Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
President Marc Chapman Shares Insights on Central Florida's Economy Via Published Interview
ORLANDO, Florida, April 21 -- Dean Mead, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
President Marc Chapman Shares Insights on Central Florida's Economy Via Published Interview
Dean Mead is pleased to announce the publication of a featured interview with firm President and Shareholder Marc Chapman. In the interview, published by Capital Analytics Associates, Marc offers perspective on Central Florida's industry trends and economic growth. He shares the firm's views on its expansion, spotlighted by the rise of public equity and real estate activity, and the impact of technology on legal
... Show Full Article
ORLANDO, Florida, April 21 -- Dean Mead, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
President Marc Chapman Shares Insights on Central Florida's Economy Via Published Interview
Dean Mead is pleased to announce the publication of a featured interview with firm President and Shareholder Marc Chapman. In the interview, published by Capital Analytics Associates, Marc offers perspective on Central Florida's industry trends and economic growth. He shares the firm's views on its expansion, spotlighted by the rise of public equity and real estate activity, and the impact of technology on legalservices.
Marc addresses questions addressing: the legal and business climate in Orlando; the impact of regulatory, tax, and legislative developments on Central Florida businesses; shifts in merger and acquisition activity and succession planning; opportunities and risks in Central Florida's real estate and construction markets; and, how the firm approaches recruitment.
Marc notes, "The broader Orlando outlook remains strong. Real estate and development demand remain steady, and investment activity continues. Orlando's collaborative business culture is also a strength. The more quality companies and professional services firms the region attracts, the more opportunity it creates across the market, and we have grown alongside that momentum."
Highlights of the transcript will be published in Invest: Greater Orlando's 4th Edition to be released September 2026. Review the interview transcript: https://capitalanalyticsassociates.com/marc-chapman-president-dean-mead-orlando/.
* * *
About Capital Analytics Associates: Recognized as an integrated media platform that produces in-depth business intelligence through its annual print and digital economic reviews, high-impact conferences and events, and top-level interviews via its video platform, Invest: Insights. Learn more: https://capitalanalyticsassociates.com/.
* * *
Featured Professionals
Marc D. Chapman
Attorney
O: (407) 428-5127 F: (407) 423-1831
* * *
Original text here: https://www.deanmead.com/president-marc-chapman-shares-insights-on-central-floridas-economy-via-published-interview/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Lightbulb - March 2026 Employment Appellate Roundup
SAN FRANCISCO, California, April 21 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Littler Lightbulb - March 2026 Employment Appellate Roundup
At a Glance
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment and labor law developments in the federal courts of appeal in the last month.
By Linde Blocher
Fourth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Plaintiffs Claims Based on Joint Employer Doctrine
The plaintiffs in Hoffman v. Inova Health Care Services, 169 F.4th 207 (4th Cir., Mar. 3, 2026)/1 were nurse anesthetists employed by a medical group that provided anesthesia
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, April 21 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Littler Lightbulb - March 2026 Employment Appellate Roundup
At a Glance
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment and labor law developments in the federal courts of appeal in the last month.
By Linde Blocher
Fourth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Plaintiffs Claims Based on Joint Employer Doctrine
The plaintiffs in Hoffman v. Inova Health Care Services, 169 F.4th 207 (4th Cir., Mar. 3, 2026)/1 were nurse anesthetists employed by a medical group that provided anesthesiaservices to facilities operated by the defendant health care services provider. After the plaintiffs refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19, the hospitals where they worked suspended their clinical privileges, and two months later the medical group that employed them terminated their employment. The plaintiffs sued the defendant health care services provider alleging violation of Title VII, the ADA, and the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA). The district court dismissed their claims on the grounds that defendant health care services provider was not the plaintiffs' employer.
The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which considered whether in this case "multiple entities [could] simultaneously be considered" the plaintiffs' employer under the "joint employment doctrine." The court applied the nine-factor test from Butler v. Drive Automotive Industries of America, Inc., 793 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2015) used to determine "which entities actually exercise control over an employee...: (1) authority to hire and fire the individual; (2) day-to-day supervision of the individual, including employee discipline; (3) whether the putative employer furnishes the equipment used and the place of work; (4) possession of and responsibility over the individual's employment records, including payroll, insurance, and taxes; (5) the length of time during which the individual has worked for the putative employer; (6) whether the putative employer provides the individual with formal or informal training; (7) whether the individual's duties are akin to a regular employee's duties; (8) whether the individual is assigned solely to the putative employer; and (9) whether the individual and putative employer intended to enter into an employment relationship."
The Fourth Circuit found the plaintiffs failed to satisfy any of these factors. Neither had plausibly alleged that the defendant health care services provider had the authority to hire or fire them. As to day-to-day supervision of their work, the plaintiffs offered only conclusory allegations without additional supporting facts, even after being granted the opportunity to amend their complaints. Although the hospitals where they worked had general authority over the administration of the provision of medical services, the Fourth Circuit stated that "a measure of control over 'medical services rendered at hospitals' is not 'a reliable indicator' of an employer-employee relationship, because a 'hospital must assert a degree of . . . control over every [medical provider's] work--whether an employee, an independent contractor, or a [provider] merely with privileges--to discharge its own professional responsibility to patients."
Regarding other elements of control, the court similarly found that in a hospital setting the use of hospital equipment and facilities is standard practice and not an indicator of joint employment. The training allegedly provided involved such things as harassment and patient privacy that was generally required by law and provided to all individuals treating patients, regardless of employment status. Significantly, although the plaintiffs alleged they performed generalized patient care tasks performed by staff nurses, such as "placing an IV line," there was no indication that they performed these tasks outside of their roles as anesthesiology service providers. Thus, applying all the Butler factors, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims.
Tenth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for the Employer in Age Discrimination Suit
The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer in Sousa v. Chipotle Services, LLC, 167 F.4th 1286(10th Cir. Mar. 2, 2026), in which the plaintiff alleged the employer's reasons for termination - pest and cleanliness issues at the restaurants he was responsible for overseeing - were a pretext for age discrimination.
In support of his claim, the plaintiff alleged, among other things, that two younger employees who were supervised by the same person who supervised him and decided to terminate his employment were not terminated for the pest or cleanliness problems at their restaurants. He argued that once he made this allegation, it was for a jury, not the court, to determine whether he was similarly situated to these younger employees. Rejecting this argument the Tenth Circuit stated that a court evaluating a motion for summary judgment "must determine whether [a] 'plaintiff has adduced enough evidence to support a finding that the other employee[s] and plaintiff were sufficiently similarly situated to support an inference of discrimination.'" In this case, the court found the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that he was treated differently than similarly situated employees.
Next, the plaintiff argued that the termination of another employee who, like the plaintiff, was terminated for pest and cleanliness problems in her stores and was older than the supervisor who terminated them, was additional evidence of age discrimination. Again, the Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to show that the conditions in this employee's store were comparable to conditions in the younger employees' stores.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Tenth Circuit concluded there was insufficient evidence that the plaintiff was terminated based on his age rather than due to undisputed pest and cleanliness problems at his stores.
Third Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Companies in Union Effort to Collect Withdrawal Liability
RTI Restoration Techs., Inc. v. Int'l Painters & Allied Trades Indus. Pension Fund, 169 F.4th 140 (3d Cir. Mar. 3, 2026) involved a declaratory judgment action by two companies in response to efforts by a union pension fund to collect withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA). The district court granted summary judgment to the companies on the grounds that the fund, which sought withdrawal liability eight years after the original employer went out of business, failed to notify the companies of their withdrawal liability "[a]s soon as practicable" as required under the MPPAA.
The fund appealed to the Third Circuit arguing that the companies waived their defense to withdrawal liability by failing to pursue arbitration when they were notified of the fund's demand for withdrawal liability. While acknowledging that the MPPAA "expresses a 'clear preference for self-regulation through arbitration,'" the Third Circuit held that nothing in the text of the MPPAA or the Supreme Court's decision in Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Tr. Fund v. Ferbar Corp., 522 U.S. 192, 196 (1997) implies that the "as soon as practicable" requirement can be raised only as a defense at arbitration.
The court distinguished decisions from other circuits holding that the "as soon as practicable" defense to withdrawal liability must be raised in arbitration because, unlike those cases, in this case the companies challenged their status as the employer. The companies had never entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the union and never agreed to make contributions to the pension fund. Their only connection with the original employer was that an officer of the original employer, who died three years before the union demanded withdrawal liability, was "at various times" a business partner, an employee, and part-owner of the companies.
Assessing all these factors, the Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the companies.
Sixth Circuit Denies NLRB Petition for Enforcement of a Bargaining Order
In another union-related case, Brown-Forman Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 169 F.4th 646 (6th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026), the Sixth Circuit addressed a company's challenge to the NLRB's issuance of a bargaining order following an Administrative Law Judge's finding that the company committed unfair labor practices and interfered with its employees' efforts to unionize.
Rather than adhering to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969), which held that after determining that the initial election should be set aside, the Board should order a new election when a fair one is possible, the Board went directly to issuance of a bargaining order. The Sixth Circuit denied the Board's petition for enforcement of the bargaining order, stating that "[t]he Board is empowered to issue a bargaining order, but only if other remedies are insufficient to protect employees' choice to unionize. Bargaining orders are considered a last resort ...because 'secret elections are generally the most satisfactory--indeed the preferred--method of ascertaining whether a union has majority support.'" To issue a bargaining order, the Board first needs to make a factual finding "a fair election cannot [occur] under all the circumstances," which it failed to do in this case, the court stated.
The Sixth Circuit also rejected the Board's justification for the issuance of the bargaining order: to "deter future, hypothetical violations of the Act." Citing prior Sixth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court precedent the court stated: "The Board does not have broad authority to impose sanctions solely for the purpose of deterring future violations of the Act." Accordingly, the court held, in issuing the bargaining order the Board exceeded its authority.
First Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Employer in Age Discrimination and Constructive Discharge Case Based on a Performance Improvement Plan
Ten months after being placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) that she successfully completed, the plaintiff in Walsh v. HNTB Corporation,169 F.4th 330 (1st Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), resigned and sued her employer for age discrimination and constructive discharge based on the PIP, a cessation in pay raises, and an alleged decrease in job duties. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer on the ground that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of an adverse employment action, and the plaintiff appealed to the First Circuit.
In assessing the plaintiff's age discrimination claims, the First Circuit considered the Supreme Court's decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024), issued after the district court's summary judgment ruling, which held that employees no longer needed to show a material change in their work conditions to establish an adverse employment action. Under Muldrow "an adverse action is any employment event, regardless of its severity, in which an employer's conduct leaves an employee (1) 'worse off' (2) with respect to the 'terms [or] conditions' of their employment." Applying this standard, the First Circuit stated that determining whether a PIP constitutes an adverse employment action requires a fact-intensive inquiry. Examining the facts, the court found that in this case the PIP did not constitute an adverse employment action. It did not assign the plaintiff new duties, alter her title or compensation, limit her ability to seek other opportunities within the company, or alter her employment conditions. In fact, the court found, the PIP "appears to be nothing more than 'documented counseling.'"
As to the plaintiff's claim that she stopped receiving pay increases during her final three years of employment, the court found that this was because she had reached the pay ceiling for her job grade. The First Circuit also rejected plaintiff's claim that she was stripped of job duties. Although loss of job duties can constitute an adverse action under Muldrow, the court stated that the plaintiff in this case failed to identify job duties she lost. Lastly, the court addressed plaintiff's constructive discharge claim based on comments by the plaintiff's supervisor, including stating that she could be "replaced with younger, cheaper people." Citing prior First Circuit precedent the court stated that "employer comments suggesting possible age bias are not themselves grounds for quitting," and that none of her manager's comments or actions created an objectively intolerable workplace that would support a claim of constructive discharge.
Eleventh Affirms Summary Judgment for Employer in Race Discrimination and Retaliation Case
The plaintiff in Johnson v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 169 F.4th 1301 (11th Cir. Mar 19, 2026), a Black police officer who was terminated after receiving five disciplinary actions in two and a half years, claimed he was terminated based on his race in violation of Title VII. The case was the plaintiff's second appeal to the Eleventh Circuit following issuance of Lewis v. City of Union City, 918 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2019), in which the court clarified the standard for evaluating whether a plaintiff's proposed comparators satisfied the "similarly situated" element of the prima facie case for discrimination. Applying Lewis, the Eleventh Circuit found the alleged comparators had materially different disciplinary records and therefore were not "similarly situated in all material respects." Examining the full record, the court found that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence of discriminatory intent.
The plaintiff also claimed he was terminated in retaliation for filing multiple EEOC complaints. The Eleventh Circuit also rejected this claim because, among other things, it found that the two-month period, which was the shortest time between the filing of an EEOC complaint and disciplinary action against the plaintiff, was too long to establish retaliation.
Based on its review of the law and the facts, the Eleventh Circuit again affirmed summary judgment for the employer on all claims.
Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court's Denial of Employer's Motion to Compel Arbitration
In Sandler v. Modernizing Med., Inc., 170 F.4th 1209 (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2026), the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the employer's motion to compel arbitration of the issue of the validity and enforceability of an employment contract, including its arbitration provision. Assessing the district court's decision, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court erroneously applied state law to determine the question of arbitrability. The court stated that although state law principles usually govern contract formation, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the decision about arbitrability is controlled by federal law.
In this case, the employment contract specified that any employment-related disputes would be subject to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Moreover, under the FAA, the court stated, "[w]ho gets to decide the arbitration agreement's validity--an arbitrator or a court--depends on whether there is 'clear and unmistakable' evidence that the parties agreed to delegate the validity question to the arbitrator." Examining the contract further, the Ninth Circuit concluded the employment agreement's incorporation of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (JAMS) rules delegating the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator, reflected clear and unmistakable intent that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.
Eleventh Circuit Affirms Judgment for the City in Title VII Reverse Race Discrimination and Retaliation Claims
Joyner v. City of Atlanta, 170 F.4th 1320 (11th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026), involved, among other things, Title VII claims by a white police officer that he was discriminated against because of his race and retaliated against for complaining of race discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the city on the plaintiff's retaliation claim but denied summary judgment to the city on his Title VII race discrimination claim, which proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the city. The plaintiff appealed both decisions to the Eleventh Circuit.
The Eleventh Circuit began its analysis by assessing the plaintiff's claim that he was not promoted to police captain in retaliation for a complaint about race discrimination he made nearly seven years earlier. Following a detailed evaluation of the facts, the court concluded that the decisionmaker for the position was unaware of the plaintiff's complaint, which was sufficient to defeat the plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim. The court also rejected the plaintiff's claim that he suffered a long-simmering pattern of resentment following his complaint. In fact, during that time the plaintiff was given an opportunity to lead an elite unit but had multiple performance issues.
After the jury's verdict in favor of the city on the plaintiff's Title VII race discrimination claim, the plaintiff filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law with the district court based on the police chief's testimony that he "reserved a certain number of seats for particular races, to the exclusion of all other races." The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the district court's denial of the motion because, it held, the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements of a Title VII claim: that he suffered an adverse employment action, and that race was a motivating factor in that adverse employment action. Examining the facts, the Eleventh Circuit found that the plaintiff was not promoted to captain because he was not qualified for the position due to numerous performance issues.
Based on these factors, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed judgment for the city on both the Title VII retaliation and discrimination claims.
* * *
See Footnotes
1/ Littler represented Inova Health Care Services, the defendant in this case.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/littler-lightbulb-march-2026-employment-appellate-roundup
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Ki-Jeung Park of Dentons Lee Speaks at KOTRA Seminar on Middle East Conflict Response and Alternative Market Strategies
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news on April 20, 2026:
* * *
Ki-Jeung Park of Dentons Lee Speaks at KOTRA Seminar on Middle East Conflict Response and Alternative Market Strategies
Ki-Jeung Park, a Senior Foreign Attorney at Dentons Lee and Chair of the Legal Committee of the Overseas Construction Project Council at KOTRA, participated as a speaker at the "Project Seminar on Responding to Middle East Conflicts and Exploring Alternative Markets," hosted by KOTRA in Seoul on April 15, 2026.
The seminar was organized to examine contractual responses and the impact
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news on April 20, 2026:
* * *
Ki-Jeung Park of Dentons Lee Speaks at KOTRA Seminar on Middle East Conflict Response and Alternative Market Strategies
Ki-Jeung Park, a Senior Foreign Attorney at Dentons Lee and Chair of the Legal Committee of the Overseas Construction Project Council at KOTRA, participated as a speaker at the "Project Seminar on Responding to Middle East Conflicts and Exploring Alternative Markets," hosted by KOTRA in Seoul on April 15, 2026.
The seminar was organized to examine contractual responses and the impacton overseas project markets arising from the recent Iran-related escalation in the Middle East, and to share strategies for entering alternative markets, including MDB-linked opportunities.
During the session, Park presented on contractual and legal risk management in light of the evolving Middle East conflict. His presentation focused on key issues such as force majeure considerations, contractual risk allocation, and practical legal strategies for managing risks in overseas construction and infrastructure projects.
The seminar provided a valuable platform for sharing practical insights on project risk management amid growing global uncertainty and for strengthening collaboration between industry and legal professionals.
Dentons Lee will continue to support clients based on its expertise in international construction and arbitration.
* * *
About Dentons
Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dentonslee.com/en/about-dentons-lee/news/2026/april/ki-jeung-park-of-dentons-lee-speaks-at-kotra-seminar
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Hausfeld Files First Circuit Amicus Brief Challenging Unlawful Third-Country Deportation Policy
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- Hausfeld, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Hausfeld files First Circuit amicus brief challenging unlawful third-country deportation policy
Hausfeld has filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on behalf of leading human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta, Al Otro Lado, and the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, in support of plaintiffs challenging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's third-country removal
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- Hausfeld, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Hausfeld files First Circuit amicus brief challenging unlawful third-country deportation policy
Hausfeld has filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on behalf of leading human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta, Al Otro Lado, and the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, in support of plaintiffs challenging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's third-country removalpolicy. The case concerns the government's practice of deporting noncitizens to countries not designated in their removal orders, often without notice or an opportunity to raise fear-based claims.
Drawing on extensive documentation and their work with affected individuals, the amici describe how the policy has resulted in serious human rights violations, including arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, torture, and severe physical and psychological harm. The brief explains that these removals frequently rely on "diplomatic assurances" that fail to provide meaningful protection, despite well-documented risks in receiving countries.
The amici further argue that the policy violates the prohibition on refoulement, including "chain refoulement," by transferring individuals to third countries that subsequently deport them to places where they face persecution or torture. They emphasize that these outcomes are not isolated incidents but reflect a deliberate policy that disregards due process, U.S. law, and international obligations.
The brief is submitted by a coalition of leading human rights organizations with deep expertise in asylum law and immigrant rights. The Court's decision will have significant implications for due process in removal proceedings, U.S. compliance with non-refoulement obligations, and the protection of vulnerable individuals facing deportation to unsafe third countries.
Read the brief here (https://www.hausfeld.com/media/ix1p5fft/brief-for-amici-curiae-human-rights-orgs-case-no-26-1212.pdf).
* * *
Related People
Mary Sameera Van Houten Harper
Amanda Lee-Dasgupta
Anjali Dhillon
Jim Mitchell
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hausfeld.com/en-us/news/hausfeld-files-first-circuit-amicus-brief-challenging-unlawful-third-country-deportation-policy
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: ICE Changes I-9 Enforcement Standards, Raising Stakes for Employer Compliance
ATLANTA, Georgia, April 21 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on April 20, 2026:
* * *
ICE Changes I-9 Enforcement Standards, Raising Stakes for Employer Compliance
Federal immigration officials just quietly but significantly shifted how they will evaluate Form I-9 violations, making it more likely that you could be tagged with "substantive" errors that could have big consequences. Historically, certain I-9 errors were treated as technical and correctable, but March guidance from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) now signals that some of these errors may
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, April 21 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on April 20, 2026:
* * *
ICE Changes I-9 Enforcement Standards, Raising Stakes for Employer Compliance
Federal immigration officials just quietly but significantly shifted how they will evaluate Form I-9 violations, making it more likely that you could be tagged with "substantive" errors that could have big consequences. Historically, certain I-9 errors were treated as technical and correctable, but March guidance from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) now signals that some of these errors maybe elevated to trigger financial penalties. What changed and what should you do to prepare for this new enforcement era?
What Changed: Reclassification of I-9 Violations
ICE's new guidance expands what the agency considers to be "substantive" violations instead of "technical" violations, particularly where they affect the integrity or completeness of Form I-9. The following types of omissions and inaccuracies may now be viewed as substantive violations:
* Missing employee date of birth in Section 1
* Missing employee USCIS/alien number when applicable
* Missing date next to employee signature in Section 1
* Missing expiration date in Section 1 when required
* Incomplete or incorrect employee attestation in Section 1
* Failure to date Section 1
* Missing or incomplete preparer/translator information
* Use of Spanish-language Form I-9 outside Puerto Rico
* Missing employer name or title in Section 2
* Failure to record first day of employment in Section 2
* Failure to date Section 2
* Incomplete List A, B, or C document information
* Failure to properly complete document verification fields
* Failure to record rehire date when applicable
* Failure to properly complete reverification
* Failure to check box for remote document review procedure
* Use of remote verification without E-Verify enrollment
* Noncompliant electronic I-9 systems or audit trail issues
* Failure to complete I-9 within required timeframes
Employers have long been expected to comply with these requirements, but the stakes just got considerably higher. Under previous enforcement norms, technical errors could often be corrected during an ICE inspection and escape financial penalty entirely. Substantive violations, by contrast, are more likely to trigger fines. And with ICE now reclassifying a broader range of errors as substantive, employers have significantly less room to avoid penalties for routine administrative mistakes. For organizations managing hundreds or thousands of I-9s, that expanded exposure could add up fast.
In practice, this includes issues such as minor omissions that remain uncorrected over time, inconsistent information across different sections of the form, and improper corrections that lack a clear audit trail. It also includes the use of outdated forms or incorrect versions, as well as failures to follow proper correction protocols when errors are identified.
What Employers Should Do Now
Employers should also be aware that this policy shift is occurring alongside increased enforcement activity. ICE continues to conduct worksite inspections and audits, often with little advance notice, and its current posture suggests a lower tolerance for incomplete records and a greater willingness to impose penalties. In this environment, you should expect a higher likelihood of audits, shorter response windows following a Notice of Inspection, and increased scrutiny of remote verification practices.
At the same time, ICE appears to be focusing more on patterns of noncompliance rather than isolated errors, which can increase overall penalty exposure per violation. For organizations with large or decentralized workforces, these risks can scale quickly across multiple locations and teams. Even small, repeated errors can compound over time, increasing exposure during an audit or inspection.
You should take proactive steps to assess and strengthen your compliance processes. Suggested actions include:
* Conduct internal I-9 audits with a clear correction protocol.
* Train HR personnel and authorized representatives on updated expectations.
* Standardize onboarding procedures across locations.
* Ensure proper use of the current Form I-9 version.
* Maintain clear documentation of all corrections and updates.
* Evaluate electronic I-9 systems for compliance gaps.
Conclusion
Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as warranted, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information direct to your inbox. If you have questions, please contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any member of our Immigration Practice Group.
* * *
Related People
Jocelyn Campanaro
Partner
jcampanaro@fisherphillips.com
303.218.3667
* * *
Brian J. Coughlin
Partner
bcoughlin@fisherphillips.com
617.532.5892
* * *
Russell Ford
Partner
rford@fisherphillips.com
207.477.9972
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/ice-changes-i-9-enforcement-standards
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Dinsmore Cybersecurity Team Recovers Nearly $300,000 for Nonprofit Client Following Email Fraud
CINCINNATI, Ohio, April 21 -- Dinsmore and Shohl, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Dinsmore Cybersecurity Team Recovers Nearly $300,000 for Nonprofit Client Following Email Fraud
Teamwork between a Dinsmore client's Commercial Litigation attorney and the Firm's Cybersecurity & Data Privacy team recently led to the recovery of nearly $300,000 after the client was targeted by a sophisticated business email compromise scheme.
The client developed a multi-million-dollar affordable housing project designed to support single-parent families in the Louisville, Kentucky region.
... Show Full Article
CINCINNATI, Ohio, April 21 -- Dinsmore and Shohl, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Dinsmore Cybersecurity Team Recovers Nearly $300,000 for Nonprofit Client Following Email Fraud
Teamwork between a Dinsmore client's Commercial Litigation attorney and the Firm's Cybersecurity & Data Privacy team recently led to the recovery of nearly $300,000 after the client was targeted by a sophisticated business email compromise scheme.
The client developed a multi-million-dollar affordable housing project designed to support single-parent families in the Louisville, Kentucky region.The development was funded through a combination of grants and charitable donations. As part of the construction process, the client was required to release a standard retainage payment to its general contractor after receiving final grant funding.
After the funds cleared, the client wired the retainage payment to what they believed was the contractor's bank account. However, a bad actor had compromised the contractor's email system and sent a fraudulent message directing payment to a new account. The account was held at a credible bank and appeared legitimate.
The client believed the funds had been temporarily restrained by the bad actor's bank when the bad actor, pretending to be the contractor, claimed its bank had restricted access to the account. The client continued corresponding with the fraudster, believing it was communicating with the contractor, until the deception was discovered more than a month later.
When the fraud was discovered, Dinsmore's client immediately contacted local law enforcement, the federal authorities, and its own bank. Despite those efforts, they were unable to confirm whether the funds could be recovered or had been permanently lost.
The client then turned to its Dinsmore attorney, Harris Davidson (Louisville), who has worked closely with them in the past, for additional help. Harris connected with attorneys in Dinsmore's Cybersecurity & Data Privacy group to strategize the next steps for the client. Partner Herb Stapleton (Cincinnati), who has more than two decades of experience in the FBI, quickly identified the incident as a business email compromise, one of the most prevalent and financially damaging cyber fraud schemes targeting organizations today.
Drawing from the relationships he built while in the FBI, Herb reached out to the appropriate internal contacts at the fraudster's bank and even got in contact with upper management at the bank's global investigations team.
Within a single day, Herb was able to confirm that the bank had frozen the funds and that the entire payment remained intact. The recovery brought immediate relief to the client, who faced significant financial strain given the grant-based nature of the funds and its nonprofit status.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dinsmore.com/news/dinsmore-cybersecurity-team-recovers-nearly-300000-for-nonprofit-client-following-email-fraud/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Dentons Rising Stars Shine in NZ Lawyer Future Leaders List
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Dentons rising stars shine in NZ Lawyer Future Leaders list
Dentons is proud to announce that Lucinda King and Sarah Wells have been recognised as Future Leaders by NZ Lawyer. Selected from a competitive field of young legal professionals across New Zealand, they have been celebrated for their outstanding achievements, leadership and commitment to the legal profession.
Lucinda is a Senior Associate in our Public Law and Dispute Resolution team and a trusted leader whose reputation has been built on combining sharp
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 21 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Dentons rising stars shine in NZ Lawyer Future Leaders list
Dentons is proud to announce that Lucinda King and Sarah Wells have been recognised as Future Leaders by NZ Lawyer. Selected from a competitive field of young legal professionals across New Zealand, they have been celebrated for their outstanding achievements, leadership and commitment to the legal profession.
Lucinda is a Senior Associate in our Public Law and Dispute Resolution team and a trusted leader whose reputation has been built on combining sharplegal instincts with emotional intelligence.
Having worked on both sides of the public and private sector before joining Dentons, Lucinda brings a grounded understanding of how government works and how legal advice will land in practice. That perspective, combined with her technical excellence, has made her one of the most trusted advisers in her field. Another significant part of Lucinda's contribution to Dentons lies in her commitment to mentoring emerging lawyers, both within the office and outside of it.
Hayden Wilson, Chair of Dentons in New Zealand and Global Vice Chair, said that "Lucinda is exactly the kind of lawyer and leader that every team needs. She is reliable, exceptionally capable, and trusted by clients and colleagues alike. She continues to impress everyone around her with her composure, her legal skills and her professionalism. This recognition is thoroughly deserved."
Sarah Wells, a Senior Associate in our Private Wealth team, brings specialist expertise where technical complexity meets deeply personal trust.
Her clients, come to her with matters that are not only legally intricate but often highly sensitive. Her recognition as an "Associate to Watch" in the 2024 and 2025 Chambers High Net Worth guide marked a reputation built steadily and deliberately. Sarah's role is multifaceted, highly specialised and critical to Dentons' Private Wealth offering. She is known for her strategic thinking, global perspective and her ability to navigate highly sensitive, confidential and complex client affairs with complete professionalism.
When asked about Sarah, Henry Brandts-Giesen, her supervising partner, said, "Sarah is one of New Zealand's few true Private Wealth experts. What sets her apart is her ability to think strategically and apply global best practice to her clients' affairs. Her clients are referred to her from professional intermediaries and peers, and clients seek her advice in relation to their complex and high value matters commonly with cross-border and international law and tax considerations, because of the trust and confidence she has earned. Within the team she is equally valued as a key leader in developing and mentoring our junior talent."
Charles Spillane, Chief Executive of Dentons in New Zealand, says, "Lucinda and Sarah exemplify everything we look for in our future leaders. They bring exceptional talent and technical expertise, but what truly sets them apart is their generosity in lifting others around them. We're incredibly proud to see them recognised in this way. To us they aren't future leaders. They are leaders!"
* * *
About Dentons
Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dentons.co.nz/en/about-dentons-in-new-zealand/news/2026/april/dentons-rising-stars-shine-in-nz-lawyer-future-leaders-list
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
