Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Law/Legal
Featured Stories
Summer Greathouse Named to Texas Affiliation of Affordable Housing Providers' Board of Directors
HOUSTON, Texas, Aug. 1 -- Bracewell, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Summer Greathouse Named to Texas Affiliation of Affordable Housing Providers' Board of Directors
SAN ANTONIO - Bracewell LLP partner Summer B. Greathouse has been named a member of the Texas Affiliation of Affordable Housing Providers' (TAAHP) Board of Directors for 2026-2027.
New members were installed and took the oath of office at the Annual TAAHP Meeting held July 20 in Austin, Texas.
Greathouse concentrates her practice on tax-exempt financings, tax credits, economic development and governmental ... Show Full Article HOUSTON, Texas, Aug. 1 -- Bracewell, a law firm, issued the following news release: * * * Summer Greathouse Named to Texas Affiliation of Affordable Housing Providers' Board of Directors SAN ANTONIO - Bracewell LLP partner Summer B. Greathouse has been named a member of the Texas Affiliation of Affordable Housing Providers' (TAAHP) Board of Directors for 2026-2027. New members were installed and took the oath of office at the Annual TAAHP Meeting held July 20 in Austin, Texas. Greathouse concentrates her practice on tax-exempt financings, tax credits, economic development and governmentalcontracts at the federal, state and local levels, with a focus on affordable and workforce housing development.
Founded in 1997, TAAHP is a non-profit trade association serving as the primary advocate and leading resource for the affordable housing industry in Texas.
TAAHP's vision is to inspire and engage its members and stakeholders to end the affordable housing crisis in Texas.
* * *
Related People
Summer B. Greathouse (https://www.bracewell.com/people/summer-b-greathouse/)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.bracewell.com/news-events/summer-greathouse-named-to-texas-affiliation-of-affordable-housing-providers-board-of-directors/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Summer Greathouse Named to Texas Affiliation of Affordable Housing Providers' Board of Directors
SAN ANTONIO - Bracewell LLP partner Summer B. Greathouse has been named a member of the Texas Affiliation of Affordable Housing Providers' (TAAHP) Board of Directors for 2026-2027.
New members were installed and took the oath of office at the Annual TAAHP Meeting held July 20 in Austin, Texas.
Greathouse concentrates her practice on tax-exempt financings, tax credits, economic development and governmental ... Show Full Article HOUSTON, Texas, Aug. 1 -- Bracewell, a law firm, issued the following news release: * * * Summer Greathouse Named to Texas Affiliation of Affordable Housing Providers' Board of Directors SAN ANTONIO - Bracewell LLP partner Summer B. Greathouse has been named a member of the Texas Affiliation of Affordable Housing Providers' (TAAHP) Board of Directors for 2026-2027. New members were installed and took the oath of office at the Annual TAAHP Meeting held July 20 in Austin, Texas. Greathouse concentrates her practice on tax-exempt financings, tax credits, economic development and governmentalcontracts at the federal, state and local levels, with a focus on affordable and workforce housing development.
Founded in 1997, TAAHP is a non-profit trade association serving as the primary advocate and leading resource for the affordable housing industry in Texas.
TAAHP's vision is to inspire and engage its members and stakeholders to end the affordable housing crisis in Texas.
* * *
Related People
Summer B. Greathouse (https://www.bracewell.com/people/summer-b-greathouse/)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.bracewell.com/news-events/summer-greathouse-named-to-texas-affiliation-of-affordable-housing-providers-board-of-directors/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: UK Government Consults on Workplace Monitoring Technologies
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 1 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 31, 2026, by senior counsel Deborah Margolis and associate Hannah Drury:
* * *
UK Government Consults on Workplace Monitoring Technologies
The Government consultation explores regulation of workplace monitoring technologies, with proposals aimed at enhancing transparency, accountability and worker engagement.
At a Glance
* On July 8, 2026, the UK Government launched a new consultation on the use of workplace monitoring technologies (WMT), with responses due by September 30, 2026.
* The consultation ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 1 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 31, 2026, by senior counsel Deborah Margolis and associate Hannah Drury: * * * UK Government Consults on Workplace Monitoring Technologies The Government consultation explores regulation of workplace monitoring technologies, with proposals aimed at enhancing transparency, accountability and worker engagement. At a Glance * On July 8, 2026, the UK Government launched a new consultation on the use of workplace monitoring technologies (WMT), with responses due by September 30, 2026. * The consultationseeks views on how WMT is currently used, how decisions are made and whether further intervention is needed in respect of WMT. In particular, it puts forward three possible regulatory options for intervention: (i) a statutory code of practice supported by guidance; (ii) a new legislative duty to consult and negotiate with trade unions or elected staff representatives before introducing WMT; or (iii) non-statutory guidance alone.
* How this impacts employers will depend on where the Government lands on the details. Businesses may want to understand how the proposals could affect their use and adoption of WMT and may wish to consider responding to the consultation.
-
Government Reforms
To date, the Government has largely taken a hands-off approach to regulating AI in the UK, preferring to position the UK as an "AI maker" in line with its AI Opportunities Action Plan published in January 2025. The UK's approach has been markedly distinct from the approach taken in the EU, whose EU AI Act has provoked significant global discourse on AI regulation both in and out of the workplace. We have written previously about the EU AI Act here.
However, the possibility of regulating AI in the employment sphere has been in the background since the Government published its Plan to Make Work Pay, which included commitments to address concerns around workplace surveillance and discriminatory algorithmic decision-making. This consultation represents the first significant step towards delivering those commitments.
What Are Workplace Monitoring Technologies?
The consultation adopts a broad definition of WMT, describing them as digital tools used by employers to collect, track, analyse or make decisions based on information about workers and their activities, including technologies used to "observe performance, behaviour, attendance or communications" and systems that use this data "to inform or make decisions affecting workers." The consultation acknowledges WMT could operate in physical workplaces or remotely and could incorporate the use of automated decision making, algorithmic management and AI. The consultation gives the following examples of WMT:
* GPS and location-tracking systems;
* Digital activity monitoring (e.g., keystroke monitoring);
* Biometric technologies, such as facial recognition and fingerprint scanning;
* Health and physiological monitoring tools;
* Video monitoring systems; and
* Automated performance evaluation and algorithmic scoring tools.
While this definition captures a broad range of monitoring, a significant hurdle for the Government will be creating a definition that stands the test of time. This has already been an issue faced by the EU's AI Act (for example, the first draft of the AI Act in April 2021 did not anticipate the use of generative AI and pre-dated the release of ChatGPT by nearly 18 months) and is something with which the Government is grappling in this consultation as it considers further regulation. Unlike the EU AI Act, however, the consultation is not proposing a risk-based AI regulatory regime and instead focuses on employment relations, transparency and worker engagement.
Existing Legal Protections
While the Government is considering reforms, it is important to note that this consultation is not starting from a blank slate: a range of existing legal frameworks already govern workplace monitoring in the UK.
From a data protection perspective, employers must comply with existing UK data protection laws including by ensuring personal data processing is lawful, fair and proportionate, and by providing individuals with clear information regarding how their data is used and, where applicable, how automated decision-making and profiling systems operate.
UK data protection laws further provide that where solely automated decisions based entirely or partly on the processing of special category data produce legal or similarly significant effects, organisations must ensure workers can obtain information about the decision, make representations, seek human intervention and challenge outcomes (see our article here on recent developments in this regard).
In addition, employers remain subject to employment law and equality law obligations when using WMT, meaning decisions informed by monitoring technologies or algorithmic systems must be fair and non-discriminatory. Employers remain responsible for outcomes produced by such systems.
However, despite the breadth of existing legal principles, the Government considers that existing protections are not consistently understood or applied, and therefore believes further steps may be needed to improve transparency, worker engagement and accountability in relation to WMT.
The Consultation
The Government is seeking views on three broad options for intervention. While there are different possible approaches to intervention, the options are supported by eight core principles intended to underpin the responsible use of WMT, including purpose and rationale; transparency and understanding; worker engagement and voice; fairness and equality; necessity, proportionality and privacy; human oversight and accountability; dignity and wellbeing; and accuracy, reliability and review.
An important theme running through the consultation is the extent to which any intervention should protect not only employees, but also a broader category of workers who may be subject to WMT. The consultation acknowledges that each option put forward may have different implications for the scope of coverage. It also recognises that extending any new framework beyond employees raises practical and legal challenges, particularly given the different statutory rights and workplace structures that apply to different categories of worker.
Option 1: A Statutory Code of Practice
The first option is to put in place a statutory Code of Practice, supported by non-statutory guidance.
The consultation states that the proposed Code would not create new legal obligations but is intended to establish practical and clear expectations regarding the responsible use of WMT following the Government's eight principles. Employment Tribunals could take compliance with the Code into account when considering relevant claims, such as unfair dismissal or discrimination, and, in appropriate cases, compensation could potentially be increased by up to 25% where an employer unreasonably failed to follow the Code. The Code would also be supplemented by non-statutory guidance, which would provide more detailed practical support for employers and workers.
While it is hoped that a statutory Code would provide a balanced approach, to improve clarity for both employers and workers without creating new requirements on employers, it is acknowledged that its impact and legal effect would be limited and would depend on it being relevant in existing Employment Tribunal litigation. The Government's intention is that the Code would cover both employees and workers, but recognises that workers generally have access to a narrower range of Employment Tribunal claims than employees. This means the practical impact of a statutory Code may be uneven between categories of worker who are nevertheless subject to WMT, with employees more likely to benefit from the Code's legal effect than other workers.
Option 2: A Statutory Duty to Consult and Negotiate
The second, and potentially most significant, option would create a new statutory requirement via primary legislation for employers to consult and negotiate with a view to agreement with trade unions or elected staff representatives before introducing, or significantly changing, WMT.
Although key design considerations are explored, the Government envisages a process through which employers would be required to provide relevant information and give workers a genuine opportunity to influence outcomes, although agreement would not necessarily be required before implementation could proceed. It is proposed that enforcement could be carried out via the Employment Tribunal system with potential protective awards in cases of non-compliance.
While this option would likely enhance worker voice and transparency, the consultation acknowledges concerns regarding complexity, compliance burdens and the practical difficulty of applying consultation requirements to technologies that evolve incrementally over time. The consultation also explicitly seeks views on whether any legislative requirement should apply only to employees, to employees and workers, or to all non-self-employed individuals exposed to WMT (noting the Government has not indicated a preference on this issue). Questions arise as to how any consultation obligation would operate in relation to workers who are not employees, particularly those engaged through more fragmented or platform-based working arrangements. In those environments, identifying appropriate representatives and ensuring meaningful consultation may be significantly more challenging, which could make the design and implementation of any new consultation duty more complex.
This option would introduce some similarities with the position under the EU AI Act, which provides that before putting into service or using a "high-risk AI system" at the workplace, employers must inform worker representatives and affected workers that they will be subject to the use of high-risk AI, although this doesn't go as far as imposing a requirement to consult and negotiate as is considered in the consultation.
Option 3: Non-Statutory Guidance
The third option is the publication of non-statutory guidance aimed at helping employers understand and implement good practice, again in line with the Government's eight principles. The Government presents this as the most flexible and lowest-burden approach, capable of evolving alongside technological developments. However, it also recognises that guidance alone may have limited influence on employers who are already failing to meet best practice standards. The consultation suggests that the guidance would apply to both employees and workers and could be tailored to reflect different workplace contexts, however it acknowledges that it may be less effective in environments that are more reliant on remote or platform working.
Of the three options, the proposed duty to consult and negotiate would create the greatest practical and administrative burden, particularly where technologies are introduced incrementally or updated on a frequent basis, but it remains to be seen whether this is a step the Government will take. The consultation notes too that no intervention may remain a legitimate outcome if evidence does not demonstrate a clear problem in relation to WMT.
What Does this Mean for Employers?
The consultation does not propose immediate legal changes. However, it sits within the wider direction of travel under the Employment Rights Act 2025 reforms: a stronger role for worker voice, trade unions and staff representatives in shaping workplace decisions. In that context, workplace technology is unlikely to remain a purely management-led issue. Even if the outcome is guidance or a Code rather than a new statutory duty, employers should expect greater scrutiny of how they explain, justify and consult on the introduction and use of monitoring, AI and workforce analytics tools in the workplace.
The consultation closes on September 30, 2026. Employers that are impacted by this consultation may wish to respond and can do so here (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/make-work-pay-workplace-monitoring-technologies).
* * *
Authors
Deborah Margolis
Senior Counsel
London
dmargolis@littler.co.uk
* * *
Hannah Drury
Associate
London
hdrury@littler.co.uk
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/uk-government-consults-workplace-monitoring-technologies
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
UK Government Consults on Workplace Monitoring Technologies
The Government consultation explores regulation of workplace monitoring technologies, with proposals aimed at enhancing transparency, accountability and worker engagement.
At a Glance
* On July 8, 2026, the UK Government launched a new consultation on the use of workplace monitoring technologies (WMT), with responses due by September 30, 2026.
* The consultation ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 1 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 31, 2026, by senior counsel Deborah Margolis and associate Hannah Drury: * * * UK Government Consults on Workplace Monitoring Technologies The Government consultation explores regulation of workplace monitoring technologies, with proposals aimed at enhancing transparency, accountability and worker engagement. At a Glance * On July 8, 2026, the UK Government launched a new consultation on the use of workplace monitoring technologies (WMT), with responses due by September 30, 2026. * The consultationseeks views on how WMT is currently used, how decisions are made and whether further intervention is needed in respect of WMT. In particular, it puts forward three possible regulatory options for intervention: (i) a statutory code of practice supported by guidance; (ii) a new legislative duty to consult and negotiate with trade unions or elected staff representatives before introducing WMT; or (iii) non-statutory guidance alone.
* How this impacts employers will depend on where the Government lands on the details. Businesses may want to understand how the proposals could affect their use and adoption of WMT and may wish to consider responding to the consultation.
-
Government Reforms
To date, the Government has largely taken a hands-off approach to regulating AI in the UK, preferring to position the UK as an "AI maker" in line with its AI Opportunities Action Plan published in January 2025. The UK's approach has been markedly distinct from the approach taken in the EU, whose EU AI Act has provoked significant global discourse on AI regulation both in and out of the workplace. We have written previously about the EU AI Act here.
However, the possibility of regulating AI in the employment sphere has been in the background since the Government published its Plan to Make Work Pay, which included commitments to address concerns around workplace surveillance and discriminatory algorithmic decision-making. This consultation represents the first significant step towards delivering those commitments.
What Are Workplace Monitoring Technologies?
The consultation adopts a broad definition of WMT, describing them as digital tools used by employers to collect, track, analyse or make decisions based on information about workers and their activities, including technologies used to "observe performance, behaviour, attendance or communications" and systems that use this data "to inform or make decisions affecting workers." The consultation acknowledges WMT could operate in physical workplaces or remotely and could incorporate the use of automated decision making, algorithmic management and AI. The consultation gives the following examples of WMT:
* GPS and location-tracking systems;
* Digital activity monitoring (e.g., keystroke monitoring);
* Biometric technologies, such as facial recognition and fingerprint scanning;
* Health and physiological monitoring tools;
* Video monitoring systems; and
* Automated performance evaluation and algorithmic scoring tools.
While this definition captures a broad range of monitoring, a significant hurdle for the Government will be creating a definition that stands the test of time. This has already been an issue faced by the EU's AI Act (for example, the first draft of the AI Act in April 2021 did not anticipate the use of generative AI and pre-dated the release of ChatGPT by nearly 18 months) and is something with which the Government is grappling in this consultation as it considers further regulation. Unlike the EU AI Act, however, the consultation is not proposing a risk-based AI regulatory regime and instead focuses on employment relations, transparency and worker engagement.
Existing Legal Protections
While the Government is considering reforms, it is important to note that this consultation is not starting from a blank slate: a range of existing legal frameworks already govern workplace monitoring in the UK.
From a data protection perspective, employers must comply with existing UK data protection laws including by ensuring personal data processing is lawful, fair and proportionate, and by providing individuals with clear information regarding how their data is used and, where applicable, how automated decision-making and profiling systems operate.
UK data protection laws further provide that where solely automated decisions based entirely or partly on the processing of special category data produce legal or similarly significant effects, organisations must ensure workers can obtain information about the decision, make representations, seek human intervention and challenge outcomes (see our article here on recent developments in this regard).
In addition, employers remain subject to employment law and equality law obligations when using WMT, meaning decisions informed by monitoring technologies or algorithmic systems must be fair and non-discriminatory. Employers remain responsible for outcomes produced by such systems.
However, despite the breadth of existing legal principles, the Government considers that existing protections are not consistently understood or applied, and therefore believes further steps may be needed to improve transparency, worker engagement and accountability in relation to WMT.
The Consultation
The Government is seeking views on three broad options for intervention. While there are different possible approaches to intervention, the options are supported by eight core principles intended to underpin the responsible use of WMT, including purpose and rationale; transparency and understanding; worker engagement and voice; fairness and equality; necessity, proportionality and privacy; human oversight and accountability; dignity and wellbeing; and accuracy, reliability and review.
An important theme running through the consultation is the extent to which any intervention should protect not only employees, but also a broader category of workers who may be subject to WMT. The consultation acknowledges that each option put forward may have different implications for the scope of coverage. It also recognises that extending any new framework beyond employees raises practical and legal challenges, particularly given the different statutory rights and workplace structures that apply to different categories of worker.
Option 1: A Statutory Code of Practice
The first option is to put in place a statutory Code of Practice, supported by non-statutory guidance.
The consultation states that the proposed Code would not create new legal obligations but is intended to establish practical and clear expectations regarding the responsible use of WMT following the Government's eight principles. Employment Tribunals could take compliance with the Code into account when considering relevant claims, such as unfair dismissal or discrimination, and, in appropriate cases, compensation could potentially be increased by up to 25% where an employer unreasonably failed to follow the Code. The Code would also be supplemented by non-statutory guidance, which would provide more detailed practical support for employers and workers.
While it is hoped that a statutory Code would provide a balanced approach, to improve clarity for both employers and workers without creating new requirements on employers, it is acknowledged that its impact and legal effect would be limited and would depend on it being relevant in existing Employment Tribunal litigation. The Government's intention is that the Code would cover both employees and workers, but recognises that workers generally have access to a narrower range of Employment Tribunal claims than employees. This means the practical impact of a statutory Code may be uneven between categories of worker who are nevertheless subject to WMT, with employees more likely to benefit from the Code's legal effect than other workers.
Option 2: A Statutory Duty to Consult and Negotiate
The second, and potentially most significant, option would create a new statutory requirement via primary legislation for employers to consult and negotiate with a view to agreement with trade unions or elected staff representatives before introducing, or significantly changing, WMT.
Although key design considerations are explored, the Government envisages a process through which employers would be required to provide relevant information and give workers a genuine opportunity to influence outcomes, although agreement would not necessarily be required before implementation could proceed. It is proposed that enforcement could be carried out via the Employment Tribunal system with potential protective awards in cases of non-compliance.
While this option would likely enhance worker voice and transparency, the consultation acknowledges concerns regarding complexity, compliance burdens and the practical difficulty of applying consultation requirements to technologies that evolve incrementally over time. The consultation also explicitly seeks views on whether any legislative requirement should apply only to employees, to employees and workers, or to all non-self-employed individuals exposed to WMT (noting the Government has not indicated a preference on this issue). Questions arise as to how any consultation obligation would operate in relation to workers who are not employees, particularly those engaged through more fragmented or platform-based working arrangements. In those environments, identifying appropriate representatives and ensuring meaningful consultation may be significantly more challenging, which could make the design and implementation of any new consultation duty more complex.
This option would introduce some similarities with the position under the EU AI Act, which provides that before putting into service or using a "high-risk AI system" at the workplace, employers must inform worker representatives and affected workers that they will be subject to the use of high-risk AI, although this doesn't go as far as imposing a requirement to consult and negotiate as is considered in the consultation.
Option 3: Non-Statutory Guidance
The third option is the publication of non-statutory guidance aimed at helping employers understand and implement good practice, again in line with the Government's eight principles. The Government presents this as the most flexible and lowest-burden approach, capable of evolving alongside technological developments. However, it also recognises that guidance alone may have limited influence on employers who are already failing to meet best practice standards. The consultation suggests that the guidance would apply to both employees and workers and could be tailored to reflect different workplace contexts, however it acknowledges that it may be less effective in environments that are more reliant on remote or platform working.
Of the three options, the proposed duty to consult and negotiate would create the greatest practical and administrative burden, particularly where technologies are introduced incrementally or updated on a frequent basis, but it remains to be seen whether this is a step the Government will take. The consultation notes too that no intervention may remain a legitimate outcome if evidence does not demonstrate a clear problem in relation to WMT.
What Does this Mean for Employers?
The consultation does not propose immediate legal changes. However, it sits within the wider direction of travel under the Employment Rights Act 2025 reforms: a stronger role for worker voice, trade unions and staff representatives in shaping workplace decisions. In that context, workplace technology is unlikely to remain a purely management-led issue. Even if the outcome is guidance or a Code rather than a new statutory duty, employers should expect greater scrutiny of how they explain, justify and consult on the introduction and use of monitoring, AI and workforce analytics tools in the workplace.
The consultation closes on September 30, 2026. Employers that are impacted by this consultation may wish to respond and can do so here (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/make-work-pay-workplace-monitoring-technologies).
* * *
Authors
Deborah Margolis
Senior Counsel
London
dmargolis@littler.co.uk
* * *
Hannah Drury
Associate
London
hdrury@littler.co.uk
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/uk-government-consults-workplace-monitoring-technologies
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: OSHA Recordkeeping Update - Fifth Circuit Vacates Mandatory Work-Related Mental Illness Reporting Rule
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 1 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 31, 2026, by counsel Kimberly M. Shappley, associate Emily Linn, and senior counsels Peter Vassalo and Felicia K. Watson:
* * *
OSHA Recordkeeping Update: Fifth Circuit Vacates Mandatory Work-Related Mental Illness Reporting Rule
At a Glance
* Fifth Circuit decision finds OSHA lacks authority to require employers to record work-related mental illness.
* This decision calls into question OSHA's longstanding position that its recordkeeping regulations encompass work-related mental injuries or illnesses, ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 1 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 31, 2026, by counsel Kimberly M. Shappley, associate Emily Linn, and senior counsels Peter Vassalo and Felicia K. Watson: * * * OSHA Recordkeeping Update: Fifth Circuit Vacates Mandatory Work-Related Mental Illness Reporting Rule At a Glance * Fifth Circuit decision finds OSHA lacks authority to require employers to record work-related mental illness. * This decision calls into question OSHA's longstanding position that its recordkeeping regulations encompass work-related mental injuries or illnesses,such as PTSD.
-
In a significant decision that narrows the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements under its Recordkeeping regulation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that OSHA lacked statutory authority to require employers to record employee work-related mental illnesses on OSHA injury and illness logs.
In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, No. 25-60108 (5th Cir. July 21, 2026), the court vacated a provision of OSHA's Recordkeeping regulation requiring mental health illness reporting, 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1904.5(b)(2)(ix), and set aside an OSHA citation and penalty issued to the company for failing to record an employee's PTSD diagnosis. The ruling removes OSHA's longstanding requirement that employers record certain work-related mental illnesses, even when supported by a qualifying healthcare provider's opinion.
Overview of OSHA Injury and Illness Reporting
Most employers covered by OSHA's recordkeeping regulations are required to maintain records of certain work-related injuries and illnesses using OSHA Forms 300 and 301. OSHA uses these records to collect data regarding workplace injuries and illnesses, identify trends, and target enforcement and compliance efforts. They also help employers identify recurring safety risks and unknown safety hazards, and provide visibility of injuries to workers and inspectors.
* OSHA Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) is an ongoing log of all qualifying safety and health incidents in the workplace that employers must maintain throughout the calendar year. For each recordable work-related injury or illness, employers document basic information about the employee, the nature of the injury or illness, the location and date of the injury or onset of the illness, the affected body part, and whether the incident resulted in days away from work, restricted duty, job transfer, or other recordable outcomes.
* OSHA Form 301 (Injury and Illness Incident Report) provides a more detailed account of each recordable incident entered on the Form 300 log. Employers must complete a Form 301 for every injury or illness that is recorded on the Form 300 log, including information about how and why the incident occurred, and the treatment provided.
Background
The case arose from a 2021 explosion and fire. An employee who participated in emergency response efforts following the incident was subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) by several healthcare providers, all of whom concluded that the condition was related to the workplace incident, which the employer disputed. OSHA thereafter cited the employer for violating its recordkeeping requirements in failing to record the purported work-related mental illness of the employee and assessed a penalty.
The dispute ultimately centered not on the employee's diagnosis, but on whether OSHA possessed statutory authority under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 657(c)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) to require employers to record work-related mental illnesses at all.
The Court's Holding
The Fifth Circuit concluded that OSHA exceeded its authority when it promulgated the mental illness recordkeeping rule. According to the court, the "best reading" of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 657(c)(2) authorizes OSHA to require the recording of physical work-related injuries and illnesses, but not mental illnesses.
In reaching this decision, the Fifth Circuit looked at the following:
* Statutory Context. The court emphasized that the statute authorizes OSHA to require records of "work-related deaths, injuries and illnesses" while excluding minor injuries requiring only first aid or not involving medical treatment, loss of consciousness, work restrictions, or job transfer. The court found these concepts are directed principally toward physical harms, suggesting Congress was focused on physical occupational injuries and illnesses.
* Structure of the OSH Act. The court also examined the surrounding statutory provisions addressing occupational accidents, toxic materials, and harmful physical agents. In the court's view, the broader recordkeeping and inspection framework reflected congressional concern with physical workplace hazards rather than psychological conditions.
* Dictionary Definitions of Illness. As the Act left "illness" undefined, the court reviewed dictionary definitions contemporaneous with the OSH Act's 1970 enactment, finding that the ordinary meaning of "illness" generally referred to physical disease or sickness and did not clearly encompass mental illness.
What Does This Mean for Employers?
The immediate legal effect of the Fifth Circuit's decision is strongest within the Fifth Circuit, which encompasses Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. In these states, the decision is precedent that Congress did not provide OSHA with authority to require employers to record work-related mental illnesses, and 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1904.5(b)(2)(ix) is no longer valid. Employers with operations in those states should carefully evaluate the impact of the decision on their OSHA recordkeeping practices and any ongoing or future OSHA investigations involving employee mental health conditions.
Although the decision is directly controlling in the Fifth Circuit only, its implications extend well beyond those states. By holding that OSHA lacked statutory authority to require the recording of work-related mental illnesses, the court called into question OSHA's longstanding position that its recordkeeping regulations encompass work-related mental injuries or illnesses, such as PTSD. The decision also reflects the growing influence of Loper Bright,/1 signaling that courts--particularly within the Fifth Circuit--may be less willing to defer to agency interpretations that are not clearly grounded in statutory text. Here, the court assessed whether OSHA's reading of "illnesses" in 29 U.S.C. Sec. 657(c)(2) to encompass "mental illnesses" was the best reading of the statute, not whether it was simply permissible.
As for the practical impact on employer recordkeeping practices, employers should consider internally tracking work-related mental illnesses. Employees and supervisors should be trained to report work-related mental health conditions through established internal reporting channels, and employers should continue to investigate and document those reports. Mental health concerns can affect workplace safety, workers' compensation claims, leave and accommodation obligations, and other employment-law considerations, regardless of whether they ultimately must be recorded on OSHA logs.
While this decision narrows recordkeeping requirements in the Fifth Circuit, employers should exercise caution before deciding not to record a work-related mental illness. Given the evolving legal landscape and the possibility of further agency or judicial action, recordkeeping decisions involving mental illnesses should be made on a case-by-case basis. Employers receiving reports of PTSD or other work-related mental illnesses should consult experienced OSHA counsel to evaluate whether the condition may be recordable under applicable law and to ensure compliance with OSHA's reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
* * *
See Footnotes
1/ Loper Bright Enterp. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 412 (2024) (explaining courts "must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.")
* * *
Authors
Kimberly M. Shappley
Of Counsel
Irvine
kshappley@littler.com
* * *
Emily Linn
Associate
Austin
elinn@littler.com
* * *
Peter Vassalo
Senior Counsel
Washington, D.C.
pvassalo@littler.com
* * *
Felicia K. Watson
Senior Counsel
Washington, D.C.
fwatson@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/osha-recordkeeping-update-fifth-circuit-vacates-mandatory-work-related-mental
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
OSHA Recordkeeping Update: Fifth Circuit Vacates Mandatory Work-Related Mental Illness Reporting Rule
At a Glance
* Fifth Circuit decision finds OSHA lacks authority to require employers to record work-related mental illness.
* This decision calls into question OSHA's longstanding position that its recordkeeping regulations encompass work-related mental injuries or illnesses, ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 1 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 31, 2026, by counsel Kimberly M. Shappley, associate Emily Linn, and senior counsels Peter Vassalo and Felicia K. Watson: * * * OSHA Recordkeeping Update: Fifth Circuit Vacates Mandatory Work-Related Mental Illness Reporting Rule At a Glance * Fifth Circuit decision finds OSHA lacks authority to require employers to record work-related mental illness. * This decision calls into question OSHA's longstanding position that its recordkeeping regulations encompass work-related mental injuries or illnesses,such as PTSD.
-
In a significant decision that narrows the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements under its Recordkeeping regulation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that OSHA lacked statutory authority to require employers to record employee work-related mental illnesses on OSHA injury and illness logs.
In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, No. 25-60108 (5th Cir. July 21, 2026), the court vacated a provision of OSHA's Recordkeeping regulation requiring mental health illness reporting, 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1904.5(b)(2)(ix), and set aside an OSHA citation and penalty issued to the company for failing to record an employee's PTSD diagnosis. The ruling removes OSHA's longstanding requirement that employers record certain work-related mental illnesses, even when supported by a qualifying healthcare provider's opinion.
Overview of OSHA Injury and Illness Reporting
Most employers covered by OSHA's recordkeeping regulations are required to maintain records of certain work-related injuries and illnesses using OSHA Forms 300 and 301. OSHA uses these records to collect data regarding workplace injuries and illnesses, identify trends, and target enforcement and compliance efforts. They also help employers identify recurring safety risks and unknown safety hazards, and provide visibility of injuries to workers and inspectors.
* OSHA Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) is an ongoing log of all qualifying safety and health incidents in the workplace that employers must maintain throughout the calendar year. For each recordable work-related injury or illness, employers document basic information about the employee, the nature of the injury or illness, the location and date of the injury or onset of the illness, the affected body part, and whether the incident resulted in days away from work, restricted duty, job transfer, or other recordable outcomes.
* OSHA Form 301 (Injury and Illness Incident Report) provides a more detailed account of each recordable incident entered on the Form 300 log. Employers must complete a Form 301 for every injury or illness that is recorded on the Form 300 log, including information about how and why the incident occurred, and the treatment provided.
Background
The case arose from a 2021 explosion and fire. An employee who participated in emergency response efforts following the incident was subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) by several healthcare providers, all of whom concluded that the condition was related to the workplace incident, which the employer disputed. OSHA thereafter cited the employer for violating its recordkeeping requirements in failing to record the purported work-related mental illness of the employee and assessed a penalty.
The dispute ultimately centered not on the employee's diagnosis, but on whether OSHA possessed statutory authority under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 657(c)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) to require employers to record work-related mental illnesses at all.
The Court's Holding
The Fifth Circuit concluded that OSHA exceeded its authority when it promulgated the mental illness recordkeeping rule. According to the court, the "best reading" of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 657(c)(2) authorizes OSHA to require the recording of physical work-related injuries and illnesses, but not mental illnesses.
In reaching this decision, the Fifth Circuit looked at the following:
* Statutory Context. The court emphasized that the statute authorizes OSHA to require records of "work-related deaths, injuries and illnesses" while excluding minor injuries requiring only first aid or not involving medical treatment, loss of consciousness, work restrictions, or job transfer. The court found these concepts are directed principally toward physical harms, suggesting Congress was focused on physical occupational injuries and illnesses.
* Structure of the OSH Act. The court also examined the surrounding statutory provisions addressing occupational accidents, toxic materials, and harmful physical agents. In the court's view, the broader recordkeeping and inspection framework reflected congressional concern with physical workplace hazards rather than psychological conditions.
* Dictionary Definitions of Illness. As the Act left "illness" undefined, the court reviewed dictionary definitions contemporaneous with the OSH Act's 1970 enactment, finding that the ordinary meaning of "illness" generally referred to physical disease or sickness and did not clearly encompass mental illness.
What Does This Mean for Employers?
The immediate legal effect of the Fifth Circuit's decision is strongest within the Fifth Circuit, which encompasses Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. In these states, the decision is precedent that Congress did not provide OSHA with authority to require employers to record work-related mental illnesses, and 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1904.5(b)(2)(ix) is no longer valid. Employers with operations in those states should carefully evaluate the impact of the decision on their OSHA recordkeeping practices and any ongoing or future OSHA investigations involving employee mental health conditions.
Although the decision is directly controlling in the Fifth Circuit only, its implications extend well beyond those states. By holding that OSHA lacked statutory authority to require the recording of work-related mental illnesses, the court called into question OSHA's longstanding position that its recordkeeping regulations encompass work-related mental injuries or illnesses, such as PTSD. The decision also reflects the growing influence of Loper Bright,/1 signaling that courts--particularly within the Fifth Circuit--may be less willing to defer to agency interpretations that are not clearly grounded in statutory text. Here, the court assessed whether OSHA's reading of "illnesses" in 29 U.S.C. Sec. 657(c)(2) to encompass "mental illnesses" was the best reading of the statute, not whether it was simply permissible.
As for the practical impact on employer recordkeeping practices, employers should consider internally tracking work-related mental illnesses. Employees and supervisors should be trained to report work-related mental health conditions through established internal reporting channels, and employers should continue to investigate and document those reports. Mental health concerns can affect workplace safety, workers' compensation claims, leave and accommodation obligations, and other employment-law considerations, regardless of whether they ultimately must be recorded on OSHA logs.
While this decision narrows recordkeeping requirements in the Fifth Circuit, employers should exercise caution before deciding not to record a work-related mental illness. Given the evolving legal landscape and the possibility of further agency or judicial action, recordkeeping decisions involving mental illnesses should be made on a case-by-case basis. Employers receiving reports of PTSD or other work-related mental illnesses should consult experienced OSHA counsel to evaluate whether the condition may be recordable under applicable law and to ensure compliance with OSHA's reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
* * *
See Footnotes
1/ Loper Bright Enterp. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 412 (2024) (explaining courts "must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.")
* * *
Authors
Kimberly M. Shappley
Of Counsel
Irvine
kshappley@littler.com
* * *
Emily Linn
Associate
Austin
elinn@littler.com
* * *
Peter Vassalo
Senior Counsel
Washington, D.C.
pvassalo@littler.com
* * *
Felicia K. Watson
Senior Counsel
Washington, D.C.
fwatson@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/osha-recordkeeping-update-fifth-circuit-vacates-mandatory-work-related-mental
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
India Business Law Journal Names K&L Gates Among Top Firms for India-Related Work in 2026 Report
PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, Aug. 1 (TNSxrep) -- K&L Gates, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
India Business Law Journal Names K&L Gates Among Top Firms for India-Related Work in 2026 Report
Global law firm K&L Gates has been recognized again as a "Key Player" in India Business Law Journal's 2026 report spotlighting top foreign law firms with India practices.
Work highlights in this year's report include advising Olam Holdings on the sale of its India-based technology and digital services arm, Mindsprint Pte. Ltd., to Wipro Limited, India's fourth-largest technology services ... Show Full Article PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, Aug. 1 (TNSxrep) -- K&L Gates, a law firm, issued the following news release: * * * India Business Law Journal Names K&L Gates Among Top Firms for India-Related Work in 2026 Report Global law firm K&L Gates has been recognized again as a "Key Player" in India Business Law Journal's 2026 report spotlighting top foreign law firms with India practices. Work highlights in this year's report include advising Olam Holdings on the sale of its India-based technology and digital services arm, Mindsprint Pte. Ltd., to Wipro Limited, India's fourth-largest technology servicesprovider. The transaction, reportedly Wipro's largest acquisition to date, also formed the foundation of a more than US$1 billion, eight-year digital transformation partnership between Olam and Wipro.
The report also recognizes the firm's role as counsel to Samvardhana Motherson International, one of the world's top 15 automotive OEM suppliers, on two strategic transactions: the acquisition of a 95% stake in Atsumitec, a leading Japanese manufacturer of automotive control systems and transmission components, and the investment in Rider Dome, a developer of rider assistance systems for two-wheelers.
Now in its 20th year, IBLJ's rankings are based on extensive research conducted by seasoned researchers into the type and complexity of India-related work that international law firms have undertaken over the last 12 months. It is also based on feedback from interviews with India-focused corporate counsel around the world, as well as with partners at both Indian and international law firms.
Earlier this year, Singapore partners Raja Bose and Meraj Noor were named in IBLJ's International A-List 2026 as two of India's Top Foreign Lawyers for India-related matters.
To learn more about K&L Gates' India practice, please visit our website (https://www.klgates.com/india).
* * *
K&L Gates is a globally integrated law firm trusted by sophisticated clients to deliver market leading legal counsel across jurisdictions and industries. Operating as one firm worldwide, K&L Gates combines deep local insight with seamless global coordination to address clients' most complex legal and business challenges. Guided by a relentless focus on client service, the firm delivers practical, high impact solutions with consistency, efficiency, and a clear emphasis on results.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.klgates.com/India-Business-Law-Journal-Names-KL-Gates-Among-Top-Firms-for-India-Related-Work-in-2026-Report-7-31-2026
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
India Business Law Journal Names K&L Gates Among Top Firms for India-Related Work in 2026 Report
Global law firm K&L Gates has been recognized again as a "Key Player" in India Business Law Journal's 2026 report spotlighting top foreign law firms with India practices.
Work highlights in this year's report include advising Olam Holdings on the sale of its India-based technology and digital services arm, Mindsprint Pte. Ltd., to Wipro Limited, India's fourth-largest technology services ... Show Full Article PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, Aug. 1 (TNSxrep) -- K&L Gates, a law firm, issued the following news release: * * * India Business Law Journal Names K&L Gates Among Top Firms for India-Related Work in 2026 Report Global law firm K&L Gates has been recognized again as a "Key Player" in India Business Law Journal's 2026 report spotlighting top foreign law firms with India practices. Work highlights in this year's report include advising Olam Holdings on the sale of its India-based technology and digital services arm, Mindsprint Pte. Ltd., to Wipro Limited, India's fourth-largest technology servicesprovider. The transaction, reportedly Wipro's largest acquisition to date, also formed the foundation of a more than US$1 billion, eight-year digital transformation partnership between Olam and Wipro.
The report also recognizes the firm's role as counsel to Samvardhana Motherson International, one of the world's top 15 automotive OEM suppliers, on two strategic transactions: the acquisition of a 95% stake in Atsumitec, a leading Japanese manufacturer of automotive control systems and transmission components, and the investment in Rider Dome, a developer of rider assistance systems for two-wheelers.
Now in its 20th year, IBLJ's rankings are based on extensive research conducted by seasoned researchers into the type and complexity of India-related work that international law firms have undertaken over the last 12 months. It is also based on feedback from interviews with India-focused corporate counsel around the world, as well as with partners at both Indian and international law firms.
Earlier this year, Singapore partners Raja Bose and Meraj Noor were named in IBLJ's International A-List 2026 as two of India's Top Foreign Lawyers for India-related matters.
To learn more about K&L Gates' India practice, please visit our website (https://www.klgates.com/india).
* * *
K&L Gates is a globally integrated law firm trusted by sophisticated clients to deliver market leading legal counsel across jurisdictions and industries. Operating as one firm worldwide, K&L Gates combines deep local insight with seamless global coordination to address clients' most complex legal and business challenges. Guided by a relentless focus on client service, the firm delivers practical, high impact solutions with consistency, efficiency, and a clear emphasis on results.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.klgates.com/India-Business-Law-Journal-Names-KL-Gates-Among-Top-Firms-for-India-Related-Work-in-2026-Report-7-31-2026
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Hughes Hubbard & Reed: Amina Hassan and Erin Pamukcu Examine Expansion of Tokenization Into Traditional Finance in Law360
NEW YORK, Aug. 1 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Amina Hassan and Erin Pamukcu Examine Expansion of Tokenization into Traditional Finance in Law360
Tokenization is moving into traditional financial markets through securities, banking and payments initiatives.
Highlights
* Article discusses how tokenization has moved beyond crypto-based trading venues and into traditional financial markets.
* Highlights initiatives involving the DTC tokenization pilot, tokenized commercial bank deposits and institutional stablecoin settlement.
* Examines how these ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Aug. 1 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Amina Hassan and Erin Pamukcu Examine Expansion of Tokenization into Traditional Finance in Law360 Tokenization is moving into traditional financial markets through securities, banking and payments initiatives. Highlights * Article discusses how tokenization has moved beyond crypto-based trading venues and into traditional financial markets. * Highlights initiatives involving the DTC tokenization pilot, tokenized commercial bank deposits and institutional stablecoin settlement. * Examines how theseinitiatives seek to integrate tokenization into existing legal and regulatory frameworks.
-
Amina Hassan and Erin Pamukcu authored an article in Law360 examining the legal and regulatory implications of tokenization moving into traditional financial markets.
The article discusses a July 15 announcement by the Depository Trust Company (DTC), touting its successful use of tokens representing DTC-held securities to complete real world trades, signaling that tokenization is no longer limited to crypto-based trading ventures.
This announcement is part of a broader trend across industry-regulated financial institutions, which is testing whether settlements in traditional finance can be made faster, more programmable and more interoperable by moving them onto distributed ledgers.
The article highlights three initiatives in different sectors of the financial industry that illustrate this trend: the DTC tokenization pilot; an intra-bank initiative to launch a shared tokenized-deposit network; and a collaboration between Visa Inc. and fintech Brale to explore stablecoin-based settlement of institutional payments.
"Rather than creating a separate legal ecosystem, these initiatives reflect efforts to integrate tokenization into existing legal and regulatory frameworks for securities, banking, and payments settlements while preserving the underlying legal rights and obligations of market participants," the authors write.
Ultimately, the article argues that these initiatives don't alter the existing legal and regulatory framework for settlements, but are nonetheless incredibly significant to financial institutions, fintech companies and counsel navigating this sector.
"Together, these initiatives represent an incremental but potentially important step toward integrating distributed ledger technology into traditional financial markets," the article states.
Read the article (https://www.law360.com/articles/2503561).
* * *
Featured Lawyers
Amina Hassan
Partner
Locations
New York
amina.hassan@hugheshubbard.com
+1 (212) 837-6793
* * *
Erin Pamukcu
Associate
Locations
New York
erin.pamukcu@hugheshubbard.com
+1 (212) 837-6187
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hugheshubbard.com/news-insights/insights/amina-hassan-and-erin-pamukcu-examine-expansion-of-tokenization-into-traditional-finance-in-law360
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Amina Hassan and Erin Pamukcu Examine Expansion of Tokenization into Traditional Finance in Law360
Tokenization is moving into traditional financial markets through securities, banking and payments initiatives.
Highlights
* Article discusses how tokenization has moved beyond crypto-based trading venues and into traditional financial markets.
* Highlights initiatives involving the DTC tokenization pilot, tokenized commercial bank deposits and institutional stablecoin settlement.
* Examines how these ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Aug. 1 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Amina Hassan and Erin Pamukcu Examine Expansion of Tokenization into Traditional Finance in Law360 Tokenization is moving into traditional financial markets through securities, banking and payments initiatives. Highlights * Article discusses how tokenization has moved beyond crypto-based trading venues and into traditional financial markets. * Highlights initiatives involving the DTC tokenization pilot, tokenized commercial bank deposits and institutional stablecoin settlement. * Examines how theseinitiatives seek to integrate tokenization into existing legal and regulatory frameworks.
-
Amina Hassan and Erin Pamukcu authored an article in Law360 examining the legal and regulatory implications of tokenization moving into traditional financial markets.
The article discusses a July 15 announcement by the Depository Trust Company (DTC), touting its successful use of tokens representing DTC-held securities to complete real world trades, signaling that tokenization is no longer limited to crypto-based trading ventures.
This announcement is part of a broader trend across industry-regulated financial institutions, which is testing whether settlements in traditional finance can be made faster, more programmable and more interoperable by moving them onto distributed ledgers.
The article highlights three initiatives in different sectors of the financial industry that illustrate this trend: the DTC tokenization pilot; an intra-bank initiative to launch a shared tokenized-deposit network; and a collaboration between Visa Inc. and fintech Brale to explore stablecoin-based settlement of institutional payments.
"Rather than creating a separate legal ecosystem, these initiatives reflect efforts to integrate tokenization into existing legal and regulatory frameworks for securities, banking, and payments settlements while preserving the underlying legal rights and obligations of market participants," the authors write.
Ultimately, the article argues that these initiatives don't alter the existing legal and regulatory framework for settlements, but are nonetheless incredibly significant to financial institutions, fintech companies and counsel navigating this sector.
"Together, these initiatives represent an incremental but potentially important step toward integrating distributed ledger technology into traditional financial markets," the article states.
Read the article (https://www.law360.com/articles/2503561).
* * *
Featured Lawyers
Amina Hassan
Partner
Locations
New York
amina.hassan@hugheshubbard.com
+1 (212) 837-6793
* * *
Erin Pamukcu
Associate
Locations
New York
erin.pamukcu@hugheshubbard.com
+1 (212) 837-6187
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hugheshubbard.com/news-insights/insights/amina-hassan-and-erin-pamukcu-examine-expansion-of-tokenization-into-traditional-finance-in-law360
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: H-2A Farmworker Rates Are Here - What Agricultural Employers Need to Know
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 1 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 31, 2026:
* * *
New H-2A Farmworker Rates Are Here: What Agricultural Employers Need to Know
H-2A agricultural employers have been awaiting the Department of Labor's publication of the new H-2A Adverse Effect Wage Rates (AEWRs), and eager to hear how soon they would be required to update rates. Federal officials just released a public inspection copy of the new rates, which is set to be published in the Federal Register on Monday. Below are the key takeaways for H-2A employers.
Quick Background
The ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 1 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 31, 2026: * * * New H-2A Farmworker Rates Are Here: What Agricultural Employers Need to Know H-2A agricultural employers have been awaiting the Department of Labor's publication of the new H-2A Adverse Effect Wage Rates (AEWRs), and eager to hear how soon they would be required to update rates. Federal officials just released a public inspection copy of the new rates, which is set to be published in the Federal Register on Monday. Below are the key takeaways for H-2A employers. Quick Background TheDOL issued an interim final rule in October 2025 that dramatically reshaped the H-2A program's minimum wage policy. Under this framework, the DOL calculates the AEWR for H-2A job orders using a new skill-based and occupation specific wage structure. While the United Farm Workers are currently challenging the rule, a federal court in California officially denied the UFW's request to temporarily block the rule while the litigation plays out.
When are the new rates effective?
Per the notice, the rates are effective immediately once it is published on August 3 for most states. However, a slightly later effective date (August 17) will apply to states covered by a 2024 court ruling related to the Farmworker Protection Rule, including: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
What are the new rates?
We expect the rates to be published here, though they haven't been updated as of publication of this Insight.
The new rates, which should be published by Monday, will vary between the "Big 5" occupations (which cover more than 95% of jobs) versus "other" occupations (such as heavy truck drivers, mechanics, and first-line supervisors). Rates will further vary based on "skill levels" and the "adverse compensation adjustment" (which aims to reflect other employer expenses, such as housing provided to workers at "no cost").
Remember, employers must pay the highest of the AEWR, the state minimum wage, the federal minimum wage, or the prevailing wage. This means, for example, that the new AEWRs will not change anything for employers where the state minimum wage is higher, such as California. In addition, if the published AEWR (including the adverse compensation adjustment) is lower than the current wage in the employer's job order, the employer must continue to pay at least the rate guaranteed on the job order.
Any updates to the average AEWR used for calculating H-2ALC surety bonds?
The national average AEWR decreased from $17.74 (where it's been since January 1, 2025) to $15.96. The national average AEWR is the number used to calculate H-2ALC surety bonds, so those employers will see a reduction in surety bond costs.
This average is used exclusively for purposes of calculating the surety bonds that farm labor contractors must purchase when they apply to hire H-2A workers. It takes the average for each state for a single occupation - though that isn't a wage rate that anyone would be paid, it's just one of the factors for calculating those bond amounts.
Sidenote: What's happening with agricultural wage rates in California?
As we reported earlier this year, California lawmakers are considering a bill (AB 2646) that would functionally raise the hourly minimum wage to $19.75 for H-2A employees and "corresponding employees."
The proposal currently defines "corresponding employee" more broadly than the H-2A definition and would include any other agricultural local employee performing the same or similar work at the same time for the same employer in the same county. If finalized, this would mean that if an H-2A employer had local workers performing similar work in non-H-2A approved fields in the same county, those local workers would be entitled to the $19.75 wage.
The state bill passed the Assembly in May, but it remains to be seen whether it will pass the Senate and ultimately be signed into law by Governor Newsom.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor federal AEWR updates and California's AB 2646. We will provide updates as warranted, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to gather the most up-to-date information. If you have questions, please contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney on our Agriculture Industry Team.
* * *
Related People
Rebecca Hause-Schultz
Partner
916.210.0391
rhause-schultz@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Chris Schulte
Partner
202.559.2440
cschulte@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Joshua H. Viau
Co-Regional Managing Partner
404.240.4269
jviau@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/new-h-2a-farmworker-rates-are-here
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
New H-2A Farmworker Rates Are Here: What Agricultural Employers Need to Know
H-2A agricultural employers have been awaiting the Department of Labor's publication of the new H-2A Adverse Effect Wage Rates (AEWRs), and eager to hear how soon they would be required to update rates. Federal officials just released a public inspection copy of the new rates, which is set to be published in the Federal Register on Monday. Below are the key takeaways for H-2A employers.
Quick Background
The ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 1 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 31, 2026: * * * New H-2A Farmworker Rates Are Here: What Agricultural Employers Need to Know H-2A agricultural employers have been awaiting the Department of Labor's publication of the new H-2A Adverse Effect Wage Rates (AEWRs), and eager to hear how soon they would be required to update rates. Federal officials just released a public inspection copy of the new rates, which is set to be published in the Federal Register on Monday. Below are the key takeaways for H-2A employers. Quick Background TheDOL issued an interim final rule in October 2025 that dramatically reshaped the H-2A program's minimum wage policy. Under this framework, the DOL calculates the AEWR for H-2A job orders using a new skill-based and occupation specific wage structure. While the United Farm Workers are currently challenging the rule, a federal court in California officially denied the UFW's request to temporarily block the rule while the litigation plays out.
When are the new rates effective?
Per the notice, the rates are effective immediately once it is published on August 3 for most states. However, a slightly later effective date (August 17) will apply to states covered by a 2024 court ruling related to the Farmworker Protection Rule, including: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
What are the new rates?
We expect the rates to be published here, though they haven't been updated as of publication of this Insight.
The new rates, which should be published by Monday, will vary between the "Big 5" occupations (which cover more than 95% of jobs) versus "other" occupations (such as heavy truck drivers, mechanics, and first-line supervisors). Rates will further vary based on "skill levels" and the "adverse compensation adjustment" (which aims to reflect other employer expenses, such as housing provided to workers at "no cost").
Remember, employers must pay the highest of the AEWR, the state minimum wage, the federal minimum wage, or the prevailing wage. This means, for example, that the new AEWRs will not change anything for employers where the state minimum wage is higher, such as California. In addition, if the published AEWR (including the adverse compensation adjustment) is lower than the current wage in the employer's job order, the employer must continue to pay at least the rate guaranteed on the job order.
Any updates to the average AEWR used for calculating H-2ALC surety bonds?
The national average AEWR decreased from $17.74 (where it's been since January 1, 2025) to $15.96. The national average AEWR is the number used to calculate H-2ALC surety bonds, so those employers will see a reduction in surety bond costs.
This average is used exclusively for purposes of calculating the surety bonds that farm labor contractors must purchase when they apply to hire H-2A workers. It takes the average for each state for a single occupation - though that isn't a wage rate that anyone would be paid, it's just one of the factors for calculating those bond amounts.
Sidenote: What's happening with agricultural wage rates in California?
As we reported earlier this year, California lawmakers are considering a bill (AB 2646) that would functionally raise the hourly minimum wage to $19.75 for H-2A employees and "corresponding employees."
The proposal currently defines "corresponding employee" more broadly than the H-2A definition and would include any other agricultural local employee performing the same or similar work at the same time for the same employer in the same county. If finalized, this would mean that if an H-2A employer had local workers performing similar work in non-H-2A approved fields in the same county, those local workers would be entitled to the $19.75 wage.
The state bill passed the Assembly in May, but it remains to be seen whether it will pass the Senate and ultimately be signed into law by Governor Newsom.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor federal AEWR updates and California's AB 2646. We will provide updates as warranted, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to gather the most up-to-date information. If you have questions, please contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney on our Agriculture Industry Team.
* * *
Related People
Rebecca Hause-Schultz
Partner
916.210.0391
rhause-schultz@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Chris Schulte
Partner
202.559.2440
cschulte@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Joshua H. Viau
Co-Regional Managing Partner
404.240.4269
jviau@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/new-h-2a-farmworker-rates-are-here
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down OSHA's Workplace Mental Illness Recordkeeping Rule - 7 Steps For Employers
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 1 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 31, 2026:
* * *
Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down OSHA's Workplace Mental Illness Recordkeeping Rule: 7 Steps For Employers
A recent federal appeals court decision knocked down an agency rule requiring employers to record certain work-related mental illnesses on their OSHA 300 Logs. The 5th Circuit's July 21 opinion in Exxon Mobil v. OSHA concluded that the agency exceeded the authority Congress granted under the Occupational Safety and Health Act when it passed this regulation. While this decision ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 1 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 31, 2026: * * * Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down OSHA's Workplace Mental Illness Recordkeeping Rule: 7 Steps For Employers A recent federal appeals court decision knocked down an agency rule requiring employers to record certain work-related mental illnesses on their OSHA 300 Logs. The 5th Circuit's July 21 opinion in Exxon Mobil v. OSHA concluded that the agency exceeded the authority Congress granted under the Occupational Safety and Health Act when it passed this regulation. While this decisionnarrows OSHA's recordkeeping authority, you should not read it as diminishing the importance of workplace mental health - and remain aware of state-related obligations that may still require you to record such illnesses. What do you need to know about the case and what seven steps should you take at your workplace as a result?
What Happened?
The case arose after a catastrophic refinery explosion in Texas that required employees to assist with emergency response efforts. One employee later received multiple diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from healthcare providers, each attributing the condition to the workplace incident.
The employer ultimately declined to record the diagnosis on its OSHA 300 Log after obtaining an additional medical opinion. OSHA cited the employer for failing to record the illness, and an administrative law judge affirmed the citation and imposed a monetary penalty. After the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission allowed that decision to become final, the employer sought review in the 5th Circuit.
Court's Opinion: OSHA Lacked Power to Pass Rule
The 5th Circuit ruled in favor of the employer and vacated OSHA's rule requiring employers to log mental health illnesses on OSHA 300 logs. It framed the dispute as one of statutory authority, not workplace mental health.
The court examined Section 8(c)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which authorizes OSHA to require employers to maintain records of work-related "deaths, injuries and illnesses." The court concluded that, when read in context, Congress intended that provision to address physical injuries and illnesses rather than mental health conditions.
In reaching that conclusion, the court emphasized several points:
* The statutory language surrounding "illnesses" focuses on concepts such as first aid, loss of consciousness, restricted work, and job transfer, all of which the court viewed as addressing physical injuries.
* Other portions of the Act's recordkeeping framework likewise focus on physical workplace hazards, toxic substances, and harmful physical agents.
* Historical dictionary definitions available when Congress enacted the OSH Act did not persuade the court that "illnesses" was commonly understood to include mental illnesses in this context.
* Applying the Supreme Court's recent administrative law decisions putting more power in the hands of courts, the 5th Circuit concluded that OSHA had identified a plausible interpretation of the statute, but not its best interpretation.
Accordingly, the 5th Circuit vacated both OSHA's mental illness recordkeeping regulation and the citation issued in the case.
Where Does the Decision Apply?
The court's decision vacated the underlying regulation itself, which means that federal OSHA no longer has a valid regulatory basis to cite any employer for failing to record work-related mental illness regardless of where that employer sits. That means that the ruling doesn't just apply to employers in the 5th Circuit's jurisdiction (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) but to businesses from coast to coast.
But about half the states in the US have state OSHA plans of their own, and most state-plan states have adopted matching mental illness recordkeeping rules. This decision doesn't automatically repeal those state provisions. You will want to work with your safety counsel to determine whether you have continuing obligations in your state.
What the Opinion Does NOT Say
Regardless of where you operate, the opinion does not suggest that employers should reduce their focus on employee mental health following traumatic workplace events. The court expressly recognized the importance of protecting employee mental health. Its decision addressed only whether Congress authorized OSHA to mandate recording work-related mental illnesses under the existing statutory language.
This decision also does not eliminate other employment-related obligations that may arise following traumatic workplace incidents, including issues involving employee leave, accommodations, benefits, confidentiality, workers' compensation, and other legal requirements.
7 Steps You Should Consider Taking
Safety professionals, HR leaders, and in-house counsel should consider taking the following steps:
1. Review OSHA Recordkeeping Practices
Update internal OSHA recordkeeping procedures, guidance documents, and training materials to determine whether they rely on the now-vacated regulation. Multi-state employers should also evaluate whether applicable state-plan OSHA requirements differ from the federal framework.
2. Continue Supporting Employees After Traumatic Events
Nothing in the decision discourages you from offering mental health resources to your workforce. Employee assistance programs, crisis response teams, peer-support initiatives, and trauma-informed follow-up remain important components of an effective safety culture. Check out our guide to supporting employee mental health here.
3. Separate Recordkeeping Decisions From Employee Care
Whether an illness is recordable for OSHA purposes should not determine whether an employee receives appropriate support. You should maintain separate processes for OSHA recordkeeping, disability management, leave administration, accommodations, and employee well-being.
4. Review Incident Response Protocols
Significant workplace incidents often generate simultaneous safety, medical, legal, and HR issues. You should ensure that incident response procedures clearly define each department's role, including how medical information is evaluated and documented.
5. Protect Medical Confidentiality
Mental health information should continue to be handled with appropriate confidentiality safeguards. Ensure that medical information is maintained separately from general incident investigation materials whenever appropriate.
6. Train Safety and HR Personnel
Personnel responsible for OSHA recordkeeping should understand the scope of the 5th Circuit's decision while avoiding the misconception that it changes broader employer responsibilities relating to employee health and well-being.
7. Monitor Future Developments
This decision may not represent the final word. OSHA could consider additional regulatory action, Congress could amend the statute, or other courts could address similar issues. You should continue monitoring developments before making significant changes to your compliance programs.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor developments in this area and provide updates as warranted, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information. If you have questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in our Workplace Safety and Catastrophe Management Practice Group.
* * *
Related People
John D. Surma
Partner
713.292.5633
jsurma@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-oshas-workplace-mental-illness-recordkeeping-rule
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down OSHA's Workplace Mental Illness Recordkeeping Rule: 7 Steps For Employers
A recent federal appeals court decision knocked down an agency rule requiring employers to record certain work-related mental illnesses on their OSHA 300 Logs. The 5th Circuit's July 21 opinion in Exxon Mobil v. OSHA concluded that the agency exceeded the authority Congress granted under the Occupational Safety and Health Act when it passed this regulation. While this decision ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 1 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 31, 2026: * * * Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down OSHA's Workplace Mental Illness Recordkeeping Rule: 7 Steps For Employers A recent federal appeals court decision knocked down an agency rule requiring employers to record certain work-related mental illnesses on their OSHA 300 Logs. The 5th Circuit's July 21 opinion in Exxon Mobil v. OSHA concluded that the agency exceeded the authority Congress granted under the Occupational Safety and Health Act when it passed this regulation. While this decisionnarrows OSHA's recordkeeping authority, you should not read it as diminishing the importance of workplace mental health - and remain aware of state-related obligations that may still require you to record such illnesses. What do you need to know about the case and what seven steps should you take at your workplace as a result?
What Happened?
The case arose after a catastrophic refinery explosion in Texas that required employees to assist with emergency response efforts. One employee later received multiple diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from healthcare providers, each attributing the condition to the workplace incident.
The employer ultimately declined to record the diagnosis on its OSHA 300 Log after obtaining an additional medical opinion. OSHA cited the employer for failing to record the illness, and an administrative law judge affirmed the citation and imposed a monetary penalty. After the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission allowed that decision to become final, the employer sought review in the 5th Circuit.
Court's Opinion: OSHA Lacked Power to Pass Rule
The 5th Circuit ruled in favor of the employer and vacated OSHA's rule requiring employers to log mental health illnesses on OSHA 300 logs. It framed the dispute as one of statutory authority, not workplace mental health.
The court examined Section 8(c)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which authorizes OSHA to require employers to maintain records of work-related "deaths, injuries and illnesses." The court concluded that, when read in context, Congress intended that provision to address physical injuries and illnesses rather than mental health conditions.
In reaching that conclusion, the court emphasized several points:
* The statutory language surrounding "illnesses" focuses on concepts such as first aid, loss of consciousness, restricted work, and job transfer, all of which the court viewed as addressing physical injuries.
* Other portions of the Act's recordkeeping framework likewise focus on physical workplace hazards, toxic substances, and harmful physical agents.
* Historical dictionary definitions available when Congress enacted the OSH Act did not persuade the court that "illnesses" was commonly understood to include mental illnesses in this context.
* Applying the Supreme Court's recent administrative law decisions putting more power in the hands of courts, the 5th Circuit concluded that OSHA had identified a plausible interpretation of the statute, but not its best interpretation.
Accordingly, the 5th Circuit vacated both OSHA's mental illness recordkeeping regulation and the citation issued in the case.
Where Does the Decision Apply?
The court's decision vacated the underlying regulation itself, which means that federal OSHA no longer has a valid regulatory basis to cite any employer for failing to record work-related mental illness regardless of where that employer sits. That means that the ruling doesn't just apply to employers in the 5th Circuit's jurisdiction (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) but to businesses from coast to coast.
But about half the states in the US have state OSHA plans of their own, and most state-plan states have adopted matching mental illness recordkeeping rules. This decision doesn't automatically repeal those state provisions. You will want to work with your safety counsel to determine whether you have continuing obligations in your state.
What the Opinion Does NOT Say
Regardless of where you operate, the opinion does not suggest that employers should reduce their focus on employee mental health following traumatic workplace events. The court expressly recognized the importance of protecting employee mental health. Its decision addressed only whether Congress authorized OSHA to mandate recording work-related mental illnesses under the existing statutory language.
This decision also does not eliminate other employment-related obligations that may arise following traumatic workplace incidents, including issues involving employee leave, accommodations, benefits, confidentiality, workers' compensation, and other legal requirements.
7 Steps You Should Consider Taking
Safety professionals, HR leaders, and in-house counsel should consider taking the following steps:
1. Review OSHA Recordkeeping Practices
Update internal OSHA recordkeeping procedures, guidance documents, and training materials to determine whether they rely on the now-vacated regulation. Multi-state employers should also evaluate whether applicable state-plan OSHA requirements differ from the federal framework.
2. Continue Supporting Employees After Traumatic Events
Nothing in the decision discourages you from offering mental health resources to your workforce. Employee assistance programs, crisis response teams, peer-support initiatives, and trauma-informed follow-up remain important components of an effective safety culture. Check out our guide to supporting employee mental health here.
3. Separate Recordkeeping Decisions From Employee Care
Whether an illness is recordable for OSHA purposes should not determine whether an employee receives appropriate support. You should maintain separate processes for OSHA recordkeeping, disability management, leave administration, accommodations, and employee well-being.
4. Review Incident Response Protocols
Significant workplace incidents often generate simultaneous safety, medical, legal, and HR issues. You should ensure that incident response procedures clearly define each department's role, including how medical information is evaluated and documented.
5. Protect Medical Confidentiality
Mental health information should continue to be handled with appropriate confidentiality safeguards. Ensure that medical information is maintained separately from general incident investigation materials whenever appropriate.
6. Train Safety and HR Personnel
Personnel responsible for OSHA recordkeeping should understand the scope of the 5th Circuit's decision while avoiding the misconception that it changes broader employer responsibilities relating to employee health and well-being.
7. Monitor Future Developments
This decision may not represent the final word. OSHA could consider additional regulatory action, Congress could amend the statute, or other courts could address similar issues. You should continue monitoring developments before making significant changes to your compliance programs.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor developments in this area and provide updates as warranted, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information. If you have questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in our Workplace Safety and Catastrophe Management Practice Group.
* * *
Related People
John D. Surma
Partner
713.292.5633
jsurma@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-oshas-workplace-mental-illness-recordkeeping-rule
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]