Category: Labor & Employment

Franchisee Must Comply with Reasonable Post-Termination Obligations in Franchise Agreements

A recent federal court decision underscores courts’ willingness to enforce clear language in franchise agreements imposing reasonable post-termination obligations on franchisees held to be in breach. 
Case Background
BrightStar Franchising, LLC, a franchisor of in-home care agencies, had four franchise agreements with Foreside Management Company and its principals, Mark and Claire Woodsum. The agreements contained numerous post-termination obligations such as restraints on competition and solicitation, prohibitions on using BrightStar’s confidential information, and requirements to return property and customer data and to transfer telephone numbers. Critically, the franchise agreements also called for the application of Illinois law in the event of litigation. Furthermore, two collateral lease assignments for Foreside’s Newport Beach and Mission Viejo, California, office locations supposedly granted BrightStar possession rights upon termination of the franchise agreements.
When the agreements expired, Foreside declined renewal and started operating its in-home care services outside of the BrightStar franchise system. BrightStar filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and sought a motion for preliminary injunction against Foreside and the Woodsums, individually, seeking: 

Foreside’s surrender of both Newport Beach and Mission Viejo offices under the collateral lease assignments; and
Enforcement of post-termination obligations under the franchise agreements.

Post-Termination Covenants in a Commercial Relationship are Judged for Reasonableness and not Per Se Invalid
Although the franchise agreements included an Illinois choice-of-law provision, Foreside and the Woodsums argued that California law should apply because a California statute, Business Code §16600, invalidated the non-compete obligations. The Court found that even under California law post-termination covenants in a commercial relationship are judged for reasonableness and not invalid per se. On this basis, the Court analyzed whether to apply California or Illinois law to the question of the enforceability of the post-termination obligations. The Court held Illinois law applied because the defendants failed to prove there was a conflict between the laws of the two states that would lead to a different outcome on the merits.
The Holding

The Court Did Not Enjoin the Assignment of the Leases 

The Court found the Newport Beach lease assignment valid but moot as the defendants had surrendered the office anyway, and Brightside was able to take control of the property. The Mission Viejo lease was also void because Foreside owned the property outright and could not lease to itself. So, there was no lease for Brightstar to assume. 

The Post-Termination Restrictions Were Reasonable 

Applying Illinois law, the Court found BrightStar’s covenants which included an 18-month duration, 25-mile geographic restriction, and protection of legitimate business interests such as goodwill, proprietary systems, and customer relationships reasonable.
The Court found that the defendants likely breached nearly every post-termination provision through continued use of confidential information and customer data, operating a competing business in prohibited territory, soliciting former clients, holding themselves out as a BrightStar franchisee, retaining customers’ phone numbers, using elements of BrightStar’s proprietary program, and displaying BrightStar signage. 

Irreparable Harm and Public Interest Weighed in BrightStar’s Favor

The Court characterized violations of restrictive covenants as a “canonical” example of irreparable harm explaining loss of goodwill, confidential data, and brand control are intangible and difficult to measure. In weighing the balance of potential harms, the Court found the harm to BrightStar outweighed any harm the defendants would suffer if the injunction was issued. The Court found that the defendants had intentionally declined renewal of the agreements and breached the post-termination covenants. Public interest favored enforcing valid franchise agreements, which would have minimal disruption to client care due to nearby BrightStar agencies.
The Court granted BrightStar’s request for a preliminary injunction, in part, enforcing post-termination obligations under the franchise agreements but, as mentioned above, denied the request to enjoin the assignment of the leases.
Why The Decision Matters

This decision emphasizes the enforceability of choice-of-law clauses in franchise agreements and clarifies California Business Code §16600 does not automatically void post-termination restrictive covenants in commercial contexts.
For franchisors, the ruling underlines the importance of reasonable scope and duration in covenants and demonstrates strong judicial protection for reasonable post-termination obligations.
For franchisees, the decision cautions that terminating a franchise without complying with post-termination obligations risks swift injunctive relief and potential operational shutdown. 

California Court of Appeal Affirms Strict Jurisdictional Deadline for Appeals of Labor Commissioner Decisions

On November 19, 2025, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, issued a published decision in Dobarro v. Kim, affirming the trial court’s dismissal for untimeliness of an employer’s appeal from a Labor Commissioner award. The decision underscores the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the statutory deadline for seeking judicial review of Labor Commissioner decisions and rejects arguments for equitable tolling in this context.

Quick Hits

The California Court of Appeal affirmed that the statutory deadline for appealing a Labor Commissioner decision is mandatory and jurisdictional, with no exceptions for late filings due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, except in cases of fraud.
The court rejected the application of equitable tolling for filing deadlines in Labor Commissioner appeals, even in cases of electronic filing errors, emphasizing that strict adherence to time limits ensures prompt wage payment and discourages frivolous appeals.
Employers must comply with both the notice of appeal and undertaking requirements within the statutory deadline to preserve their right to judicial review, as a failure to do so deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Background
The case arose from a wage claim filed by a former employee, resulting in a Labor Commissioner’s award of $74,419.82 against the employer for unpaid overtime and other violations. The Labor Commissioner’s decision was served by mail, triggering a fifteen-day deadline for the employer to file an appeal to the superior court under Labor Code section 98.2. The employer attempted to file the notice of appeal and a motion for waiver of the undertaking requirement on the last day of the deadline, but the electronic filing was rejected by the court clerk. The documents were subsequently filed in person the following day, rendering the appeal one day late.
The trial court found the appeal untimely and denied the employer’s motion for waiver of the undertaking requirement, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
Key Holdings
Jurisdictional deadline for appeals. The Court of Appeal affirmed that the statutory deadline for appealing a Labor Commissioner decision is both mandatory and jurisdictional. The court cited long-standing precedent holding that late filings may not be excused on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, with the sole exception being fraud, which was not alleged in this case.
No equitable tolling. The employer argued that the deadline should be subject to equitable tolling, due to a third-party filing error, and cited California Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, which provides for tolling in certain instances of electronic filing rejections. The court rejected this argument, finding that the statute applies only to complaints and cross-complaints, not to notices of appeal from Labor Commissioner decisions or motions to waive undertaking requirements. The court further noted that the statutory scheme and controlling case law require strict adherence to the time limits to promote prompt payment of wages and discourage frivolous appeals.
Undertaking requirement. The decision reiterates that when an employer pursues an appeal, “it must first post an undertaking in the amount of the challenged award” or seek a waiver within the same statutory deadline as the appeal. Failure to comply with either requirement within the prescribed period deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Attorney conduct and publication. The court declined to impose sanctions for a frivolous appeal but published the decision to clarify the law and remind attorneys of their obligation to candidly address the controlling legal authority and properly develop their arguments.
Key Takeaways
This decision serves as a reminder to employers and counsel of the importance of meeting statutory deadlines in Labor Commissioner appeals, as well as the limited grounds for excusing untimely filings.
There are several instructive points to appreciate from this case:

The deadline for appealing a Labor Commissioner decision to the superior court is strictly enforced and jurisdictional; late filings will not be excused except in cases of fraud.
Equitable tolling does not apply to the statutory deadline for filing appeals or motions to waive undertaking requirements in Labor Commissioner proceedings, even where electronic filing errors might have occurred.
Employers must ensure timely compliance with both the notice of appeal and undertaking requirements to preserve their right to judicial review.
The decision reinforces the importance of prompt wage payment and the legislative intent of discouraging delay and frivolous appeals in wage claim proceedings.

Paying Remote Workers Less May Heighten Legal Risks

Companies rely on hybrid and remote work arrangements to boost their recruiting and retention rates, but they may encounter legal pitfalls if they pay remote workers less than their in-office counterparts for performing similar duties. This article summarizes the legal considerations employers should keep in mind when making strategic decisions about remote work policies and compensation for remote workers.
Quick Hits

The demand for hybrid and remote work arrangements remains strong among employees.
Paying remote workers less than in-person workers for performing the same work could increase the risk of discrimination claims.
Reducing pay for exempt employees who work remotely could jeopardize their exempt status in certain situations.

Five years after the COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed a wave of telework, this type of arrangement remains very popular among many workers. Some job seekers are even willing to accept a lower salary for a fully remote or hybrid job, as it can save them time and money on commuting expenses (such as gas, parking, and vehicle maintenance). According to research from Robert Half in 2025, about half of job seekers indicate that their top preference is hybrid work, while a quarter favor fully remote positions, and 19 percent prefer in-office jobs. These preferences may vary depending on factors like location, job type, and industry. 
The same research from Robert Half reveals that at least 88 percent of employers offer hybrid work to some employees, while 25 percent provide hybrid options to all employees. Furthermore, the study found that 24 percent of new job postings in the third quarter of 2025 were hybrid, and 12 percent were fully remote.
Legal Considerations
Telework policies that tie lower pay to remote work may disproportionately affect women, caregivers, and employees with disabilities, potentially raising the risk of equal pay and disparate impact lawsuits. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits pay discrimination based on gender, race, and other protected characteristics. The federal Equal Pay Act requires employers to pay men and women equal wages for jobs that are substantially equal in skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 established that the 180-day time limit for filing a charge of pay discrimination starts from the last paycheck affected by the discrimination, not the first.
At the same time, employers must comply with state laws on equal pay. Remote work expands the jurisdictional footprint, thereby implicating divergent state thresholds, expense reimbursement rules, and pay transparency requirements.
Courts and regulators increasingly expect individualized assessments of job functions, consistent application of policies, and rigorous documentation of legitimate business reasons for paying certain workers less than others in similar jobs. Without data-driven and legally sound analysis, employers could unintentionally adopt telework policies that are difficult to defend in court.
Meanwhile, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, most exempt employees must be paid a set salary and are not eligible for overtime pay or minimum wage protections. Reducing pay for exempt employees who work remotely could undermine federal or state salary thresholds or alter their job duties enough to jeopardize their exempt status if not carefully reviewed.
Next Steps
Employers may want to analyze how their current telework policies are impacting labor costs, recruiting, retention, and overhead expenses, such as office space rental.
In addition, an attorney-client privileged analysis of telework practices can help a company:

Monitor legal risks associated with disparities in telework-related pay practices and identify legitimate factors contributing to pay differences, such as geography, seniority, and performance.
Validate that geographic differentials and performance metrics are consistently applied and job-related.
Confirm that job descriptions and essential job functions accurately reflect the need for in-person attendance or the feasibility of remote work.
Assess multistate exposure to wage and hour rules based on where remote employees perform work.
Evaluate how remote and hybrid arrangements affect supervisory headcount, budget authority, independent discretion, and professional responsibilities.

Employers should consider regularly evaluating their pay practices to ensure compliance with state and federal laws requiring equal pay for substantially similar work.
This article was co-authored by Leah J. Shepherd, who is a writer in Ogletree Deakins’ Washington, D.C., office.

Complying with the EU’s Forced Labor Regulation- Compliance Obligations for Business

The EU’s new Forced Labor Regulation (the “EUFLR” or “the Regulation”) was published in the EU’s Official Journal on December 12, 2024.[1] Under the new Regulation, products that have been created through the use of forced labor will no longer be allowed to be introduced into the EU market or permitted to be exported from it.[2] Although the EUFLR will not come into effect until December 2027, businesses are wise to begin taking steps to ensure that they are compliant well before that time.[3] The Regulation introduces substantial new compliance obligations on all businesses operating in the EU market (or exporting from it), which may require a significant effort from companies that are affected to ensure conformity.
In this post, we offer an overview of the relevant compliance obligations that businesses impacted by the EUFLR need to be aware of. This includes, but is not limited to, implied due diligence obligations that may not be readily apparent and that many companies may not have encountered before.
Who does the EUFLR apply to?
The EUFLR presents challenges to companies that are trying to comply because of how broad it is in scope. The Regulation applies to all companies regardless of size, and is product-based in its application regardless of the industry sector that is involved.[4] It bans products that have been created using forced labor in whole or in part, at any stage of the extraction, harvest, production or manufacturing process. It applies not only to the primary products that have been created using forced labor, but also to their components.[5]
Products of any origin are affected, whether they were manufactured within the EU, present or made available in the EU market, or exported from the EU.[6] The EUFLR also impacts products that are offered online or through other forms of “distance sales” to end-users in the EU.[7] It does not, however, apply to the withdrawal of products that have already reached end users in the EU market.[8]
The EUFLR will be enforced
The EUFLR will be enforced by various supervisory authorities designated by the EU Member States.[9] The supervisory authorities will conduct investigations, including field inspections, when they suspect forced labor has been involved in the extraction, harvest, production or manufacture of a product.[10] Following the completion of its investigation, the supervisory authority will either close the investigation or issue a decision if it determines that a company has violated the Regulation.[11] Other grounds for finding a violation include cases of bad faith on the part of the company, or when the company has failed or refused to provide requested information.[12] Companies are therefore encouraged to cooperate with the supervisory authorities during the course of the investigation.
When a potential violation of the EUFLR has been identified, supervisory authorities have broad powers to take an enforcement action against the company perceived to be in violation. This includes prohibiting the company from (1) placing products in the marketplace, (2) making products available to customers, or (3) exporting products internationally. Authorities may also order the business to withdraw the products from the EU market, or to dispose of the relevant products or components.[13]
The Member States will establish effective and proportionate penalties applicable to companies that fail to comply with decisions of the supervisory authorities.[14]
Relevant obligations, including implied due diligence obligations
Companies face a challenge in trying to ensure that their products have not been made using forced labor. The EUFLR states explicitly that it does not impose additional due diligence obligations on companies “other than those already provided for in Union or national law.”[15] This clarification might appear counterintuitive, given that identifying the risks of forced labor in value chains would seemingly require some form of due diligence. The EUFLR emphasizes that companies must already address forced labor risks through existing EU due diligence laws, including the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D),[16] which the Regulation is designed to complement.
The CS3D (see our post here) requires companies to identify and address adverse human rights and environmental impacts in their own operations and value chain. The CS3D entered into force on July 25, 2024, but the legislation is currently pending after the Commission adopted an Omnibus package in February 2025 to simplify its due diligence requirements, among other things. The CS3D’s future is even more uncertain as the EU has agreed – within the framework of the EU-US Joint Statement on Transatlantic Trade and Investment (the “Joint Statement”) – to consult with the US on CS3D-related issues, with the intention of avoiding an unnecessary administrative burden.[17] The Joint Statement’s Q&A noted, however, that this cooperation will not lead to any changes to EU domestic rules.[18]
Current negotiations around the Omnibus package include a proposal to significantly raise the thresholds for the CS3D so that it applies only to very large companies. Because the EUFLR applies to all companies, if these thresholds are confirmed very few companies will be within the scope of both the CS3D and the EUFLR.
Taking compliance steps
The first step companies should take to ensure compliance with the EUFLR is to assess whether they fall under the scope of the modified CS3D (as soon as possible following the Omnibus negotiation). For companies that are not subject to the CS3D, companies should ensure that they identify, prevent, mitigate, end or remediate any potential risk of forced labor being used in their operations or supply chains.
Companies should also keep in mind that due diligence measures will play a significant role in how they are evaluated by supervisory authorities under the EUFLR. For example, during the preliminary phase, supervisory authorities will ask companies about the status of their due diligence measures.[19] These authorities will grant companies considerable flexibility regarding their due diligence framework, as the EUFLR provides a broad range of acceptable due diligence measures:

applicable EU or national law setting out due diligence and transparency requirements regarding forced labor,
guidelines issued by the Commission,
due diligence guidelines or recommendations of the UN, ILO, OECD or other relevant international organizations,
any other meaningful due diligence efforts related to forced labor in their supply chain.[20]

A supervisory authority should not initiative an investigation if it determines that there is no substantiated concern, or that any such concern has been addressed. Applying due diligence measures that effectively mitigate, prevent, or eliminate the risk of forced labor is the most effective way to prevent an investigation from being initiated.[21]
The Commission will publish guidelines in relation to forced labor by June 14, 2026.[22] These guidelines will be based on the July 2021 due diligence guidance for EU businesses to help address the risk of forced labor in operations and supply chains.[23]
Conclusion and how we can help
The EUFLR creates certain obligations that companies operating in the EU must be ready to comply with by December 14, 2027. Businesses must take preparatory steps, including embedding responsible business conduct into policies and management systems, identifying and assessing impacts in operations, supply chains and relationships, ceasing, preventing and mitigating adverse impacts, etc.
We stand ready to assist with your preparations for the EUFLR’s entry into force. From the drafting of internal policies and assessment of forced labor risks to the analysis of the international reaction to the EUFLR’s adoption and entry into force, compliance gap assessments, and internal investigations, our lawyers and full suite of services are ideally positioned to guide you throughout the Regulation conformity cycle. 

[1] Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937, available here.
[2] The EUFLR defines forced labor as all work or service that is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily. The EUFLR refers to the definition of Article 2 of International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Convention No 29.
[3] EUFLR, Article 39.
[4] EUFLR, Recital 18
[5] EUFLR, Article 2 and Recital 18.
[6] EUFLR, Article 3.
[7] EUFLR, Article 4. Distance sales refer to “products offered for sale online or through other means of distance sales shall be deemed to be made available on the market if the offer is targeted at end users in the Union. An offer for sale shall be considered to be targeted at end users in the Union if the relevant economic operator directs, by any means, its activities to a Member State.”
[8] EUFLR, Article 1.
[9] EUFLR, Article 5.
[10] EUFLR, Article 19. See also Article 17 for the preliminary phase of the investigations and Article 18 for investigations.
[11] EUFLR, Article 20, 1.
[12] EUFLR, Article 20, 2.
[13] EUFLR, Article 20.
[14] EUFLR, Article 37.
[15] EUFLR, Article 1(3).
[16] Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859, available here.
[17] European Commission, Questions and answers on the EU-US Joint Statement on Transatlantic Trade and Investment, 21 August 2025.
[18] European Commission, Questions and answers on the EU-US Joint Statement on Transatlantic Trade and Investment, 21 August 2025.
[19] EUFLR, Article 17.
[20] EUFLR, Article 17. 
[21] EUFLR, Article 17(5).
[22] EUFLR, Article 11.
[23] EUFLR, Recital 36; European Union External Action, Guidance on due diligence for EU businesses to address the risk of forced labour in their operations and supply chains.

The H-1B Holiday Rush Towards H-1B Enforcement

Highlights

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)’s new “Project Firewall” significantly intensifies H-1B enforcement, enabling expanded audits, interagency data sharing, stricter penalties (including debarment), and increased scrutiny of patterns like offsite placements, wage discrepancies, and inconsistent job information.
Employers face a heightened year-end compliance push, as the initiative places renewed focus on documentation, accurate filings, and monitoring of third-party placements, with the DOL publishing an H-1B Compliance Assistance Toolkit to guide expectations.
Proactive, collaborative compliance is now essential, and employers are urged to conduct regular audits, strengthen internal processes, and work closely with immigration counsel ahead of the FY 2027 H-1B registration season.

With the holidays just around the corner, Project Firewall, a new enforcement initiative launched by the DOL, will ensure H-1B compliance does not take any time off.
The H-1B nonimmigrant work visa is the most popular work visa used by U.S. employers to employ foreign nationals in professional, highly skilled positions that require at least a bachelor’s degree.
However, there are difficulties associated with this visa type. Under current worksite enforcement initiatives, the H-1B visa category continues to receive heightened scrutiny. Additionally, the systematic shortcomings of the H-1B lottery atmosphere make it increasingly difficult to secure these visas, namely a high volume of submissions, an increase in the likelihood of fraud, and duplicative submissions for the same H-1B beneficiary. Now, employers will face new challenges because of new compliance initiatives.
Project Firewall: An Enforcement Gift to the Department of Labor
The DOL announced Project Firewall in September 2025, stating the program would strengthen investigative efforts to promote employer compliance with H-1B visa program obligations.
Project Firewall is the compliance gift that just keeps on giving new methods of enforcement to the DOL. It empowers the DOL in the following ways:

Permits the Secretary of the DOL to initiate employer audits;
Expands data sharing between the U.S. Departments of Labor, Homeland Security, and State;
Allows punishment through years-long debarment in addition to civil penalties;
Facilitates referrals to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for status revocation; and
Permits orders for the payment of back wages and public disclosure.

Since its inception, Project Firewall has enabled the initiation of audits based upon the DOL’s observation of patterns of offsite placements, wage-level discrepances, and higher ratios of H-1B employees. Inconsistent job titles and frequent amendments have also prompted additional scrutiny.
Presenting employers with a guide to these enforcement changes, the DOL published an H-1B Compliance Assistance Toolkit in September.
An H-1B Holiday Rush to Avoid the Naughty List
The expansion in compliance enforcement has created a new form of holiday rush for employers: the rush to ensure nonimmigrant programs, particularly H-1B visa programs, meet compliance requirements. In response to this increase in compliance efforts and interdepartmental government collaboration, Barnes & Thornburg encourages employers to adopt the following five practices:

Initiate a comprehensive H-1B compliance program review with counsel;
Conduct an internal H-1B audit in coordination with counsel at least once annually;
Increase documentation practices, including changes in job duties, worksite locations, and any significant change in the circumstances of employment;
Provide regular compliance guidance to human resources and other relevant company representatives, as well as vendors and clients involved in third-party placements; and
Routinely monitor third-party placements.

Despite the icy landscape, the H-1B visa category remains an essential method to temporarily employ foreign national employees. More than ever, the category is complex, and requires a thoughtful and strategic approach, including collaboration with counsel on compliance practices far outliving the receipt of the approval notice. As such, we encourage employers and potential H-1B registrants to consult with immigration counsel prior to proactively plan to ensure compliance ahead of the Fiscal Year 2027 H-1B registration season.

California’s Expanded Protections for Survivors of Sexual Assault

In 2025, California’s lawmakers acted to protect survivors of violence by once again extending their ability to bring expired civil sexual assault claims.
Expanded Statute of Limitations Lookback Window for Sexual Assault Claims
In 2022, Governor Newsom signed AB 2777, which provided survivors of sexual assault with opportunities to bring otherwise-expired claims during defined windows. For a sexual assault that occurred on or after January 1, 2009, AB 2777 provided until December 31, 2026, to file suit. For survivors of sexual assaults that occurred prior to January 1, 2009, AB 2777 opened a one-year “lookback” window – from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023 – for a sexual assault survivor to file suit if an entity responsible for their harm had covered up a prior alleged sexual assault by the perpetrator.
The new law, AB 250 – the Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act, will open up a new 2-year window from January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2027, similar to the one-year window created by AB 2777 for survivors of sexual assaults in which an entity responsible for the harm had engaged in a cover-up of prior assault. AB 250 also revives related claims, like wrongful termination or sexual harassment, that stem from a sexual assault.
AB 250 is the most recent of a number of bills extending the time limits survivors have to bring forward their claims. Please see our 2023 post to learn more about these past measures and statutes of limitations for sex assault claims in California. These laws extending timeframes for filing are designed to better address the needs or survivors of assault, because recovery, healing, and moving forward do not happen on a set schedule.
Requirements to Bring a Claim Under AB-250
To bring a claim during the two-year lookback window under AB 250, a survivor will need to claim that:

they were assaulted;
there is a legally responsible entity; and

that a responsible entity had engaged in a cover up or attempted cover up of sexual assault.

A “cover up” in this context, is a “concerted effort” to hide evidence, including efforts to prevent information from becoming public or incentivizing individuals to remain silent. It can include the use of a nondisclosure agreement or a settlement agreement.
Importantly, AB 250 also clarifies that a survivor can bring their claims against the perpetrator under this provision, even if the perpetrator was not involved in the cover-up. For instance, if a company is protecting a “star employee” who has sexually assaulted his coworkers, the “star employee,” as well as the company, may continue to be on the hook for sexual assault, during the time frame provided in the new statute, i.e., during 2026 and 2027, regardless of the original statute of limitations governing their claim.
Here is a potential example:
In 2013, when Mariana was sexually assaulted by her supervisor. Mariana had never heard of anything similar happening in her workplace before, so she focused on her own healing, and decided to stay silent. Later, in talking with other women in her office, she learned that others had had similar “bad” experiences with her supervisor, but that Human Resources had told them that it would be better for them if they did not say anything or make a formal complaint. Under AB 250, Mariana would likely be able to bring claims against her employer and her assailant, including under California’s civil sexual assault laws and sex harassment laws, like the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Even if her specific attacker was not involved in the past cover ups, her employer was, and AB 250 could revive her claims against them both.
California Law AB 2499: Leave and Safety Accommodations for Sexual Assault Survivors and Their Loved Ones
Other recent improvements in California law, such as 2024’s AB 2499, allow survivors of violence access to time off and safety accommodations to help in their healing. This can include time off to go to court, seek supportive services, develop a safety plan, and more. Safety accommodations can include a job transfer, changing a work phone number, installing locks, or other changes to help keep an employee safe. Family members can also access leave to help their loved one recover or improve their safety as well. Employers are prohibited from retaliating against their employees for taking any of these actions.
Here is an example:
Krystal was sexually assaulted on her way home after she left work late in the evening. Krystal seeks a restraining order against her assailant and starts seeing a counselor. Although the assault was not directly connected with her employment and her assailant did not work for her employer, her employer must allow her to take the time off that she needs for related legal hearings and counseling sessions. If Krystal wants her sister to attend the restraining order hearings with her for emotional support, Krystal’s sister can request the time off from her own employer, too.
Krystal also feels unsafe leaving work late at night. Upon her request, her employer must allow her to leave work earlier and work remotely or start her shift earlier, as long as it is not unduly burdensome for her employer.
If Krystal’s employer punishes her for these absences or starts treating her worse for making these requests, she may have claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Every survivor’s needs are different, but California has strong protections in place to allow workers to recover, heal, and seek to protect other employees from future harms.
Employees who experience sexual assault at work or retaliation for requesting related protections may potentially recover for their lost wages, other economic harms, emotional distress, and more.

The New Legal Code- Hiring in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Throughout 2025, artificial intelligence has shifted from a buzzword to infrastructure critical to workflows across nearly every industry. Generative-AI tools have moved from experiments to everyday workplace utilities, with Microsoft integrating Copilot into Office, and Google and OpenAI rolling out enterprise-grade assistants. NVIDIA has become the poster child for the AI boom as governments and Fortune 500 companies race to secure computing power for their own initiatives, making them the world’s most valuable company. Analysts view AI investments as driving the stock market, but will there be a similar bump in job growth, particularly in the legal professions? Against this backdrop, The National Law Review spoke with Garrett Rosen, a senior vice president of legal recruiting at Larson Maddox, about how AI’s rapid ascent is reshaping the legal hiring market. 
Eli: To start us off, could you give a quick introduction to who you are and what you do? 
Garrett: Sure. I’m a recruiter focused on in-house legal roles across tech, media, and telecom, and I effectively cover all major U.S. markets. Most of my work is in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago, Dallas/Austin, and Boston, among others. At Larson Maddox, we have offices in New York, Charlotte, Tampa, Dallas, Chicago, and Los Angeles, and I work closely with colleagues in those locations on things like product counsel roles, privacy, IP/compliance, and adjacent positions in the broader tech and infrastructure space.
Eli: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me. From where you sit, how would you describe the legal hiring market right now, especially for tech and AI-related roles? Are things looking good? Not so good? What’s going on? 
Garrett: It’s a loaded question. 
The last few years have been a real swing. Coming out of 2020–2022 we had a very candidate-friendly market. There was heavy investment, tons of growth hiring, and it felt like people could move around pretty freely. 
Then we hit a cooldown—you saw the big downturn, a lot of uncertainty, and waves of layoffs. Over the last 12 months or so, it’s started to stabilize and pick back up. I’m definitely busier this year across industries than I was last year. 
That said, it’s still competitive. You have people who were laid off, people who moved during that 2020–2022 window who are now questioning those moves, and people who are employed but cautiously testing the market. So there’s a lot of candidate activity relative to the number of truly great roles.
Eli: You mentioned product counsel, privacy, IP, and compliance. When you look at AI-related legal roles right now—AI product counsel, AI governance, “ethical tech” officers, that sort of thing—what are companies actually hiring for? What are you seeing on the ground? 
Garrett: A lot of what I’m seeing is hybrid. 
There’s growing demand for AI-focused product counsel roles—people who sit at the intersection of product development, privacy, and regulatory risk. You also see roles framed as AI governance, AI policy, or broader “responsible AI” positions, but often they’re essentially privacy-plus: privacy and data protection, plus AI policy and compliance layered on top. 
In many companies, especially those earlier in their AI product development, AI is being folded into existing privacy, product, or commercial roles. Larger, more mature organizations, are more likely to spin out explicit “AI” or “governance” titles, particularly where there’s a heavy regulatory or compliance overlay. 
Eli: Are employers mostly trying to upskill their existing in-house lawyers into AI roles, or are they going out and hiring people with deeper AI backgrounds? 
Garrett: It’s a mix, but the market has definitely shifted toward wanting proven experience. 
There are companies willing to say, “We’ll take a really strong tech or privacy lawyer who’s genuinely interested in AI and help them grow into it.” That happens. 
But right now, I’d say more clients want someone who can demonstrate they’ve already done the work—that they’ve handled AI-related issues, worked with product and engineering teams on these questions, and can hit the ground running. 
The risk tolerance is lower than it was a few years ago. Candidates who want to pivot into AI from adjacent fields need to make a very strong case for how their existing experience translates, and they need to show they’ve invested in learning—not just that they’re “curious about AI.” 
Eli: That ties into my next question. When companies talk to you about ideal candidates, what are they looking for in terms of background, undergrad, practice area, certifications? 
Garrett: There are a few layers to it. 
First, there’s the core legal training: strong law school credentials, time at a reputable firm, and experience with privacy, product counseling, consumer protection, or regulatory work. That’s still the baseline. 
Then there’s the cross-functional piece. The best product and AI lawyers are deeply plugged into the business. They work closely with product, engineering, data science, marketing, and trust & safety. They understand how the product actually works, who the internal stakeholders are, and what their day-to-day looks like. That cross-functional experience is huge.
On the credential side, we’re seeing more interest in things like privacy certifications—CIPP and related certifications—and the same will likely happen with AI. AI-specific certifications or structured coursework signal that someone has put in the effort to formalize their knowledge rather than just reading headlines. Over the next couple of years, I expect those to become a more common way for candidates to stand out. 
Eli: Let’s say a candidate already has some of that background. From your perspective, what do recruiters and hiring managers look for most when as a sign of true technical fluency? 
Garrett: It’s less about writing code and more about being able to “speak the language.” 
Hiring managers want lawyers who can sit in a room with product and engineering and ask intelligent questions—who understand data flows, how a model is trained and deployed at a high level, where the data is coming from, and what the user journey looks like. 
The candidates who do well are the ones who can tell concrete stories: 

“Here’s a product I supported.” 
“Here’s how we were using machine learning or AI.” 
“Here are the risks we identified and the guardrails we put in place.” 

It’s that ability to articulate the work, connect it to business outcomes, and explain how their legal advice actually shaped the product. That kind of narrative really resonates. 
Eli: Another thing I’m curious about: given all the buzz and opportunity, do you feel like the market is too hot for candidates, in the sense that people might be tempted to jump around a lot? Or is it actually more constrained than it looks from the outside? 
Garrett: I don’t think we’re in an “everyone’s job-hopping constantly” phase right now. 
If anything, job-hopping has cooled compared to five years ago. With the macro environment and recent layoffs, there’s more caution on both sides. Companies are wary of candidates who look like they’ve bounced too much, and candidates are more thoughtful about whether they really want to move. 
There are lots of interesting roles, especially in AI and privacy, but it’s not unlimited. And because there’s so much interest in the space, the bar is higher. You’re competing not only with folks who are actively unemployed, but also with well-credentialed people who are secure in their jobs and just selectively looking for the “right” next step. 
Eli: You mentioned geography earlier—markets like New York, the Bay Area, LA, and so on. How has remote work changed the competition for AI and tech-adjacent legal roles?
Garrett: Remote and hybrid work have definitely reshaped things. 
On one hand, remote roles let companies tap into broader talent pools. Someone sitting in, say, the Midwest can now compete for jobs in a Bay Area or New York company that used to hire only locally. On the other hand, that also means a candidate in a smaller market is now competing with people from every major tech hub. 
Some clients are still committed to particular hubs—they want people in-office in New York, San Francisco, or Seattle a certain number of days a week. Others are more flexible and will hire fully remote if they find the right person. 
So for candidates, the question is often: “Am I willing to relocate or commit to a hub city?” If not, they can still find opportunities, but the competition for fully remote, high-end AI/privacy roles is intense. 
Eli: For law students or early-career lawyers who are watching all this AI change and feeling anxious about their careers, what advice would you give them? 
Garrett: First, don’t panic. 
AI is changing a lot, but the fundamentals still matter: strong training, solid writing and analysis, good judgment, and the ability to work well with people. If you build that core skill set, you’ll be able to adapt as the technology evolves. 
Second, be intentional about exposure. If you’re at a firm, try to get staffed on matters involving privacy, data, product counseling, or emerging tech. If you’re in-house, volunteer for projects that touch AI or data governance. 
Third, show that you’re investing in yourself. That could mean taking relevant courses, getting a privacy or AI-related certification, writing or speaking about the issues, or just building a thoughtful point of view about the space. 
The candidates who will do best are the ones who can say, “I understand the basics, I’ve seen some of this work up close, and I’m genuinely engaged with how AI is reshaping my practice area.” 
Eli: My final big question is about the road ahead. We’ve talked about uncertainty. We’ve talked about growth. What do you think the path forward looks like for AI-adjacent legal roles over the next few years? 
Garrett: I think we’re still in a growth phase, but it won’t be a straight line. 
There are a lot of forces at play: regulation catching up, companies figuring out sustainable business models around AI, and startups competing hard for market share. Before we ever hit a true “bubble bursting,” I suspect we’ll see a wave of consolidation—more M&A as larger players acquire smaller ones with strong technology or teams.
For legal, that means continued demand for people who understand AI, privacy, and regulatory frameworks—especially around safety, consumer protection, and data. I’d expect 2026 and 2027 to be pretty active years from an M&A and regulatory standpoint, which usually translates to sustained need for strong in-house counsel in this space. 
Could things slow at some point? Sure. But I don’t see AI-related legal work disappearing. I see it becoming more embedded in how companies operate over time.
DISCLAIMER:
The views and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the speaker and not necessarily those of The National Law Review (NLR). The NLR does not answer legal questions, nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor. Please see NLR’s terms of use. 

Schools in Pennsylvania Must Notify Parents About Weapons Incidents

On November 6, 2025, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro signed a new state law (Senate Bill No. 246) that requires schools to notify parents, guardians, and school employees about any incidents involving a weapon on school property or at a school-sponsored activity. This law increases the legal liability for schools that fail to send an alert.

Quick Hits

Pennsylvania has enacted a law requiring K-12 schools, charter schools, and career and technical schools to promptly notify parents, guardians, and school personnel when there is an incident involving possession of a weapon on school property.
Weapons covered by this law may include guns, knives, and other potentially dangerous instruments.
The new law is set to take effect on January 6, 2026.

Senate Bill No. 246 requires public and private K-12 schools, including charter schools and career and technical schools, to send a notification within twenty-four hours by a communication method “likely to reach” parents, guardians, and school employees. The notification can include information that identifies a student involved in the incident only under limited circumstances.
The law applies to incidents where the possession of a weapon violates state law or school policies, including events that occur on school grounds, those directly related to school-sponsored activities (even if held off school premises), and on school transportation. Senate Bill No. 246 refers to other laws that define a weapon to include a “knife, cutting instrument, cutting tool, nun-chuck stick, firearm, shotgun, rifle and any other tool, instrument or implement capable of inflicting serious bodily injury.”
The new law does not apply to colleges and universities. However, institutions of higher education in Pennsylvania can establish their own policies regarding weapon possession.
The federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 prohibits the possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of K-12 public or private schools. However, in 1996, Congress amended the law to limit its application to cases where the firearm has “moved in or otherwise affected interstate or foreign commerce.”
In recent years, there have been numerous school shootings across the country, including an incident in Virginia where a six-year-old elementary student shot his teacher. The teacher was awarded a $10 million jury verdict in a case against the school’s former assistant principal, who allegedly failed to respond to multiple warnings that the student had a gun. 
Next Steps
K-12 schools in Pennsylvania may wish to revisit their protocols for notifying staff and parents in the event someone has a weapon on school property, and train staff on the new state law regarding notifications. To ensure that the information reaches the intended recipients, notifications can be sent in various formats, including text messages, emails, and through the school system’s online portal. It is essential to maintain accurate and up-to-date contact information for employees, parents, and guardians.
Many K-12 schools, colleges, and universities already have workplace violence prevention plans that encompass staff training, physical security measures, and systems for easily reporting threats. Similarly, numerous K-12 schools, colleges, and universities have established written policies that prohibit weapons, including guns, on school property. These restrictions typically apply to employees, students, parents, and volunteers.  
Leah J. Shepherd contributed to this article

“Ceci N’est Pas Une Indexation …”, Or Is It? Wage Indexation About to Get Quite Surreal in Belgium

We sighed a collective sigh of relief when the Belgian government finally reached the budget agreement last week.  The negotiations had been really difficult, which is not surprising considering the challenges the government faces: €8 billion had to be found somewhere to keep Belgium’s debt at an acceptable level (acceptable as in not driving us Belgians straight to bankruptcy).
The relief was short-lived however, as details of some of the budgetary measures were released. One measure that has Belgian employers scratching their heads is the government’s decision that automatic wage indexation will not be fully implemented on two occasions during this legislative period.
Belgium indexes wages to inflation as part of its wage setting framework, on the basis of indexation mechanisms included in collective labour agreements that vary from sector to sector.  This has created challenges in recent years, as high inflation levels have led to higher wages and this has been affecting Belgium’s international competitiveness. 
January is traditionally the time when there are wage increases in a lot of sectors due to the automatic link to the index. The most notable sector in this regard is Joint Committee 200, which represents the largest number of employees in the country.  However, under the new budget agreement, on both 1 January 2026 and 1 January 2028, only wages up to €4,000 will be indexed (the salary above €4,000 will not be increased). Companies will have to transfer half the benefit they derive from this measure to the state. This €4,000 ceiling will only apply to the first 2% of the index in a year. It will affect employees with a gross salary above €4,000, which is about 40% of Belgian employees.
The measure will only apply twice, but it will have a snowball effect on employees’ wages for the rest of their career with the same employer. In addition to the immediate impact, the measure will also have an indirect effect on subsequent indexations because these will be calculated on a lower gross salary each time.
While the measure may sound challenging enough to those of us who still have nightmares about their maths exams, things are about to get even worse if we zoom in on the fine print:

Timing: In Belgium, the principle of cost-of-living indexation is not laid down in legislation, but in collective labour agreements that vary from sector to sector. The majority of 1.2 million employees should receive their annual indexation on 1 January. Half of them are employees in Joint Committee 200 who, according to the latest forecasts, can expect 2.22% indexation. If the law introducing this measure is not in place on 1 January 2026, many employees will still receive the normal, full indexation of their wages in January. What happens then?
Diversity: Each sector applies indexation at different times: some annually in January, others whenever the index is exceeded, or even monthly. How will the measure be implemented in those sectors where salaries are index-increased at irregular intervals throughout the year?
Salary: How will the €4,000 be calculated? Monthly base salary only, or will holiday pay and thirteenth month pay also be included in the calculation of this amount? What about overtime pay?

The coming weeks should bring more clarity on this topic – or at least we hope so.  One thing is certain though – and that is that this measure is a classic “compromise à la belge” – some political parties had entered the budget negotiations demanding that indexation be completely frozen for the coming years, which was unacceptable to others. And so we ended up with this compromise, which is a logistical nightmare waiting to happen …

NJ Assembly Bill 5894: Earned Income Access Service Provider Licensing Requirements and Regulatory Framework

New Jersey is on the cusp of a regulatory reset for “on-demand” pay services. Assembly Bill 5894 (the Bill or A. 5894), recently introduced and referred to the Department of Banking and Insurance (DOBI), would create a licensed, employer-integrated category for earned-income access providers, while categorically treating direct-to-consumer (D2C) wage-advance models as loans under state and federal lending laws and regulations.
Under this framework, only providers that deliver advances through a formal arrangement with an employer (or the employer’s service provider), verify wages, and withhold repayments from payroll would qualify for a new earned income access service provider (EIASP) license. Non-integrated providers (e.g., app-based or worker-led platforms that do not contract with employers) would be deemed lenders, subject to usury statutes, licensing oversight, and Truth in Lending Act (TILA) disclosures.
For start-ups, middle-tier growth companies, and national players alike, this would be a significant shift. The regulatory line drawn here may force companies to choose between building employer partnerships or taking on the full obligations of being a licensed lender. With the law’s 120-day inoperative period following enactment, forward-looking firms may wish to act quickly to avoid regulatory scrutiny in the state.
What A. 5894 Requires and Why It Matters
Narrow “Safe Harbor” for Licensed EIASPs
A. 5894 defines EIASP as someone who “delivers earned but unpaid income … through integration with an employer.” This is not a loose collaboration. The statute mandates a contractual relationship or similar service provider-to-employer arrangement. Because of this, widely used D2C models (i.e., where money is advanced without any formal employer agreement) are explicitly excluded.
Loan Recharacterization for Noncompliant Models
If a provider does not satisfy the integration, verification, and withholding structure, A. 5894 says the service “shall be considered a loan.” Importantly, the bill treats “voluntary payments” or tips as interest in that scenario. This is not a soft fallback. It means that D2C providers are being pushed into the same regulatory space as lenders, with usury risk, TILA disclosure obligations, and possibly the requirement to obtain a license before engaging in this business under applicable New Jersey lending laws and regulations.
Consumer Protections
Licensed EIASPs must offer clear, consumer-friendly protections:

Consumers can cancel at any time without a fee.
Disclosures must be provided in writing, in plain language, at least 12-point font if on paper (or easily legible if digital).
Providers may not force users to open a bank account at a particular institution.
No reliance on credit scores for granting advances.
Providers cannot share non-public consumer data without consent and must comply with data privacy requirements.
ACH withdrawals for repayment must follow NACHA rules. If a debit fails, only up to two retries are allowed within 180 days.
Providers must cap fees and voluntary payments based on a DOBI-established “average cap” and refund any excess after annual reconciliation.

Licensing and Supervision

DOBI must license any person offering an earned-income-access service (EIAS).
The license lasts one year, is non-transferrable, and there are clear grounds for suspension or revocation (e.g., fraud, consumer complaints, failure to comply, etc.).
Applicants must submit robust documentation, including, but not limited to, personal information for control persons, financial statements, and server architecture.
DOBI intends to use the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS) to administer the license.
DOBI will have examination authority, reserving for itself free access to books/records and on-site examinations, with licensees bearing the costs.
DOBI must act on applications within 120 days of a completed application being submitted.

Enforcement, Penalties, and Reporting

First violation: Up to $5,000. Subsequent violations: Up to $15,000.
Providers must file an annual report, which may include the total number of transactions, total proceeds disbursed, fees collected, number of non-repayments, any uncollected amounts, and more.
The DOBI commissioner may adopt interim rules immediately upon filing, effective for up to 360 days, even before a full regulatory rulemaking process.
If adopted, the Bill would take effect 120 days after enactment.

Strategic Implications and Insights for Providers
A. 5894 is not simply a licensing requirement. Rather, it would reshape the business models that earned wage access (EWA) companies can use in the state. The practical impact is straightforward:

If companies are not integrated with employers, New Jersey would treat them as lenders. This might be the most important outcome of A. 5894. D2C and other non-integrated models fall outside the Bill’s definition of an EIASP. In this case, the product is automatically treated as a loan, and any fees, tips, or payments companies receive are treated as interest. Companies currently operating such models should consider either building employer integrations or operating as a loan product with all the compliance obligations that come along with acting as a lender.
Employer-integrated programs would need real infrastructure, not surface-level partnerships. The statute requires a contractual relationship with the employer (or an employer’s service provider), wage verification, and repayment through paycheck withholding. That means providers would need actual payroll integrations, reliable pre-payroll wage verification processes, and the ability to withhold and reconcile repayments through payroll. This is not something some D2C or non-integrated providers can pivot to quickly. Such companies may wish to begin evaluating whether they have the technical and operational capacity to support true employer-integrated delivery.
Pricing models must be revisited, especially fees and tips. Even integrated providers would face fee caps set by DOBI, and they would need to conduct annual reconciliations to refund consumers any excess charges. D2C and other non-integrated providers, meanwhile, must assume any payment from a consumer counts as “interest,” which creates usury exposure, TILA APR calculations, and potential concerns about deceptive or unfair pricing structures. Teams should consider starting to model revised pricing options for both integrated and D2C variants.
Compliance may wish to scale up quickly because the 120 days is a short lead time. Once enacted, the Bill gives a 120-day window before becoming operative. In that time, providers must prepare a license application, update consumer disclosures, redesign repayment flows, revise marketing language, implement data privacy changes, and build internal controls to withstand DOBI examinations. This is a tight timeline, especially for companies that have never gone through a state licensing process before.
National operators should assume other states may follow New Jersey’s lead. New Jersey is joining a growing list of states evaluating EWA frameworks, and it is among the first to explicitly separate employer-integrated services from D2C or other non-integrated models. Because of that, companies operating nationwide might treat New Jersey as a signal, not an outlier. Other states may consider similar distinctions.
Providers may expect closer scrutiny of marketing, hardship programs, and repayment practices. DOBI would have examination authority and would receive detailed annual reports. Providers should expect attention on whether advances are truly non-recourse, whether marketing materials overstate “free” access, how often repayment failures occur, how often consumers rely on multiple advances per pay cycle, and how tips or optional fees are suggested or presented in-app. This is an area where examiners may engage early.

Key Takeaways

5894 codifies a license category for employer-integrated earned-income access. Only those meeting the integration and withholding model qualify.
Non-integrated wage-advance models would be treated as loans, triggering usury limits, TILA and Regulation Z obligations, and other federal and state lending laws and regulations.
Providers must offer cancellation, clear disclosures, privacy protections, capped fees, and cannot require the consumer to open an account at a specific bank.
Each license lasts for a one-year period at a time and requires background checks and NMLS integration.
Licensees must file annual reports and renew their license annually, as well as keep up with any rulemaking by the New Jersey regulator.
120-day inoperative period offers a narrow but actionable runway to prepare.
The law may force a choice: Build employer integrations or become a regulated lender. Under either license, the provider is subject to regulatory examinations.

For companies operating or scaling into New Jersey, the bill is more than another compliance task—it is a strategic inflection point. Providers that adapt early may be better positioned as the state finalizes fee caps, forms, and supervisory expectations, and as other jurisdictions consider similar structures. Now is the time to evaluate model design, licensing strategy, and employer-integration readiness to satisfy these requirements when the Bill is enacted.

OSHA Recordkeeping and Reporting Guidance for Employers, Part II: Completing OSHA Forms 301, 300, and 300A

This three-part series on OSHA recordkeeping and reporting provides tips for employers on maintaining compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements.
Part I covers the foundational aspects of determining recordability, including the use of OSHA Forms 300, 301, and 300A, and the criteria for recording work-related injuries and illnesses.
Part II, which follows below, offers a step-by-step walkthrough for completing these forms accurately.
Part III details the reporting responsibilities for severe incidents such as fatalities, in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, and loss of an eye, emphasizing the importance of timely and accurate reporting.

The OSHA Form 301 Incident Report captures the who, what, where, when, and how for each recordable case. Employers typically assemble the required information from supervisor reports, employee statements, timekeeping records, medical work‑status notes, workers’ compensation first reports of injury, equipment logs, and job descriptions.
Quick Hits

The OSHA Form 301 Incident Report requires detailed documentation of each recordable case, including the sequence and mechanism of injury or illness, and must be updated if the case outcome changes.
Employers must maintain the OSHA Form 300 Log with unique case numbers, detailed descriptions, and accurate day counts, ensuring privacy for sensitive cases and maintaining separate logs for each establishment.
The OSHA Form 300A Annual Summary must be reviewed, certified by a company executive, posted from February 1 through April 30, and retained for five years, with electronic submission requirements varying by employer size and industry.

Narrative Description
Employers may want to ensure that the narrative objectively describes the sequence and mechanism of injury or illness without speculating about fault, such as noting that the employee slipped on a wet floor in the packaging area after mopping, fell onto the left wrist, and was diagnosed with a non‑displaced distal radius fracture at an urgent care clinic. Employers may also want to identify the treating provider and facility when known and classify the case according to the most severe outcome known at the time, updating if later developments, such as surgery or extended restrictions, change the outcome category or day counts. Where a workers’ compensation first report captures all required fields, it may serve as an equivalent to Form 301 if completed using OSHA’s instructions.
OSHA Form 300
The OSHA Form 300 memorializes each recordable case and relates to the corresponding 301. Each Form 300 should have a unique case number, and include the employee’s name unless it is a privacy concern case, specify the employee’s job title and department, and the date of the incident. The brief case description should mirror the objective tone of the 301 narrative and identify the location, event, and nature of the injury or illness. Employers may want to note that OSHA periodically cites employers for entries that are too vague.
Employers check only the most severe outcome column known at the time—death; days away; job transfer or restriction; or other recordable case—and enter day counts beginning the day after the incident, using calendar days and capping totals at 180 per case. If a provider recommends days away and the employee works anyway, the Log reflects the recommended days; if an employee stays out longer than medically indicated, the Log reflects only the recommended period. For multi‑establishment employers, each establishment keeps its own Log, and cases are recorded on the Log for the establishment where the employee normally works, with special attention to traveling or temporary assignments. The caveat to this guidance is that geographically close operations can be included on a single Log.
Privacy concern cases require heightened care on the Log. Employers must omit the employee’s name and enter “privacy case” in the name field, ensure the case description conveys cause and severity without disclosing identity, and maintain a separate confidential list that ties case numbers to employee names. Employers must also maintain a sharps injury log if required under the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030, which can be satisfied by the OSHA Form 300, provided that the type and brand of device are recorded and records are maintained in a way that segregates sharps cases.
OSHA Form 300A Annual Summary
The OSHA Form 300A Annual Summary aggregates totals and must be reviewed, certified, posted, and, in many instances, electronically submitted. Employers may want to verify each Log entry is complete and accurate, total each column, and calculate the average number of employees and the total hours worked for the year using payroll and HRIS data. A company executive—an owner, a corporate officer, the highest‑ranking official at the establishment, or that official’s direct supervisor—must certify the 300A. Employers must post the certified 300A in a conspicuous location from February 1 through April 30, and they must retain all three forms for five years. During that retention period, the Log must be updated if case outcomes change; the 301 and 300A do not require updating after year‑end.
Electronic submission obligations encompass three regimes that are size‑ and industry‑specific and must be checked annually. Employers with 250 or more employees that are required to keep records must submit 300A data annually by March 2. Employers with 20 to 249 employees in designated industries must also submit 300A data annually by March 2. Beginning with 2023 data due March 2, 2024, and continuing thereafter, certain establishments in designated high‑hazard industries with one hundred or more employees must submit case‑level data from Forms 300 and 301 annually in addition to the 300A. OSHA’s coverage is set by NAICS‑based lists and may be updated over time. As a practical matter, employers may want to confirm their establishments’ NAICS codes and status each January, especially after acquisitions, divestitures, or significant changes in operations.
Employers strengthen reliability and defensibility by building a disciplined internal process around the seven‑day recording window and periodic reconciliations. A practical approach includes a standard intake checklist, immediate retrieval of provider work‑status notes, monthly reconciliation of recommended restrictions and days away with the Log, and a January close process that resolves ambiguous cases before 300A certification. Employers may want to document rationales for work‑relatedness and new‑case determinations, particularly for home‑office injuries, preexisting conditions, and exception scenarios, and retain the basis for resolving conflicting medical opinions.
Key Takeaways
Recordkeeping and reporting are related but distinct obligations. A case may require rapid reporting to OSHA even before all facts are known, and reporting never replaces the duty to evaluate recordability and update the Log and 301.