certain foreign governments, including the so-called flags of convenience (“FOC” or “open registries”), or 2) competitive methods employed by owners, operators, agents, or masters of foreign-flag vessels, are creating unfavorable shipping conditions in the foreign trade of the United States (the “Notice”).
The investigation includes a 90-day public comment period, which ends on August 20, 2025.
FMC’s “Section 19” Trade Authority
Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, 46 U.S.C. § 42101 et seq., authorizes the FMC to evaluate conditions that affect U.S. shipping in foreign trade and to issue regulations or take action to address such conditions. Potential remedies include port fees up to one million U.S. dollars, limits on voyages to and from U.S. ports or the amount or type of cargo carried, and other trade restrictions.
The FMC exercised this authority frequently in the 1980s and 90s (before the sell-off of the major U.S. liner operators to foreign buyers) to force market-opening concessions and eliminate discriminatory fees and trade barriers that impeded U.S. shipping companies’ competitiveness in overseas. However, these powers have been left nearly dormant for the past two decades.
The current investigation does not target particular flag States or propose any remedial measures; rather, it is a non-adjudicatory investigation pursuant to 46 C.F.R. Part 502, Subpart R, which allows the FMC to request information, conduct hearings, issue subpoenas, conduct depositions, and issue reports, at its discretion.
Summary of Investigation
This investigation breaks new ground for the FMC, which traditionally has not had any role concerning vessel registries, marine safety, or the International Maritime Organization (“IMO”) conventions, which set the global framework for vessel regulation. In the Notice, the FMC expressed concern about the conditions created by the wide and uneven range of foreign vessel flagging laws, regulations, and practices. While the Notice indicated that many nations take “great care in creating standards for vessels flagged by their registries,” it also observed that other countries have engaged in a global “race to the bottom” by lowering standards and easing compliance requirements to gain a potential competitive edge.
The Notice asserted that FOCs “operate under lax regulatory oversight, leading to lower safety, environmental, and labor standards . . . and FOC vessels exploit lower operational costs through reduced taxes, cheaper labor, and irregular maintenance or safety measures.” But the FMC failed to recognize the quality chasm between industry-leading, U.S.-managed international open registries, such as the Marshall Islands and Liberia, versus thinly staffed or sham registries serving non-compliant shadow fleet ships.
The FMC’s Notice discussed other unfavorable flagging practices, including “flag-hopping” or using false flags to avoid regulatory oversight; using fraudulent ship registrations without the knowledge or approval of the relevant maritime administration; and operating in the “shadow fleet,” i.e., outside the regular or official frameworks and often engaging in illegal or illicit activities such as smuggling, sanctions evasion, or the transportation of prohibited goods. The Notice recognized IMO’s policy recommendations and resolutions addressing such practices, but asserted that the IMO’s effort has not led to meaningful change or deterrence.
The FMC did not single-out any particular open registry, but it referenced certain recent incidents and inaccurately linked them to certain open registries as a basis for its action (e.g., the Singapore-flag DALI’s allision with the Francis Scott Key Bridge, the Malta-flag APL QINGDAO’s narrowly-avoided allision with the Verrazzano Bridge, and the MS MELENIA, currently under the Djibouti flag, where crew were left stranded when the tanker was abandoned for the third time). The Notice offered these incidents as examples, yet failed to provide any analysis linking the performance of the flag State to the events at issue. In fact, the references to the DALI and APL QINGDAO were particularly questionable, as Malta and Singapore are among the top-performing registries according to the U.S. Coast Guard’s 2024 Annual Port State Control report.
According to the Notice, the FMC launched this investigation for the purpose of identifying “best practices” that contribute to responsible and safe vessel operations and to identify practices that allow or contribute to unsafe conditions that endanger or imperil the reliability and efficiency of ocean shipping.
It appears likely that the current investigation is driven, at least in part, by a growing FMC dialogue with U.S. trade sanctions enforcers in the U.S. Departments of Treasury and State regarding the rapid growth of the “dark fleet” or “shadow fleet,” and the role of flag States in allowing vessels to evade or flout U.S. trade sanctions. FMC Chairman Lou Sola raised this issue in an April 2025 speech, in which he announced: “I have tasked our staff with identifying options on how to address the role flags of convenience play in enabling avoidance of sanctions. Registries hosting outlaw vessels used by reprehensible regimes to facilitate their evasion of international regulations would certainly qualify as conduct warranting the Commission’s attention and action.”
The FMC therefore may be assessing how its unilateral powers (which often are used in tandem with diplomatic approaches by the U.S. Department of State and other agencies) might be used to increase the pressure on the most problematic flag States to adhere to international standards or withdraw from market.
Public Comments Due August 20, 2025
Comments may be submitted by all members of the public (including ship owners, operators, and managers; flag States; shippers; carriers; governments; and non-governmental organizations), but the Notice said the FMC is particularly interested in receiving input from individuals and organizations with expertise or experience in vessel operations, international trade, international law, and national security, including international standards-setting organizations (e.g., the IMO and International Transport Workers’ Federation), countries with large ship registries, and those with evidence of the burdens and risk created by irresponsible flagging practices. Specifically, the FMC is seeking comments on the following topics:
Specific examples of responsible flagging laws, regulations, practices, and proposals, including how they contribute or would contribute to the efficiency and reliability of the ocean shipping supply chain;
Specific examples of unfavorable flagging laws, regulations, and practices that endanger the efficiency and reliability of the ocean shipping supply chain;
Practices by owners or operators of vessels that undermine the efficiency and reliability of international ocean shipping;
The benefits to international ocean shipping of responsible vessel registration and flagging practices; and
The burdens on foreign nations and vessel operators or owners of irresponsible flagging practices.
Key Takeaways
At this time, the investigation is only informational—FMC has not proposed or threatened any penalties or restrictions. However, the FMC has the power to impose vessel fees similar to what the U.S. Trade Representative has done recently in connection with its Section 301 investigation of China’s targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors. See our previous alert. Thus, the information submitted during the investigation comment period likely will help shape the FMC’s next steps.
Interested parties should strongly consider submitting comments on the topics noted above, which are further described with added examples in the Notice.
Transparency in Homeowners Associations in North Carolina: The Good, the Bad, and the Risky
Community and homeowners’ association managers and board members often walk a fine line when it comes to transparency.
While openness fosters trust among members, there are instances where confidentiality is necessary for legal or practical reasons. Finding the right balance can mean the difference between a harmonious community and one fraught with conflict.
Understanding Your Legal Transparency Requirements in Community Associations
North Carolina law establishes specific guidelines for what records must be available to association members. These requirements vary based on whether the person requesting access is a director or only a regular member and whether the access rights are qualified or unqualified.
Directors generally have broader access rights than regular members. Unless there’s a clear conflict of interest, directors are entitled to review all association records of any kind. This extensive access allows them to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to the association and make informed decisions.
For regular members, access rights are more limited and fall into two categories: unqualified inspection rights and qualified inspection rights. In both cases, members must notify the association in writing at least five business days in advance of the requested inspection. The association may choose the time and location for inspection, but these choices must be reasonable.
Unqualified Inspection Rights for HOA Members
Community association members have an unqualified right to inspect and copy nine specific types of documents:
Articles of Incorporation, including all amendments
Association Bylaws, including all amendments
Resolutions related to the number or classification of directors
Resolutions related to member characteristics, qualifications, rights, limitations, and obligations
Minutes of all membership meetings for the prior three years
Records of all actions taken by the membership without a meeting for the prior three years
All written communications to members as a group within the prior three years
Names and business or home addresses of current directors and officers
Annual financial statements from the prior three years
For annual financial statements, additional requirements apply. If the statements were audited by a public accountant, the accountant’s report must accompany the statement. If they weren’t audited, they should include a statement from the president or another authorized person affirming whether the statements were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and noting any inconsistencies with previous years’ accounting practices.
The association also must make annual income and expense statements and balance sheets available to all members at no charge within 75 days after the close of the fiscal year.
Additionally, members are entitled to receive a statement of their unpaid assessments, fines, and other charges within ten days of making a written request.
Qualified Inspection Rights for Community Association Members in North Carolina
Beyond the documents covered by unqualified inspection rights, members have qualified rights to inspect and copy seven additional categories of records. These rights are qualified because they come with conditions.
The association can only be compelled to provide these documents when members demonstrate they’re making the request in good faith and for a proper purpose.
Members also must articulate with reasonable specificity not only what records they wish to examine but also why they need to see them. This means vague requests like “I want to review all financial records” without a clearly stated purpose would not be adequate.
The final requirement creates an important connection: the records being requested must directly relate to the purpose the member has stated.
This three-part qualification process ensures that while members maintain important access rights, they must exercise these rights responsibly and with legitimate aims rather than for harassment or frivolous purposes.
If these requirements are satisfied, members can inspect the following:
Minutes of all association member meetings
Records of all actions taken by members without a meeting
Minutes of all board of directors meetings
Records of all actions taken by directors without a meeting
Records of all actions taken by committees acting on behalf of the board
Accounting records and financial statements
The association’s membership list (with limitations on use)
Beyond Legal Requirements: Strategic Transparency Choices
While legal requirements establish the minimum level of transparency, many associations choose to go beyond these basics to foster trust and engagement.
Here are some strategic choices to consider:
Document Inclusion in Minutes: One of the most common ways members gain access to documents they wouldn’t normally be entitled to see is when those documents are incorporated into meeting minutes. Board members should be mindful of this when deciding what to attach to minutes. Consider whether including detailed reports, correspondence, or other documents serves the association’s interests.
Answering Member Questions. Associations have a statutory obligation to provide documents, but there is no statutory right for a member to get written questions or emails answered or to have a Q&A session with the board or the association manager. Answering questions in meetings or in writing is a choice for the board.
Voluntary Document Sharing: Boards can choose to share additional documents beyond what is legally required. Being proactive about sharing information can prevent speculation and rumors.
Open Forums and Town Halls: Regular opportunities for community dialogue can help members feel heard and informed. When planning these events, the board decides whether there will be presentations by the board, manager, accountant, attorney, or other professional and whether there will be a question-and-answer session. Boards should select speakers carefully, as their communication skills and comfort level can significantly influence how information is received.
Board Meeting Access: While North Carolina law establishes minimum requirements for open board meetings, associations can decide to be more accessible. Some associations open all meetings to members at least in part, while others might allow members to observe but not participate. Streaming meetings for members who are unable to attend in person is an option. Recording meetings is discouraged.
Enhanced Written Communications: Regular newsletters, email updates, and website postings can keep members informed without requiring them to formally request information. Transparent communication about upcoming projects, rule changes, and community events helps members feel connected and reduces surprises.
Safeguarding Confidential Information in Community Associations
Despite the value of transparency, certain matters must remain confidential for legal and practical reasons.
The association must carefully protect information related to litigation, as public discussion could compromise its legal strategy or weaken its position in court. Comments in a meeting also could create evidence for trial without intending to do so, and public discussion of litigation could impact the association’s insurance carrier’s coverage position.
Similarly, contract negotiations should remain private until finalized, as premature disclosure could undermine the association’s bargaining power or create confusion about terms that are still in flux. Bids for contracts should not be shared, even after the contract is finalized, because sharing may deter future bidding by a potential vendor.
Member enforcement actions present another area requiring discretion, as public discussion of individual violations could accidentally create evidence for trial and potentially expose the association to defamation claims. If the enforcement action involves fines or the other collection of money, discussion of this enforcement action should not occur to avoid state or federal fair debt collection laws being violated.
Personnel matters involving association employees must be handled with the same confidentiality that any employer would provide. These discussions should remain confidential within the board.
Assessment delinquencies also fall into this protected category. Delinquent account information should not be shared outside of the board and with those persons involved in collections.
Board members and managers should approach these sensitive topics with particular care, clearly marking relevant documents as confidential and discussing them only in properly convened closed portions of board meetings. This judicious approach to confidentiality isn’t contrary to transparency—rather, it represents responsible stewardship of the association’s interests and respect for individual rights in areas where openness could cause harm.
Navigating Safely: Tips for Commercial and Recreational Vessels Operating near Military Craft
Every day, commercial, recreational, and military vessels encounter one another on the seas with different prerogatives—moving product as safely and efficiently as possible, enjoying a day on the water, or completing a mission, whatever that might be. This article will provide context to commercial, merchant, and recreational craft regarding the types of military craft and operations they may encounter in order to make better-informed maneuvering decisions.
Surface Vessels
Anticipated Locations: U.S. Navy surface vessels sail around the globe—however, the highest density areas are: Everett, Washington; San Diego, California; Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; Mayport, Florida; Norfolk, Virginia; Rota, Spain; Yokosuka, Japan; Sasebo, Japan; and Manama, Bahrain.
Bridge Manning: Military vessels in the U.S. Navy Surface Fleet are not manned in the same way merchant vessels are. It is common during normal operations for there to be upwards of seven watchstanders on the bridge at any given time or upwards of ten during special operations (Sea & Anchor Detail, Underway Replenishment, etc.). During normal operations, it is common to have an Officer of the Deck, Junior Officer of the Deck, Conning Officer, Helm, Boatswain’s Mate of the Watch, and two lookouts. Expect delays in responding to radio calls as each Captain has different reporting requirements that may require the Officer of the Deck to contact them before responding.
When Vessels Meet: Military vessels will generally have a greater factor of safety regarding the closest point of approach than their civilian counterparts. Commercial vessels should anticipate earlier and more frequent radio calls than may be expected in the vicinity of commercial or recreational traffic. Unlike commercial traffic, military vessels are often not traveling at the same consistent course and speed. If such vessels are operating on a mission or conducting a training exercise, you may see what appears to be significant course and speed changes in short iteration.
Operating Aircraft: Commercial vessels should be aware that some military vessels will frequently be conducting air operations. As mandated by the COLREGs, military vessels will display Restricted in Ability to Maneuver when conducting air operations. When conducting training, it is common for military vessels to maintain the same course and speed for long stretches so helicopters can practice “touch downs.” Aircraft carriers may maneuver in a racetrack-type approach, launching and landing fixed-wing aircraft and then resetting before beginning again. Under certain circumstances, smaller vessels (cruisers/destroyers) might trail behind a carrier during air operations serving as the horizon reference unit.
Live Fire Exercises: When military vessels are conducting live fire exercises (missile shoots, five-inch gun, small arms, etc.), they will always make multiple warning calls over VHF Channel 16. Military vessels may request commercial or recreational operators in their vicinity to declare their maneuvering intentions. It is common to see military vessels transit at slow speed down a designated “firing line” before speeding up to reset and begin firing again.
Underway Replenishment (“UNREP”): A common method for resupply of military vessels is underway replenishment (for both fuel and stores). The vessel and the supply ship generally choose a course and speed to maintain for up to a few hours. Commercial and recreational vessels operating in the vicinity of an UNREP should anticipate an early radio call as maneuvering and speed changes are restricted during UNREP and can only be done in small iterations (one degree course change, one RPM speed change, etc.) There may also be air operations simultaneous with an UNREP.
USCG-Specific
U.S. Coast Guard surface vessel operations are similar to those of U.S. Navy surface vessels, but their multi-mission capabilities introduce additional considerations for commercial or recreational vessels operating nearby.
Coast Guard vessels are designed to transition seamlessly between various mission sets. For instance, a Sentinel-class cutter in certain Areas of Responsibility might start the day with recreational vessel safety boardings, shift to a search and rescue mission in the afternoon, and conclude with immigration enforcement operations in the evening. These diverse operations often require the rapid launching and recovery of small boats, sometimes with little notice. Therefore, commercial and recreational vessels should be prepared for Coast Guard vessels to change course and speed suddenly and should maintain a wide berth around such operations.
Additionally, the Coast Guard’s law enforcement activities can result in unique lighting configurations. While Coast Guard vessels are generally required to display navigation lights between sunset and sunrise or during periods of restricted visibility, there are exceptions. When conducting specific law enforcement or public safety operations, Coast Guard vessels may operate without certain navigation lights. Commercial vessels or recreational vessels that encounter a Coast Guard vessel without normal navigational lights between sunset and sunrise should keep a wide berth and avoid hailing them on the radio about their lighting configuration, as this could compromise their operations.
Subsurface Vessels
U.S. submarines operate globally but, except for entering and leaving port and in certain limited circumstances, they do so while submerged.
Operating Areas: Submarines are most often found operating on the surface in the vicinity of U.S. Navy homeports in Groton, Connecticut; Norfolk, Virginia; Kings Bay, Georgia; Bangor, Washington; San Diego, California; Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; and Apra Harbor, Guam.
The United States operates three types of submarines, all nuclear powered: attack submarines, ballistic missile submarines, and cruise missile submarines. Although each type of submarine carries different weapons and has different missions, for the purposes of understanding their actions on the surface, they operate identically.
While submarines can operate in shallow water, submerging in less than 100 fathoms (600 feet) presents challenges, such as the difficulty in avoiding vessel traffic that may not be aware of the submarine’s presence, or the possibility of bottom contact. As a result, when proceeding to sea on routine operations, a submarine will usually delay submerging until it reaches an area where the water depth is at least 100 fathoms.
Bridge Manning: When on the surface, submarines are usually conned from the bridge at the top of the “sail” (also called the “fin” or “fairing” by the Royal Navy but no longer called the “conning tower” as it was during World War II). The bridge will be manned by an Officer of the Deck and a lookout, and during some maneuvers the Captain will also be present on the bridge. The Officer of the Deck or the Captain gives orders from the bridge cockpit to the Helmsman below in the control room using a public address type of announcing system or a sound-powered telephone. In addition to the Helmsman, the control room will be manned by a radar operator and fire control watchstander who tracks other vessels, a Quartermaster who keeps track of the ship’s position, and a Chief of the Watch who operates the ship’s mechanical systems. A ship’s officer will be assigned as the Contact Coordinator in charge of the Control Room to maintain a lookout using a periscope, and to assist the Officer of the Deck on the bridge in deciding on collision avoidance maneuvers.
During heavy weather, such as when waves break over the top of the sail, the bridge watch is sometimes moved below deck and the Officer of the Deck conns the ship from the Control Room, similar to when the submarine is submerged. When this occurs, however, the lookout’s view is limited to what can be seen through the periscopes.
When Vessels Meet: A U.S. submarine, when operating on the surface in narrow channels or areas with limited depth, is treated as a “vessel constrained by her draft.” This means it is severely restricted in its ability to deviate from its course due to the available channel width and water depth as compared to its draft. It will display a black cylinder day shape and also may display three all-round red lights in a vertical line in addition to the lights required for a power-driven vessel. It also may display, as a distinctive means of identification, an intermittent flashing amber “Sub ID beacon.”
A surfaced submarine can be tracked using commercial radar systems, even those not specifically designed for military applications. The submarine’s hull, periscopes, and antennas will reflect radar signals, making it possible to detect the submarine. Visual identification, however, especially at a distance, can be challenging. Although surfaced submarines have unique structures like a sail, radar masts, and antennas unlike those typically found on surface ships that can help differentiate them from other vessels, because of its low freeboard, surfaced submarines are often mistakenly identified as small vessels like fishing trawlers when first visually sighted.
U.S. submarines, like other U.S. warships, are equipped with Automatic Identification System (“AIS”), but are not required under U.S. law to use it. All U.S. Navy ships, however, are now instructed to activate AIS in designated areas, with the specific implementation subject to command discretion based on operational needs and security considerations.
U.S. submarines will use bridge-to-bridge communication and will comply with the Bridge-to-Bridge Radiotelephone Act. In sharing information about its course, speed, and intended collision avoidance maneuvers with nearby vessels, a U.S. submarine may in some circumstances, for security purposes, only identify itself as a “U.S. Navy warship,” or “U.S. Navy unit.”
Weapons Firing Exercises: The United States has established submarine operating areas for torpedo and missile practice firing exercises, the boundary limits and designations of which are shown on charts in magenta or purple lines. Vessels should proceed with caution in designated areas. There is a real danger that a well-intentioned ship or boat, unaware of these operations, might turn in the submarine’s direction to investigate a submarine periscope. During torpedo practice firing, all vessels are cautioned to keep well clear of naval target vessels flying a large red flag.
Regulated Navigation Areas, Safety Zones, Security Zones, and Military Craft
Under U.S. law, 33 U.S.C. §91, the Secretary of Homeland Security is empowered to control the anchorage and movement of any vessel in the navigable waters of the United States to ensure the safety or security of any United States naval vessel in those waters.
Federal regulations governing Regulated Navigation Areas, Safety Zones, and Security Zones outlined in 33 CFR Part 165 establish different types of limited or controlled access areas to protect U.S. Coast Guard vessels and U.S. Navy and Coast Guard facilities.
U.S. naval vessels are protected by a system of rules and regulations, primarily through the Naval Vessel Protection Zone (“NVPZ”) and the implementation of Homeland Security regulations. This includes establishing restricted zones around naval vessels, requiring commercial and recreational vessels to slow down and maintain minimum speed, and ensuring commercial and recreational vessels do not enter the NVPZ within certain distances without authorization to protect naval vessels from potential threats and maintain the security of U.S. waters.
The NVPZ regulations prohibit any commercial or recreational vessels from coming within 100 yards of the NVPZ and require that any such vessels slow to minimum speed within 500 yards of any large U.S. naval vessel (over 100 feet in length). Commercial or recreational vessels that need to pass within 100 yards of a large U.S. naval vessel within an NVPZ to operate safely in a navigable channel must contact the Coast Guard, the senior naval officer present in command, or the official patrol on VHF Channel 16. Violating the NVPZ Regulations is a felony offense, punishable by up to six years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine.
Coast Guard vessels are protected by “Security Zones” established by the U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port (“COTP”). For example, in the Long Island Sound COTP Zone, a Security Zone has been established for a 100-yard radius of any anchored U.S. Coast Guard vessel. Security Zones also have been established in the vicinity of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and the Naval Submarine Base at Groton, Connecticut. A “Restricted Area” also has been established in the vicinity of the Groton Submarine Base that requires all vessels to leave the Restricted Area when notified by submarine base personnel that such use will interfere with submarine maneuvering, operations, or security.
U.S. Coast Guard-established Security Zones are closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative. Commercial or recreational vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the Security Zones must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or the designated representative. Commercial or recreational vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the Security Zones must request permission to do so by contacting the COTP by telephone or via VHF Channel 16.
Both the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard are authorized to use deadly force to protect themselves within the NVPZ, Security Zones, and in other security situations.
Conclusion
We hope this article can be used as a circulated fleet message for any commercial traffic operating in the vicinity of military vessels to provide further context about standard military operations in the United States.
Deployment of AI in the Workplace in France–The Importance of Consulting With the Work Forces
In a significant ruling on 14 February 2025, the First Instance Court of Nanterre, France ordered a company to suspend the deployment of several artificial intelligence tools until proper consultation with its Works Council has been completed.
The company started implementing new AI applications while the mandatory Works Council consultation process was still ongoing. Despite the claim that these tools were merely in a “pilot phase,” the court found that their deployment to employees constituted actual implementation rather than simple experimentation.
The court’s decision emphasizes the importance of respecting employee representation rights in the digital transformation of workplaces, especially in France. This injunctive relief ruled that the premature implementation of the AI tools constituted a “manifestly unlawful disturbance” of the Works Council prerogatives.
This case sets an important precedent for companies implementing AI technologies in France, highlighting the necessity of proper employee consultation procedures before deploying new technological tools in the workplace, in addition to the recently adopted EU AI Act.
The EU AI Act classifies AI systems into four categories: prohibited AI systems, high-risk AI systems (HRAIS), general purpose AI Models (GPAIM), and low-risk AI systems.
Obligations being based on the AI systems risk-level, the most stringent rules apply to HRAIS providers which must particularly:
Implement comprehensive risk management systems;
Ensure data governance;
Maintain technical documentation;
Guarantee transparency;
Enable human oversight;
Meet standards for accuracy, robustness, and cybersecurity;
Conduct conformity assessments; and
Cooperate with regulators.
General Purpose AI Models (GPAIM), must fulfill obligations such as issue technical documentation, comply with EU copyright rules, and provide summaries of their training data. GPAIMs posing systemic risks must also undergo model evaluations, risk mitigation, and incident reporting.
Josefine Beil also contributed to this article.
OFCCP Extends Enforcement Moratorium for VAHBP Providers Until 2027
In a move the Agency reported is designed to maintain healthcare access for active and retired service members and their families, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has announced a two-year extension to the enforcement moratorium for Veterans Affairs Health Benefits Program (VAHBP) providers. This extension, effective June 11, 2025, will now run through May 7, 2027.
The extended moratorium continues to suspend the enforcement of VAHBP providers’ requirement to take affirmative steps to ensure equal opportunity without regard to disability or protected veteran status, obligations typically required of federal contractors and subcontractors. Additionally, VAHBP providers will not be subject to neutral scheduling for compliance evaluations during this period – though all evaluations are currently being held in abeyance.
Presently, the OFCCP retains authority to investigate discrimination complaints filed under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 503) and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA). However, given the current administration’s focus on deregulation and the recent proposed budget that would effectively eliminate the OFCCP, this moratorium extension likely reflects the need to address the previous May 2025 expiration date, rather than an indication that the agency is ramping up its activities.
This extension represents the latest in a series of actions dating back to 2014, when the OFCCP first limited its enforcement activities for TRICARE subcontractors in an effort to balance regulatory requirements and veterans’ access to healthcare, allowing for more time to consider stakeholder feedback. The moratorium was later expanded to include VAHBP providers. Effective August 31 2020, OFCCP’s final rule established that it does not have authority over TRICARE providers. The current moratorium extension provides additional time for the OFCCP to develop sub-regulatory guidance specifically addressing VAHBP providers.
While the extension offers some regulatory relief, VAHBP providers must remain aware that the moratorium does not exempt them from nondiscrimination obligations.