Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Law/Legal
Featured Stories
Littler Issues Commentary: Ontario, Canada Hospitality Employment Law Update - Why Employment Agreements and Workplace Policies Matter
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 28 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Aug. 27, 2026, by associate Quinn Hartwig:
* * *
Ontario, Canada Hospitality Employment Law Update - Why Employment Agreements and Workplace Policies Matter
At a Glance
* Many restaurant operators in Ontario invest heavily in operational systems while overlooking the employment systems that govern their workforce.
* Properly drafted employment agreements and workplace policies may help reduce legal risk and improve consistency across growing hospitality organizations.
* Successful hospitality businesses ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 28 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Aug. 27, 2026, by associate Quinn Hartwig: * * * Ontario, Canada Hospitality Employment Law Update - Why Employment Agreements and Workplace Policies Matter At a Glance * Many restaurant operators in Ontario invest heavily in operational systems while overlooking the employment systems that govern their workforce. * Properly drafted employment agreements and workplace policies may help reduce legal risk and improve consistency across growing hospitality organizations. * Successful hospitality businessesultimately treat employment systems as business infrastructure rather than as administrative paperwork.
-
Our previous article explored several employment law issues affecting Ontario hospitality employers, including gratuities, scheduling obligations, hiring requirements, compliance considerations, and recent legislative developments.
Understanding those obligations is an important first step. The next is ensuring that the business has the systems necessary to manage its workforce.
Many restaurant operators invest heavily in food safety programs, inventory management, reservation systems, training, and customer service standards. Comparatively little attention may be paid to the employment systems that govern the workforce itself.
That approach is understandable. Many successful hospitality businesses began as small owner-operated establishments where employment matters could be addressed informally and directly by ownership. Hiring occurs through conversations and referrals. Expectations are communicated verbally. Discipline is casual. Employment documentation is limited or non-existent.
As businesses grow, however, those informal systems often become increasingly difficult to manage. At that point, employment agreements and workplace policies become far more than legal documents. They become operational tools that help establish expectations, guide management decisions, and reduce unnecessary risk.
Employment Agreements: The Most Important Document Many Employers Don't Have
One of the most common issues facing growing hospitality businesses is the absence of a properly drafted employment agreement.
Many operators assume that offering employment is enough and that a written contract is simply a formality. In reality, a well-drafted and properly implemented employment agreement can be one of the most important risk-management tools available to an employer.
Most notably, employment agreements provide clarity over:
* Compensation;
* Hours of work;
* Duties and reporting relationships;
* Confidentiality obligations; and
* Termination entitlements.
For many employers, the termination provisions are particularly important. This is particularly true given recent developments in employment law relating to termination clauses, which have provided employers with greater certainty about the enforceability of properly drafted termination provisions.
The Cost of Having No Contract
Restaurant owners are often surprised to learn that one of the largest employment-related liabilities they may ever face arises at the end of an employment relationship. In an environment where employment disputes are increasingly common and employees have greater access than ever before to information regarding their legal rights, termination decisions frequently attract heightened scrutiny.
Absent an enforceable employment agreement, terminated employees may be entitled to common law notice, which can significantly exceed minimum entitlements under provincial employment standards legislation. For example, a restaurant manager with several years of service may have dramatically different termination entitlements depending on whether an enforceable employment agreement exists. In some circumstances, common law notice entitlements can exceed statutory minimums many times over, resulting in termination costs that are many thousands of dollars higher than employers anticipate.
New Hires Versus Existing Employees
Implementing agreements for new hires is generally straightforward. The agreement should be provided before employment begins, with the employee receiving a reasonable opportunity to review it and return a signed copy before any work is performed.
Existing employees present a different challenge. Generally, introducing a new employment agreement requires fresh consideration. Continued employment alone is often insufficient. Acceptable consideration will vary depending on the circumstances but generally must include something of value, such as a payment, promotion, or salary increase, that is provided to the employee in exchange for their execution of the agreement.
One mistake an employer may make is implementing a raise or promotion first and obtaining the agreement later. In many cases, that sequencing may undermine the enforceability of the agreement.
Policies Are Not Just About Compliance--They're About Decision-Making
Many hospitality employers may view workplace policies as administrative paperwork. That perspective overlooks one of their most important functions: policies provide the foundation upon which management decisions are made.
When performance concerns arise, attendance becomes problematic, complaints are received, or discipline becomes necessary, policies often provide the framework that allows an employer to address those issues consistently and fairly. In that sense, policies are not merely compliance tools. They are management tools. Properly drafted policies help support disciplinary decisions, workplace investigations, and terminations by demonstrating that expectations were clearly communicated in advance.
Hospitality Policies Require a Hospitality Approach
Many standard workplace policies are written with traditional office environments in mind and do not always reflect the realities of hospitality operations. Restaurants are different from many traditional workplaces and frequently require tailored policies such as:
* Drug and Alcohol Policies: Unlike many workplaces, restaurants may have legitimate business reasons to permit limited alcohol consumption in carefully controlled circumstances, including tastings, menu development, wine education, and supplier events. Policies allow for an employer to address those realities directly.
* Tips and Gratuities: Employees should clearly understand how gratuities are collected, distributed, and pooled. A written policy may help avoid confusion and reduce disputes among staff. In Ontario, an employer is required to have such tip policy if the employer, or a director or shareholder of the employer, shares in the tip pool.
* Attendance and Scheduling Policies: High-turnover, shift-based workplaces often encounter attendance challenges, late arrivals, and last-minute scheduling issues. Clear expectations help promote consistency and accountability.
* Appearance and Grooming Policies: Hospitality remains a guest-facing industry. Professional standards relating to appearance, hygiene, and presentation can be appropriately documented and communicated through a properly drafted policy.
* Harassment and Respectful Workplace Policies: The hospitality industry often faces heightened scrutiny regarding workplace harassment and inappropriate conduct. Clear reporting procedures, investigation processes, and behavioral expectations remain important.
* Service Animal and Guest Accommodation Policies: Restaurants regularly encounter accessibility-related issues that many other employers never face. Well-drafted policies and training help staff respond appropriately and consistently.
Employment Systems Are Business Infrastructure
Restaurants routinely invest in systems designed to reduce risk and improve consistency and performance. They implement food-safety programs, track inventory carefully, and create financial controls. Employment agreements and policies serve a similar function. They provide consistency, establish expectations, improve decision-making, and reduce legal exposure. Restaurant operators are well-advised not to view these documents as legal paperwork, but instead as operational infrastructure that is necessary to run a successful business.
Key Takeaways
As a restaurant grows, employment issues inevitably become more complex.
Thoughtfully drafted employment agreements and workplace policies cannot eliminate risk entirely. They can, however, significantly improve an employer's ability to manage employees consistently, make informed decisions, and respond effectively when workplace issues or--in worst case, lawsuits--arise.
Whether your hospitality business is implementing these tools for the first time or reviewing documentation that has evolved over many years, now may be the time to consider whether employment agreements, workplace policies, and related employment systems need to be developed or updated as your organization continues to grow.
* * *
Authors
Quinn Hartwig
Associate
Toronto
qhartwig@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/ontario-canada-hospitality-employment-law-update-why-employment-agreements-and
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Ontario, Canada Hospitality Employment Law Update - Why Employment Agreements and Workplace Policies Matter
At a Glance
* Many restaurant operators in Ontario invest heavily in operational systems while overlooking the employment systems that govern their workforce.
* Properly drafted employment agreements and workplace policies may help reduce legal risk and improve consistency across growing hospitality organizations.
* Successful hospitality businesses ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 28 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Aug. 27, 2026, by associate Quinn Hartwig: * * * Ontario, Canada Hospitality Employment Law Update - Why Employment Agreements and Workplace Policies Matter At a Glance * Many restaurant operators in Ontario invest heavily in operational systems while overlooking the employment systems that govern their workforce. * Properly drafted employment agreements and workplace policies may help reduce legal risk and improve consistency across growing hospitality organizations. * Successful hospitality businessesultimately treat employment systems as business infrastructure rather than as administrative paperwork.
-
Our previous article explored several employment law issues affecting Ontario hospitality employers, including gratuities, scheduling obligations, hiring requirements, compliance considerations, and recent legislative developments.
Understanding those obligations is an important first step. The next is ensuring that the business has the systems necessary to manage its workforce.
Many restaurant operators invest heavily in food safety programs, inventory management, reservation systems, training, and customer service standards. Comparatively little attention may be paid to the employment systems that govern the workforce itself.
That approach is understandable. Many successful hospitality businesses began as small owner-operated establishments where employment matters could be addressed informally and directly by ownership. Hiring occurs through conversations and referrals. Expectations are communicated verbally. Discipline is casual. Employment documentation is limited or non-existent.
As businesses grow, however, those informal systems often become increasingly difficult to manage. At that point, employment agreements and workplace policies become far more than legal documents. They become operational tools that help establish expectations, guide management decisions, and reduce unnecessary risk.
Employment Agreements: The Most Important Document Many Employers Don't Have
One of the most common issues facing growing hospitality businesses is the absence of a properly drafted employment agreement.
Many operators assume that offering employment is enough and that a written contract is simply a formality. In reality, a well-drafted and properly implemented employment agreement can be one of the most important risk-management tools available to an employer.
Most notably, employment agreements provide clarity over:
* Compensation;
* Hours of work;
* Duties and reporting relationships;
* Confidentiality obligations; and
* Termination entitlements.
For many employers, the termination provisions are particularly important. This is particularly true given recent developments in employment law relating to termination clauses, which have provided employers with greater certainty about the enforceability of properly drafted termination provisions.
The Cost of Having No Contract
Restaurant owners are often surprised to learn that one of the largest employment-related liabilities they may ever face arises at the end of an employment relationship. In an environment where employment disputes are increasingly common and employees have greater access than ever before to information regarding their legal rights, termination decisions frequently attract heightened scrutiny.
Absent an enforceable employment agreement, terminated employees may be entitled to common law notice, which can significantly exceed minimum entitlements under provincial employment standards legislation. For example, a restaurant manager with several years of service may have dramatically different termination entitlements depending on whether an enforceable employment agreement exists. In some circumstances, common law notice entitlements can exceed statutory minimums many times over, resulting in termination costs that are many thousands of dollars higher than employers anticipate.
New Hires Versus Existing Employees
Implementing agreements for new hires is generally straightforward. The agreement should be provided before employment begins, with the employee receiving a reasonable opportunity to review it and return a signed copy before any work is performed.
Existing employees present a different challenge. Generally, introducing a new employment agreement requires fresh consideration. Continued employment alone is often insufficient. Acceptable consideration will vary depending on the circumstances but generally must include something of value, such as a payment, promotion, or salary increase, that is provided to the employee in exchange for their execution of the agreement.
One mistake an employer may make is implementing a raise or promotion first and obtaining the agreement later. In many cases, that sequencing may undermine the enforceability of the agreement.
Policies Are Not Just About Compliance--They're About Decision-Making
Many hospitality employers may view workplace policies as administrative paperwork. That perspective overlooks one of their most important functions: policies provide the foundation upon which management decisions are made.
When performance concerns arise, attendance becomes problematic, complaints are received, or discipline becomes necessary, policies often provide the framework that allows an employer to address those issues consistently and fairly. In that sense, policies are not merely compliance tools. They are management tools. Properly drafted policies help support disciplinary decisions, workplace investigations, and terminations by demonstrating that expectations were clearly communicated in advance.
Hospitality Policies Require a Hospitality Approach
Many standard workplace policies are written with traditional office environments in mind and do not always reflect the realities of hospitality operations. Restaurants are different from many traditional workplaces and frequently require tailored policies such as:
* Drug and Alcohol Policies: Unlike many workplaces, restaurants may have legitimate business reasons to permit limited alcohol consumption in carefully controlled circumstances, including tastings, menu development, wine education, and supplier events. Policies allow for an employer to address those realities directly.
* Tips and Gratuities: Employees should clearly understand how gratuities are collected, distributed, and pooled. A written policy may help avoid confusion and reduce disputes among staff. In Ontario, an employer is required to have such tip policy if the employer, or a director or shareholder of the employer, shares in the tip pool.
* Attendance and Scheduling Policies: High-turnover, shift-based workplaces often encounter attendance challenges, late arrivals, and last-minute scheduling issues. Clear expectations help promote consistency and accountability.
* Appearance and Grooming Policies: Hospitality remains a guest-facing industry. Professional standards relating to appearance, hygiene, and presentation can be appropriately documented and communicated through a properly drafted policy.
* Harassment and Respectful Workplace Policies: The hospitality industry often faces heightened scrutiny regarding workplace harassment and inappropriate conduct. Clear reporting procedures, investigation processes, and behavioral expectations remain important.
* Service Animal and Guest Accommodation Policies: Restaurants regularly encounter accessibility-related issues that many other employers never face. Well-drafted policies and training help staff respond appropriately and consistently.
Employment Systems Are Business Infrastructure
Restaurants routinely invest in systems designed to reduce risk and improve consistency and performance. They implement food-safety programs, track inventory carefully, and create financial controls. Employment agreements and policies serve a similar function. They provide consistency, establish expectations, improve decision-making, and reduce legal exposure. Restaurant operators are well-advised not to view these documents as legal paperwork, but instead as operational infrastructure that is necessary to run a successful business.
Key Takeaways
As a restaurant grows, employment issues inevitably become more complex.
Thoughtfully drafted employment agreements and workplace policies cannot eliminate risk entirely. They can, however, significantly improve an employer's ability to manage employees consistently, make informed decisions, and respond effectively when workplace issues or--in worst case, lawsuits--arise.
Whether your hospitality business is implementing these tools for the first time or reviewing documentation that has evolved over many years, now may be the time to consider whether employment agreements, workplace policies, and related employment systems need to be developed or updated as your organization continues to grow.
* * *
Authors
Quinn Hartwig
Associate
Toronto
qhartwig@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/ontario-canada-hospitality-employment-law-update-why-employment-agreements-and
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: State Department Pauses Immigrant Visa Appointments Worldwide - 4 Steps for Employers
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 28 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight on Aug. 27, 2026:
* * *
State Department Pauses Immigrant Visa Appointments Worldwide: 4 Steps for Employers
The State Department just paused all immigrant visa appointments at US embassies and consulates worldwide, citing the need to train consular officers on new "public charge" screening standards. The pause began on Monday of this week and applies globally, with no announced date for when normal scheduling will resume. It comes just days after a federal judge struck down the administration's earlier 75-country ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 28 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * State Department Pauses Immigrant Visa Appointments Worldwide: 4 Steps for Employers The State Department just paused all immigrant visa appointments at US embassies and consulates worldwide, citing the need to train consular officers on new "public charge" screening standards. The pause began on Monday of this week and applies globally, with no announced date for when normal scheduling will resume. It comes just days after a federal judge struck down the administration's earlier 75-countryimmigrant visa freeze as unlawful, and it affects many family- and employment-based green card applicants who are going through consular processing abroad. What does this mean for your workforce planning, and what four steps should you consider?
What is Being Paused?
The State Department says it launched a "global training initiative" this month to ensure consular officers evaluate visa applicants "comprehensively and consistently." Officials announced they would pay particular attention to whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge, meaning primarily dependent on certain government assistance.
To carry out the training, the department is adjusting immigrant visa appointments at posts around the world. Applicants with interviews already scheduled are reportedly receiving cancellation notices without a new date attached. The department has not said how long the training will take or when appointments will resume.
Who is Affected?
This pause applies to immigrant visas, meaning cases for individuals seeking to live and work permanently in the United States through consular processing abroad. That includes many employment-based green card applicants who must complete their final visa interview at a US embassy or consulate rather than through adjustment of status inside the United States.
It does not appear to affect nonimmigrant work visas like H-1B, L-1, O-1, or E visas, or the ability of employees already in the US to pursue adjustment of status through USCIS. Given the confusion this kind of announcement tends to generate among employees, it's worth communicating that distinction to your workforce clearly and early.
What is the Bigger Picture?
This is not the administration's first attempt at this kind of pause. A federal judge in the Southern District of New York recently ruled that the prior 75-country immigrant visa freeze exceeded the Secretary of State's authority. Plaintiffs in that litigation have already filed an emergency motion arguing that this new training pause is simply a way of keeping the enjoined policy in effect without complying with the court's order.
That means this pause could be impacted by court order at any time. It could be modified or struck down by a court on a timeline outside anyone's control.
What Should Employers Do Now?
1. Identify affected cases. Determine whether any of your employees or candidates are awaiting immigrant visa interviews or issuance at a consulate abroad, particularly those nearing the final stages of employment-based green card sponsorship.
2. Review options with counsel. For cases caught in the pause, work with your FP immigration attorney to assess whether alternative pathways exist, such as shifting timelines, exploring bridge options, or adjusting start dates.
3. Communicate proactively. Your foreign workforce employees are likely to be anxious and uncertain. Clear, factual updates about what is and isn't affected, paired with realistic expectations about timing, can help you preserve trust with them while the situation develops.
4. Build in flexibility. Given the legal uncertainty around this pause, avoid locking in hard deadlines tied to an assumed resumption date. Monitor for updates and be prepared to adjust again if the pause is challenged or changes in scope.
Conclusion
Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor this situation and will provide updates as new information becomes available. In the meantime, we encourage you to subscribe to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information. If you have questions, please contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in our Immigration Practice Group.
* * *
Related People
David S. Jones
Regional Managing Partner
901.526.0431
djones@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/state-department-pauses-immigrant-visa-appointments-worldwide
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
State Department Pauses Immigrant Visa Appointments Worldwide: 4 Steps for Employers
The State Department just paused all immigrant visa appointments at US embassies and consulates worldwide, citing the need to train consular officers on new "public charge" screening standards. The pause began on Monday of this week and applies globally, with no announced date for when normal scheduling will resume. It comes just days after a federal judge struck down the administration's earlier 75-country ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 28 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * State Department Pauses Immigrant Visa Appointments Worldwide: 4 Steps for Employers The State Department just paused all immigrant visa appointments at US embassies and consulates worldwide, citing the need to train consular officers on new "public charge" screening standards. The pause began on Monday of this week and applies globally, with no announced date for when normal scheduling will resume. It comes just days after a federal judge struck down the administration's earlier 75-countryimmigrant visa freeze as unlawful, and it affects many family- and employment-based green card applicants who are going through consular processing abroad. What does this mean for your workforce planning, and what four steps should you consider?
What is Being Paused?
The State Department says it launched a "global training initiative" this month to ensure consular officers evaluate visa applicants "comprehensively and consistently." Officials announced they would pay particular attention to whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge, meaning primarily dependent on certain government assistance.
To carry out the training, the department is adjusting immigrant visa appointments at posts around the world. Applicants with interviews already scheduled are reportedly receiving cancellation notices without a new date attached. The department has not said how long the training will take or when appointments will resume.
Who is Affected?
This pause applies to immigrant visas, meaning cases for individuals seeking to live and work permanently in the United States through consular processing abroad. That includes many employment-based green card applicants who must complete their final visa interview at a US embassy or consulate rather than through adjustment of status inside the United States.
It does not appear to affect nonimmigrant work visas like H-1B, L-1, O-1, or E visas, or the ability of employees already in the US to pursue adjustment of status through USCIS. Given the confusion this kind of announcement tends to generate among employees, it's worth communicating that distinction to your workforce clearly and early.
What is the Bigger Picture?
This is not the administration's first attempt at this kind of pause. A federal judge in the Southern District of New York recently ruled that the prior 75-country immigrant visa freeze exceeded the Secretary of State's authority. Plaintiffs in that litigation have already filed an emergency motion arguing that this new training pause is simply a way of keeping the enjoined policy in effect without complying with the court's order.
That means this pause could be impacted by court order at any time. It could be modified or struck down by a court on a timeline outside anyone's control.
What Should Employers Do Now?
1. Identify affected cases. Determine whether any of your employees or candidates are awaiting immigrant visa interviews or issuance at a consulate abroad, particularly those nearing the final stages of employment-based green card sponsorship.
2. Review options with counsel. For cases caught in the pause, work with your FP immigration attorney to assess whether alternative pathways exist, such as shifting timelines, exploring bridge options, or adjusting start dates.
3. Communicate proactively. Your foreign workforce employees are likely to be anxious and uncertain. Clear, factual updates about what is and isn't affected, paired with realistic expectations about timing, can help you preserve trust with them while the situation develops.
4. Build in flexibility. Given the legal uncertainty around this pause, avoid locking in hard deadlines tied to an assumed resumption date. Monitor for updates and be prepared to adjust again if the pause is challenged or changes in scope.
Conclusion
Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor this situation and will provide updates as new information becomes available. In the meantime, we encourage you to subscribe to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information. If you have questions, please contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in our Immigration Practice Group.
* * *
Related People
David S. Jones
Regional Managing Partner
901.526.0431
djones@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/state-department-pauses-immigrant-visa-appointments-worldwide
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: H-2A Adverse Effect Wage Rates Up in Air as Court Orders DOL to Try Again - What Agricultural Employers Need to Know
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 28 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight on Aug. 27, 2026:
* * *
New H-2A Adverse Effect Wage Rates Up in Air as Court Orders DOL to Try Again: What Agricultural Employers Need to Know
A federal court in California just ordered the US Department of Labor (DOL) to quickly come up with a new methodology for calculating the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) for H-2A job orders, just weeks after the agency released long-awaited new H-2A farmworker rates. Those rates had been calculated under a framework established in an interim final rule, which the DOL ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 28 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * New H-2A Adverse Effect Wage Rates Up in Air as Court Orders DOL to Try Again: What Agricultural Employers Need to Know A federal court in California just ordered the US Department of Labor (DOL) to quickly come up with a new methodology for calculating the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) for H-2A job orders, just weeks after the agency released long-awaited new H-2A farmworker rates. Those rates had been calculated under a framework established in an interim final rule, which the DOLissued in 2025 and the United Farm Workers challenged. The district court issued an order on August 26 largely siding with the UFW and finding the IFR to be unlawful, though it stopped short of vacating the rule entirely. Even still, the potential for a backpay order covering the difference in wages between the current AEWR methodology and DOL's future methodology creates tremendous uncertainty for farms, FLCs, workers, and consumers. What does this mean for agricultural employers and H-2A wage rates?
Quick Background
The DOL issued an interim final rule (IFR) 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. The United Farm Workers filed suit to challenge the rule, and in May the court denied the UFW's request to temporarily block the rule while the litigation plays out.
In the meantime, the DOL published the new AEWRs on August 3, which took effect immediately for most states. (A slightly later effective date of August 17 applied 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's the Latest?
A district court in California handed the UFW a major win on August 26 by ruling that the DOL's October 2025 IFR is unlawful and ordering the agency to promptly produce and publish a new methodology for calculating AEWRs for H-2A workers. Specifically, the court held that:
* each of the challenged components of the IFR - including the tier system, the housing adjustment, the use of the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics survey, and the "greater than 50%" rule - are arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); and
* the DOL did not have "good cause" to issue the IFR on an emergency basis and bypass the APA's usual procedural requirements for rulemaking.
The August 26 order applies nationwide - it is not limited to the UFW or a specific jurisdiction. The good news is that the court did not immediately vacate the rule but instead ordered the DOL to create a new one.
What Was the Court's Reasoning?
* The court found that the use of wage "tiers" based on experience "is not inherently unreasonable," but the use of the 17thpercentile and 50thpercentile was "arbitrary and capricious" where the DOL estimated that 92% of jobs would be assigned to the lower-tier wage rate. This leaves the door open to a different wage-tiering mechanism in DOL's next AEWR rule.
* The court also found the "housing adjustment" in the IFR to be unlawful, based on the separate requirement in the DOL's H-2A rules that employers provide housing to H-2A workers "at no cost" to them. The DOL proposed removing that regulatory requirement in the IFR, and when they created the H-2A program, Congress required only that employers "shall furnish housing in accordance with regulations," but not that it be "at no cost." Because it perceived a conflict within the existing DOL rules, the court found the housing adjustment to be unlawful.
* Third, the court faulted the DOL for using the OEWS without specifically considering alternatives, since the OEWS surveys farm labor contractors but specifically excludes farms from the survey. The DOL may reframe the OEWS to include farms in future surveys.
* Lastly, the court found unlawful the "greater than 50%" or "primary duties" rule for assigning a wage to a job with duties that span different occupations. The court suggested that the DOL should have considered other alternatives, like requiring employers to pay different wage rates for different hours of the day to reflect work with different wage rates (the example given was an H-2A worker spending 49% driving heavy trucks and 51% on ranch work - the court suggested that the DOL require the truck-driver wage for hours spent driving and the livestock wage for the rest of the week).
What's Next? Key Takeaways for Agricultural Employers
The DOL now has seven days to notify state workforce agencies, employers, and the public that employers may be required for make wage adjustment payments to qualifying H-2A workers and US farmworkers in corresponding employment who worked during the "backpay period" (the period between when the DOL sends the notice and when it issues a new AEWR methodology). This signals that a court might order employers to pay the difference between the current AEWRs paid during the backpay period and the new AEWRs that the DOL ultimately issues. The court declined to rule on the issue of "back pay" yet but ordered DOL to put employers on notice of the possibility of such an order in the future.
How soon the DOL issues the new AEWR methodology remains to be seen, but Wednesday's order requires the agency to submit an initial status report in two weeks to detail steps it has taken and its anticipated timeline. It's also unclear whether the DOL will have to issue notice of proposed rulemaking, a new interim final rule, or something else. After DOL issues the new AEWR methodology, the court will re-open briefing regarding backpay issue flagged in the notice.
In addition, the DOL could appeal the order issued on August 26 - especially in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Casa last year, which held that federal district court judges may not issue injunctions that are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue. However, it remains to be seen whether the agency will do so.
Ongoing litigation over this always-contentious issue means that the rule just declared unlawful was the third version of the wage rule in effect in the past 12 months, and the DOL is now required to create a fourth version of the rule "promptly." Employers need to stay informed on these changes as they play out and be prepared for the next twist in the AEWR story by working with their agricultural employer attorneys and staying tuned for updates.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor developments and 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-adverse-effect-wage-rates-up-in-air-as-court-orders-dol-to-try-again
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
New H-2A Adverse Effect Wage Rates Up in Air as Court Orders DOL to Try Again: What Agricultural Employers Need to Know
A federal court in California just ordered the US Department of Labor (DOL) to quickly come up with a new methodology for calculating the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) for H-2A job orders, just weeks after the agency released long-awaited new H-2A farmworker rates. Those rates had been calculated under a framework established in an interim final rule, which the DOL ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 28 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * New H-2A Adverse Effect Wage Rates Up in Air as Court Orders DOL to Try Again: What Agricultural Employers Need to Know A federal court in California just ordered the US Department of Labor (DOL) to quickly come up with a new methodology for calculating the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) for H-2A job orders, just weeks after the agency released long-awaited new H-2A farmworker rates. Those rates had been calculated under a framework established in an interim final rule, which the DOLissued in 2025 and the United Farm Workers challenged. The district court issued an order on August 26 largely siding with the UFW and finding the IFR to be unlawful, though it stopped short of vacating the rule entirely. Even still, the potential for a backpay order covering the difference in wages between the current AEWR methodology and DOL's future methodology creates tremendous uncertainty for farms, FLCs, workers, and consumers. What does this mean for agricultural employers and H-2A wage rates?
Quick Background
The DOL issued an interim final rule (IFR) 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. The United Farm Workers filed suit to challenge the rule, and in May the court denied the UFW's request to temporarily block the rule while the litigation plays out.
In the meantime, the DOL published the new AEWRs on August 3, which took effect immediately for most states. (A slightly later effective date of August 17 applied 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's the Latest?
A district court in California handed the UFW a major win on August 26 by ruling that the DOL's October 2025 IFR is unlawful and ordering the agency to promptly produce and publish a new methodology for calculating AEWRs for H-2A workers. Specifically, the court held that:
* each of the challenged components of the IFR - including the tier system, the housing adjustment, the use of the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics survey, and the "greater than 50%" rule - are arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); and
* the DOL did not have "good cause" to issue the IFR on an emergency basis and bypass the APA's usual procedural requirements for rulemaking.
The August 26 order applies nationwide - it is not limited to the UFW or a specific jurisdiction. The good news is that the court did not immediately vacate the rule but instead ordered the DOL to create a new one.
What Was the Court's Reasoning?
* The court found that the use of wage "tiers" based on experience "is not inherently unreasonable," but the use of the 17thpercentile and 50thpercentile was "arbitrary and capricious" where the DOL estimated that 92% of jobs would be assigned to the lower-tier wage rate. This leaves the door open to a different wage-tiering mechanism in DOL's next AEWR rule.
* The court also found the "housing adjustment" in the IFR to be unlawful, based on the separate requirement in the DOL's H-2A rules that employers provide housing to H-2A workers "at no cost" to them. The DOL proposed removing that regulatory requirement in the IFR, and when they created the H-2A program, Congress required only that employers "shall furnish housing in accordance with regulations," but not that it be "at no cost." Because it perceived a conflict within the existing DOL rules, the court found the housing adjustment to be unlawful.
* Third, the court faulted the DOL for using the OEWS without specifically considering alternatives, since the OEWS surveys farm labor contractors but specifically excludes farms from the survey. The DOL may reframe the OEWS to include farms in future surveys.
* Lastly, the court found unlawful the "greater than 50%" or "primary duties" rule for assigning a wage to a job with duties that span different occupations. The court suggested that the DOL should have considered other alternatives, like requiring employers to pay different wage rates for different hours of the day to reflect work with different wage rates (the example given was an H-2A worker spending 49% driving heavy trucks and 51% on ranch work - the court suggested that the DOL require the truck-driver wage for hours spent driving and the livestock wage for the rest of the week).
What's Next? Key Takeaways for Agricultural Employers
The DOL now has seven days to notify state workforce agencies, employers, and the public that employers may be required for make wage adjustment payments to qualifying H-2A workers and US farmworkers in corresponding employment who worked during the "backpay period" (the period between when the DOL sends the notice and when it issues a new AEWR methodology). This signals that a court might order employers to pay the difference between the current AEWRs paid during the backpay period and the new AEWRs that the DOL ultimately issues. The court declined to rule on the issue of "back pay" yet but ordered DOL to put employers on notice of the possibility of such an order in the future.
How soon the DOL issues the new AEWR methodology remains to be seen, but Wednesday's order requires the agency to submit an initial status report in two weeks to detail steps it has taken and its anticipated timeline. It's also unclear whether the DOL will have to issue notice of proposed rulemaking, a new interim final rule, or something else. After DOL issues the new AEWR methodology, the court will re-open briefing regarding backpay issue flagged in the notice.
In addition, the DOL could appeal the order issued on August 26 - especially in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Casa last year, which held that federal district court judges may not issue injunctions that are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue. However, it remains to be seen whether the agency will do so.
Ongoing litigation over this always-contentious issue means that the rule just declared unlawful was the third version of the wage rule in effect in the past 12 months, and the DOL is now required to create a fourth version of the rule "promptly." Employers need to stay informed on these changes as they play out and be prepared for the next twist in the AEWR story by working with their agricultural employer attorneys and staying tuned for updates.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor developments and 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-adverse-effect-wage-rates-up-in-air-as-court-orders-dol-to-try-again
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: DC Circuit Upholds EPA's Forever Chemicals Superfund Designation - 5 Steps for Safety Professionals to Take Now
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 28 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight on Aug. 27, 2026:
* * *
DC Circuit Upholds EPA's Forever Chemicals Superfund Designation: 5 Steps for Safety Professionals to Take Now
PFOA and PFOS - two widely known PFAS chemicals - will remain for now as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), known as Superfund. Earlier this month, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit denied industry challenges to a 2024 EPA rule designating those chemicals as such under CERCLA, meaning businesses ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 28 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * DC Circuit Upholds EPA's Forever Chemicals Superfund Designation: 5 Steps for Safety Professionals to Take Now PFOA and PFOS - two widely known PFAS chemicals - will remain for now as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), known as Superfund. Earlier this month, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit denied industry challenges to a 2024 EPA rule designating those chemicals as such under CERCLA, meaning businesseswill continue to face reporting obligations and potential liability for PFOA and PFOS releases from their operations. However, the August 18 ruling doesn't guarantee every business connected to PFAS now will face an automatic cleanup bill or order. The appeals court decision emphasized that those consequences depend on additional, site-specific steps and statutory requirements. It also offers a roadmap for EPA to make future designations under the Superfund law. Here's everything you need to know about the ruling and five steps your safety team can take now.
Overview of the 2024 EPA Rule
CERCLA authorizes EPA to designate additional chemicals as hazardous substances when a release into the environment may present substantial danger to public health, welfare, or the environment. Using that authority, the EPA issued a regulation to designate PFOA and PFOS, which took effect in 2024.
For PFOA and PFOS, the rule generally requires:
* Release reporting. A person in charge of a vessel or facility must promptly report a release meeting or exceeding the applicable reportable quantity. EPA set the reportable quantity for PFOA and PFOS at one pound.
* Transportation-related obligations. Certain shipments above one pound must be identified and marked under the hazardous-materials transportation framework.
* Federal-property transfer notice. Federal agencies generally must disclose the presence of hazardous substances when transferring contaminated property.
* Potential cleanup and cost exposure. In the right circumstances, EPA may order cleanup and the government, states, or eligible private parties may seek recovery of qualifying response costs from legally responsible parties. In some circumstances, after several more regulatory steps, EPA may compel polluters to abate and clean up releases of PFOA or PFOS. Other times, the federal government, States, and adversely affected private parties may pursue enforcement actions to recover cleanup costs from responsible polluters.
What the Court Decided
Industry groups that sued over the EPA's rulemaking argued that the agency read CERCLA too broadly, used an inadequate cost-benefit analysis, and acted unreasonably, citing the uncertainty about where the chemicals are located and what compliance could cost. The court rejected each argument in its August 18 decision.
Notably, the court held that CERCLA doesn't require EPA to prove that harm will certainly occur after every release. The statute's phrase "may present substantial danger" allows EPA to act when the evidence shows a real, scientifically-supported possibility of substantial harm. At the same time, the court said the statutory test has limits: the danger must be serious and real, not merely imagined.
For all these reasons, the phrase "may present a substantial risk of harm" when released into the environment carries its plain meaning of a scientifically possible substantial risk of harm upon release.
The court also held that EPA adequately disclosed and explained its cost analysis. It found that EPA had given affected parties notice that it was considering direct and indirect costs and that the final analysis logically grew out of the proposal and the public comments. The court did not decide whether CERCLA itself requires cost-benefit analysis for a designation; it held that EPA's analysis was sufficient even assuming that analysis was required.
What This Means for Other Chemicals
The decision provides a meaningful judicial roadmap for EPA if it considers additional chemical designations under CERCLA. It does not automatically place other PFAS - or any other chemical - on the CERCLA hazardous-substance list. Each designation would require its own administrative record and rulemaking.
Still, the court's reasoning favors EPA on several points that could matter in future designations:
Scientific certainty is not required. EPA may act based on a scientifically supported possibility of substantial danger; it need not wait until harm is certain after every release.
A chemical can move from site-specific response treatment to a nationwide hazardous-substance designation. The court rejected the idea that CERCLA creates a fixed hierarchy under which a chemical treated as a "pollutant or contaminant" cannot later become a "hazardous substance" as science develops. CERCLA does not draw a comparative-harm line between pollutants or contaminants and hazardous substances. Instead, it creates two distinctive cleanup regimes with two different paths for designation.
Persistence and movement in the environment matter. EPA's record for PFOA and PFOS relied not only on toxicity evidence, but also on the chemicals' persistence, movement, and tendency to build up in people and the environment. That combination may be relevant to other chemicals with similar evidence profiles. EPA used two factors to determine that PFOA and PFOS qualified as "hazardous substances." First, EPA considered "the potential harm to humans or the environment from exposure to the substance (i.e., hazard)," and second, "how the substance potentially moves, persists, and/or changes when in the environment (i.e., environmental fate and transport)."
Uncertainty does not invalidate a designation by itself. The court accepted that the location, concentration, cleanup method, and cost of contamination can be uncertain at the designation stage because CERCLA response decisions are made later, site by site.
That said, the decision does not give EPA unlimited discretion. EPA must still fit a chemical within the statutory standard, build a defensible scientific and administrative record, follow required procedures, and explain its decision reasonably. And a company's actual CERCLA exposure remains fact-dependent: it turns on such matters as the release, the site, the party's role, applicable defenses, the response action, and whether claimed costs are consistent with the National Contingency Plan.
5 Action Steps to Take Now
This ruling can provide several important compliance reminders for employers:
1. Build a PFOA/PFOS chemical-and-operations inventory. Identify current and historical PFOA/PFOS uses, including raw materials, formulations, process aids, coatings, firefighting foam, wastewater, sludge, spent media, waste shipments, and equipment that could contain residues. Include legacy operations and acquired facilities as historical use often drives environmental risk.
2. Recheck release-reporting and emergency-response procedures. Confirm that environmental-release plans, call lists, incident forms, and on-call personnel address PFOA and PFOS and the one-pound reportable quantity. Train appropriate personnel to escalate suspected releases quickly to the EHS and legal teams so the organization can assess reporting and response obligations promptly.
3. Map waste streams and audit vendor controls. Determine whether PFOA or PFOS may enter wastewater, stormwater, sludge, landfill-bound waste, recycling feedstock, filters, activated carbon, spent resin, dust, or residual materials. Review waste profiles, manifests, contracts, vendor certifications, and transport practices. The goal is to reduce uncontrolled releases and preserve reliable records of how materials were handled.
4. Conduct risk-based site and transaction diligence. For owned, leased, acquired, or divested property, assess historical PFAS operations and potential release pathways. Preserve records supporting environmental due diligence, allocation of responsibilities, and any available CERCLA defenses. The court noted that CERCLA contains defenses and protections in defined circumstances, including for certain third-party-caused releases and innocent landowners. Those protections are fact-specific and should be evaluated early. CERCLA provides complete defenses to liability when a release was caused by "an act of God" or "an act or omission of a third party," so long as the defendant has "exercised due care" and taken "precautions against foreseeable" risks.
5. Integrate environmental and worker-protection controls. Use the inventory and waste-stream review to strengthen source control, containment, housekeeping, spill prevention, labeling, training, and contractor controls. This supports both safer worker practices and prevention of environmental releases. It also creates a stronger record that the organization is identifying hazards, controlling them, and responding responsibly when concerns arise.
Conclusion
Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor any new developments in this litigation and will update employers as needed. Make sure you are signed up for Fisher Phillips' Insight System to receive updates straight to your inbox. If you have questions about CERCLA compliance, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the author of this Insight, or any member of 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/dc-circuit-upholds-epas-forever-chemicals-superfund-designation
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
DC Circuit Upholds EPA's Forever Chemicals Superfund Designation: 5 Steps for Safety Professionals to Take Now
PFOA and PFOS - two widely known PFAS chemicals - will remain for now as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), known as Superfund. Earlier this month, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit denied industry challenges to a 2024 EPA rule designating those chemicals as such under CERCLA, meaning businesses ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 28 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * DC Circuit Upholds EPA's Forever Chemicals Superfund Designation: 5 Steps for Safety Professionals to Take Now PFOA and PFOS - two widely known PFAS chemicals - will remain for now as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), known as Superfund. Earlier this month, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit denied industry challenges to a 2024 EPA rule designating those chemicals as such under CERCLA, meaning businesseswill continue to face reporting obligations and potential liability for PFOA and PFOS releases from their operations. However, the August 18 ruling doesn't guarantee every business connected to PFAS now will face an automatic cleanup bill or order. The appeals court decision emphasized that those consequences depend on additional, site-specific steps and statutory requirements. It also offers a roadmap for EPA to make future designations under the Superfund law. Here's everything you need to know about the ruling and five steps your safety team can take now.
Overview of the 2024 EPA Rule
CERCLA authorizes EPA to designate additional chemicals as hazardous substances when a release into the environment may present substantial danger to public health, welfare, or the environment. Using that authority, the EPA issued a regulation to designate PFOA and PFOS, which took effect in 2024.
For PFOA and PFOS, the rule generally requires:
* Release reporting. A person in charge of a vessel or facility must promptly report a release meeting or exceeding the applicable reportable quantity. EPA set the reportable quantity for PFOA and PFOS at one pound.
* Transportation-related obligations. Certain shipments above one pound must be identified and marked under the hazardous-materials transportation framework.
* Federal-property transfer notice. Federal agencies generally must disclose the presence of hazardous substances when transferring contaminated property.
* Potential cleanup and cost exposure. In the right circumstances, EPA may order cleanup and the government, states, or eligible private parties may seek recovery of qualifying response costs from legally responsible parties. In some circumstances, after several more regulatory steps, EPA may compel polluters to abate and clean up releases of PFOA or PFOS. Other times, the federal government, States, and adversely affected private parties may pursue enforcement actions to recover cleanup costs from responsible polluters.
What the Court Decided
Industry groups that sued over the EPA's rulemaking argued that the agency read CERCLA too broadly, used an inadequate cost-benefit analysis, and acted unreasonably, citing the uncertainty about where the chemicals are located and what compliance could cost. The court rejected each argument in its August 18 decision.
Notably, the court held that CERCLA doesn't require EPA to prove that harm will certainly occur after every release. The statute's phrase "may present substantial danger" allows EPA to act when the evidence shows a real, scientifically-supported possibility of substantial harm. At the same time, the court said the statutory test has limits: the danger must be serious and real, not merely imagined.
For all these reasons, the phrase "may present a substantial risk of harm" when released into the environment carries its plain meaning of a scientifically possible substantial risk of harm upon release.
The court also held that EPA adequately disclosed and explained its cost analysis. It found that EPA had given affected parties notice that it was considering direct and indirect costs and that the final analysis logically grew out of the proposal and the public comments. The court did not decide whether CERCLA itself requires cost-benefit analysis for a designation; it held that EPA's analysis was sufficient even assuming that analysis was required.
What This Means for Other Chemicals
The decision provides a meaningful judicial roadmap for EPA if it considers additional chemical designations under CERCLA. It does not automatically place other PFAS - or any other chemical - on the CERCLA hazardous-substance list. Each designation would require its own administrative record and rulemaking.
Still, the court's reasoning favors EPA on several points that could matter in future designations:
Scientific certainty is not required. EPA may act based on a scientifically supported possibility of substantial danger; it need not wait until harm is certain after every release.
A chemical can move from site-specific response treatment to a nationwide hazardous-substance designation. The court rejected the idea that CERCLA creates a fixed hierarchy under which a chemical treated as a "pollutant or contaminant" cannot later become a "hazardous substance" as science develops. CERCLA does not draw a comparative-harm line between pollutants or contaminants and hazardous substances. Instead, it creates two distinctive cleanup regimes with two different paths for designation.
Persistence and movement in the environment matter. EPA's record for PFOA and PFOS relied not only on toxicity evidence, but also on the chemicals' persistence, movement, and tendency to build up in people and the environment. That combination may be relevant to other chemicals with similar evidence profiles. EPA used two factors to determine that PFOA and PFOS qualified as "hazardous substances." First, EPA considered "the potential harm to humans or the environment from exposure to the substance (i.e., hazard)," and second, "how the substance potentially moves, persists, and/or changes when in the environment (i.e., environmental fate and transport)."
Uncertainty does not invalidate a designation by itself. The court accepted that the location, concentration, cleanup method, and cost of contamination can be uncertain at the designation stage because CERCLA response decisions are made later, site by site.
That said, the decision does not give EPA unlimited discretion. EPA must still fit a chemical within the statutory standard, build a defensible scientific and administrative record, follow required procedures, and explain its decision reasonably. And a company's actual CERCLA exposure remains fact-dependent: it turns on such matters as the release, the site, the party's role, applicable defenses, the response action, and whether claimed costs are consistent with the National Contingency Plan.
5 Action Steps to Take Now
This ruling can provide several important compliance reminders for employers:
1. Build a PFOA/PFOS chemical-and-operations inventory. Identify current and historical PFOA/PFOS uses, including raw materials, formulations, process aids, coatings, firefighting foam, wastewater, sludge, spent media, waste shipments, and equipment that could contain residues. Include legacy operations and acquired facilities as historical use often drives environmental risk.
2. Recheck release-reporting and emergency-response procedures. Confirm that environmental-release plans, call lists, incident forms, and on-call personnel address PFOA and PFOS and the one-pound reportable quantity. Train appropriate personnel to escalate suspected releases quickly to the EHS and legal teams so the organization can assess reporting and response obligations promptly.
3. Map waste streams and audit vendor controls. Determine whether PFOA or PFOS may enter wastewater, stormwater, sludge, landfill-bound waste, recycling feedstock, filters, activated carbon, spent resin, dust, or residual materials. Review waste profiles, manifests, contracts, vendor certifications, and transport practices. The goal is to reduce uncontrolled releases and preserve reliable records of how materials were handled.
4. Conduct risk-based site and transaction diligence. For owned, leased, acquired, or divested property, assess historical PFAS operations and potential release pathways. Preserve records supporting environmental due diligence, allocation of responsibilities, and any available CERCLA defenses. The court noted that CERCLA contains defenses and protections in defined circumstances, including for certain third-party-caused releases and innocent landowners. Those protections are fact-specific and should be evaluated early. CERCLA provides complete defenses to liability when a release was caused by "an act of God" or "an act or omission of a third party," so long as the defendant has "exercised due care" and taken "precautions against foreseeable" risks.
5. Integrate environmental and worker-protection controls. Use the inventory and waste-stream review to strengthen source control, containment, housekeeping, spill prevention, labeling, training, and contractor controls. This supports both safer worker practices and prevention of environmental releases. It also creates a stronger record that the organization is identifying hazards, controlling them, and responding responsibly when concerns arise.
Conclusion
Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor any new developments in this litigation and will update employers as needed. Make sure you are signed up for Fisher Phillips' Insight System to receive updates straight to your inbox. If you have questions about CERCLA compliance, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the author of this Insight, or any member of 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/dc-circuit-upholds-epas-forever-chemicals-superfund-designation
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Cooley Enhances Capital Markets Practice in San Francisco
PALO ALTO, California, Aug. 28 -- Cooley, a law firm, issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026:
* * *
Cooley Enhances Capital Markets Practice in San Francisco
Cooley today announced that Julia White has joined the firm as a partner in its capital markets practice in San Francisco.
White's arrival advances Cooley's continued investment in its market-leading capital markets platform and adds further depth at the intersection of late-stage private companies, public companies and the investment banks that support them. She brings extensive experience advising technology, life sciences ... Show Full Article PALO ALTO, California, Aug. 28 -- Cooley, a law firm, issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * Cooley Enhances Capital Markets Practice in San Francisco Cooley today announced that Julia White has joined the firm as a partner in its capital markets practice in San Francisco. White's arrival advances Cooley's continued investment in its market-leading capital markets platform and adds further depth at the intersection of late-stage private companies, public companies and the investment banks that support them. She brings extensive experience advising technology, life sciencesand medical technology companies on sophisticated corporate and securities matters, as well as representing underwriters and investors in public and private offerings.
"Julia is an important addition to our capital markets team and reflects our commitment to building where our clients and the market are headed," said David Peinsipp, partner and co-chair of Cooley's global capital markets practice group. "Her ability to advise innovative companies from the late-stage private markets through an IPO and life as a public company, together with her experience representing leading investment banks, strengthens the integrated support we provide across the full corporate life cycle."
White advises emerging growth and public companies, investment banks and venture capital firms on initial public offerings (IPOs), follow-on and secondary offerings, convertible and senior note offerings, venture financings, mergers and acquisitions, and public company reporting and governance matters. In 2021, The American Lawyer recognized White as one of its Dealmakers of the Year for her work representing the underwriters in DoorDash's IPO. She joins Cooley from Goodwin Procter.
"Cooley's long-standing position at the center of the technology and healthcare ecosystems, combined with the strength and breadth of its capital markets team, creates a powerful platform for clients," said White. "I am excited to join a collaborative group that understands the ambitions and challenges of innovative companies at every stage, and to help clients execute transformative transactions and succeed in the public markets."
Cooley's global capital markets practice is a leader in advising innovative companies and investment banks on complex equity and debt transactions - in particular, high-value IPOs, direct listings, follow-on offerings, convertible note offerings, special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) and deSPAC mergers. Cooley advised on 180 deals globally in 2025, totaling more than $51.5 billion in deal volume. The firm has ranked #1 for issuer-side IPOs since 2016 (Deal Point Data, 2025) and has advised on more venture-backed IPOs than any other firm over the past 20+ years (IPO Vital Signs, 2025).
* * *
About Cooley LLP
Clients partner with Cooley on transformative deals, complex IP and regulatory matters, and high-stakes litigation.
Cooley has nearly 1,400 lawyers across 19 offices in the United States, Asia and Europe, and a total workforce of more than 3,000 people.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cooley.com/news/coverage/2026/2026-08-27-cooley-enhances-capital-markets-practice-in-san-francisco
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Cooley Enhances Capital Markets Practice in San Francisco
Cooley today announced that Julia White has joined the firm as a partner in its capital markets practice in San Francisco.
White's arrival advances Cooley's continued investment in its market-leading capital markets platform and adds further depth at the intersection of late-stage private companies, public companies and the investment banks that support them. She brings extensive experience advising technology, life sciences ... Show Full Article PALO ALTO, California, Aug. 28 -- Cooley, a law firm, issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * Cooley Enhances Capital Markets Practice in San Francisco Cooley today announced that Julia White has joined the firm as a partner in its capital markets practice in San Francisco. White's arrival advances Cooley's continued investment in its market-leading capital markets platform and adds further depth at the intersection of late-stage private companies, public companies and the investment banks that support them. She brings extensive experience advising technology, life sciencesand medical technology companies on sophisticated corporate and securities matters, as well as representing underwriters and investors in public and private offerings.
"Julia is an important addition to our capital markets team and reflects our commitment to building where our clients and the market are headed," said David Peinsipp, partner and co-chair of Cooley's global capital markets practice group. "Her ability to advise innovative companies from the late-stage private markets through an IPO and life as a public company, together with her experience representing leading investment banks, strengthens the integrated support we provide across the full corporate life cycle."
White advises emerging growth and public companies, investment banks and venture capital firms on initial public offerings (IPOs), follow-on and secondary offerings, convertible and senior note offerings, venture financings, mergers and acquisitions, and public company reporting and governance matters. In 2021, The American Lawyer recognized White as one of its Dealmakers of the Year for her work representing the underwriters in DoorDash's IPO. She joins Cooley from Goodwin Procter.
"Cooley's long-standing position at the center of the technology and healthcare ecosystems, combined with the strength and breadth of its capital markets team, creates a powerful platform for clients," said White. "I am excited to join a collaborative group that understands the ambitions and challenges of innovative companies at every stage, and to help clients execute transformative transactions and succeed in the public markets."
Cooley's global capital markets practice is a leader in advising innovative companies and investment banks on complex equity and debt transactions - in particular, high-value IPOs, direct listings, follow-on offerings, convertible note offerings, special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) and deSPAC mergers. Cooley advised on 180 deals globally in 2025, totaling more than $51.5 billion in deal volume. The firm has ranked #1 for issuer-side IPOs since 2016 (Deal Point Data, 2025) and has advised on more venture-backed IPOs than any other firm over the past 20+ years (IPO Vital Signs, 2025).
* * *
About Cooley LLP
Clients partner with Cooley on transformative deals, complex IP and regulatory matters, and high-stakes litigation.
Cooley has nearly 1,400 lawyers across 19 offices in the United States, Asia and Europe, and a total workforce of more than 3,000 people.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cooley.com/news/coverage/2026/2026-08-27-cooley-enhances-capital-markets-practice-in-san-francisco
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Clark Hill: Illinois Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act Creates New Compliance Obligations for Frontier AI Developers
BIRMINGHAM, Michigan, Aug. 28 -- Clark Hill, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Illinois Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act Creates New Compliance Obligations for Frontier AI Developers
Authors: Melissa K. Ventrone , Lauren M. Williams
On July 6, 2026, Illinois enacted the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act (the "Act). The Act establishes a comprehensive governance framework for developers of the most advanced AI models. While the requirements may mirror recently enacted laws in California and New York, Illinois goes further by mandating annual independent third-party ... Show Full Article BIRMINGHAM, Michigan, Aug. 28 -- Clark Hill, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Illinois Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act Creates New Compliance Obligations for Frontier AI Developers Authors: Melissa K. Ventrone , Lauren M. Williams On July 6, 2026, Illinois enacted the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act (the "Act). The Act establishes a comprehensive governance framework for developers of the most advanced AI models. While the requirements may mirror recently enacted laws in California and New York, Illinois goes further by mandating annual independent third-partyaudits for certain developers in addition to its safety and transparency obligations. Companies that fall under the jurisdiction of the Act should begin assessing governance, documentation, and risk-management programs in advance of the Act's phased implementation.
The Act takes effect in phases beginning January 1, 2027, although many of its most significant obligations, including the adoption of a frontier AI framework and annual independent third-party audits, do not take effect until January 1, 2028.
Who is Covered?
The Act applies to "frontier developers," defined as companies that train or initiate the training of a "frontier model." A frontier model is a general-purpose AI model trained using more than 1026 floating-point operations, a metric commonly used to measure the number of operations used to train an AI model. The Act also creates a narrower category of "large frontier developers," defined as frontier developers that, together with their affiliates, generated more than $500 million in annual gross revenue in the preceding calendar year. While certain requirements apply to all frontier developers, the Act reserves many of its most substantial governance and oversight obligations for large frontier developers. The Act may apply to developers outside Illinois if they develop, deploy, or operate frontier models in Illinois.
Requirements for Frontier Developers
* Transparency Reports. Before or at the time a new or substantially modified frontier model is deployed, frontier developers must publish a transparency report containing basic information about the model. This includes the model's release date, supported languages and types of output, intended uses, applicable restrictions or conditions on its use, and a contact mechanism and website for the developer.
* Critical Safety Incident Reporting. Frontier developers must report "critical safety incidents" involving their models to the Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security (the "Agency") and the Illinois Attorney General within 72 hours of learning facts sufficient to establish a reasonable belief that an incident occurred. This reporting deadline shortens to 24 hours if the incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious injury. Covered incidents include harm resulting from catastrophic risk, loss of control of a frontier model causing death or injury, unauthorized access to or modification of the model weights, or a frontier model that "uses deceptive techniques" to undermine the developer's control and increases catastrophic risk. The Act defines "catastrophic risk" to include foreseeable and material risks that a model will lead to the death or injury of more than 50 people, cause more than $1 billion in property damage, provide "expert-level" assistance in creating a weapon of mass destruction, engage in conduct without meaningful human oversight, or evade the control of the developer or user.
* Whistleblower Protections. The Act prohibits frontier developers from preventing or retaliating against "covered employees" who report potential violations of the Act or safety concerns. Frontier developers must also notify covered employees in monthly status updates and maintain an anonymous internal reporting channel.
* False or Misleading Statements. Frontier developers shall not make a materially false or misleading statement about catastrophic risk from its frontier models or about its management of catastrophic risk.
Additional Requirements for Large Frontier Developers
Large frontier developers are subject to the requirements above, along with additional obligations.
* Frontier AI Frameworks. Beginning January 1, 2028, large frontier developers must develop, implement, comply with, and publicly post a "frontier AI framework" describing how they assess, identify, and respond to catastrophic risks associated with their models. The framework must address risk mitigation measures, adoption of national, international, and industry standards, use of third-party evaluators, cybersecurity protections for unreleased model weights, internal governance, and accountability mechanisms. The framework must be reviewed at least annually, and any material modifications must be published within 30 days.
* Additional Transparency Reporting. Large frontier developers must include additional information in the transparency reports required of all frontier developers. This includes summaries and results of their catastrophic risk assessments, the involvement of third-party evaluators, and steps taken to comply with their frontier AI framework. Notably, large frontier developers may not make materially false or misleading statements about their implementation of, or compliance with, their frontier AI framework.
* Internal Use Risk Reporting. Large frontier developers must provide the Agency with a summary of any assessment of catastrophic risk arising from internal use of its frontier models every three months (or on another reasonable schedule, the developer submits in writing to the Agency and the Attorney General and the Agency accepts), with written updates as appropriate.
* Annual Independent Third-Party Audits. Beginning January 1, 2028 (or within 90 days after becoming a large frontier developer), large frontier developers must retain an independent third-party to conduct annual compliance audits. The audit must assess substantial compliance with the Act and internal controls. Auditors must have demonstrated frontier-model safety expertise and be independent and free from financial conflicts. A high-level summary and a redacted audit report must be publicly posted and submitted to the Agency and Illinois Attorney General within 30 days after receipt.
* Disclosure and Registration. Beginning January 1, 2027, large frontier developers may not develop, deploy, or operate a frontier model, in whole or in part, in Illinois without maintaining a current disclosure statement with the Agency and paying the required fees. The required disclosures must include corporate identity information, Illinois offices, certain ownership interests, and designated governmental contracts. The filing must be renewed annually and when certain material changes occur. If a large frontier developer develops, deploys, or operates a frontier model in Illinois without a current disclosure statement, submits false information in a filing, or fails to pay required assessments, the Agency may impose penalties of $1,000 per day and may recover unpaid assessments and fees. A limited "safe harbor" applies to statements made in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances.
Enforcement and Penalties
The Illinois Attorney General has exclusive authority to enforce the Act, and there is no private right of action. Large frontier developers may face civil penalties of up to $1 million for a first violation and up to $3 million for each subsequent violation for failing to publish or submit required reports or disclosures, making prohibited false or misleading statements about catastrophic risk, failing to obtain required independent audits, or failing to report critical safety incidents.
Notably, enforcement is tied not only to the Act's requirements, but also to compliance with a developer's published frontier AI framework, potentially exposing companies to liability when their practices diverge from their published commitments.
Implications for AI Developers
As Illinois joins California and New York in regulating frontier AI models, developers should assess whether existing compliance efforts can be adapted to meet Illinois' new requirements. For large frontier developers, this means that compliance cannot only exist on paper. The policies, procedures, and controls described in a frontier AI framework will need to be implemented in practice and supported by records sufficient to demonstrate compliance during an annual independent third-party audit. Put differently, the audit requirement adds a new level of accountability by shifting from self-reported compliance to independent verification of a developer's safety practices.
If you have questions about AI regulations or need further assistance, contact Melissa Ventrone, Lauren Williams, or the Clark Hill Data Privacy, Protection & Cybersecurity team.
* * *
This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author(s) only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC or Clark Hill Solicitors LLP. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/illinois-ai-safety-measures-act-frontier-ai-developers/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Illinois Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act Creates New Compliance Obligations for Frontier AI Developers
Authors: Melissa K. Ventrone , Lauren M. Williams
On July 6, 2026, Illinois enacted the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act (the "Act). The Act establishes a comprehensive governance framework for developers of the most advanced AI models. While the requirements may mirror recently enacted laws in California and New York, Illinois goes further by mandating annual independent third-party ... Show Full Article BIRMINGHAM, Michigan, Aug. 28 -- Clark Hill, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Illinois Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act Creates New Compliance Obligations for Frontier AI Developers Authors: Melissa K. Ventrone , Lauren M. Williams On July 6, 2026, Illinois enacted the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act (the "Act). The Act establishes a comprehensive governance framework for developers of the most advanced AI models. While the requirements may mirror recently enacted laws in California and New York, Illinois goes further by mandating annual independent third-partyaudits for certain developers in addition to its safety and transparency obligations. Companies that fall under the jurisdiction of the Act should begin assessing governance, documentation, and risk-management programs in advance of the Act's phased implementation.
The Act takes effect in phases beginning January 1, 2027, although many of its most significant obligations, including the adoption of a frontier AI framework and annual independent third-party audits, do not take effect until January 1, 2028.
Who is Covered?
The Act applies to "frontier developers," defined as companies that train or initiate the training of a "frontier model." A frontier model is a general-purpose AI model trained using more than 1026 floating-point operations, a metric commonly used to measure the number of operations used to train an AI model. The Act also creates a narrower category of "large frontier developers," defined as frontier developers that, together with their affiliates, generated more than $500 million in annual gross revenue in the preceding calendar year. While certain requirements apply to all frontier developers, the Act reserves many of its most substantial governance and oversight obligations for large frontier developers. The Act may apply to developers outside Illinois if they develop, deploy, or operate frontier models in Illinois.
Requirements for Frontier Developers
* Transparency Reports. Before or at the time a new or substantially modified frontier model is deployed, frontier developers must publish a transparency report containing basic information about the model. This includes the model's release date, supported languages and types of output, intended uses, applicable restrictions or conditions on its use, and a contact mechanism and website for the developer.
* Critical Safety Incident Reporting. Frontier developers must report "critical safety incidents" involving their models to the Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security (the "Agency") and the Illinois Attorney General within 72 hours of learning facts sufficient to establish a reasonable belief that an incident occurred. This reporting deadline shortens to 24 hours if the incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious injury. Covered incidents include harm resulting from catastrophic risk, loss of control of a frontier model causing death or injury, unauthorized access to or modification of the model weights, or a frontier model that "uses deceptive techniques" to undermine the developer's control and increases catastrophic risk. The Act defines "catastrophic risk" to include foreseeable and material risks that a model will lead to the death or injury of more than 50 people, cause more than $1 billion in property damage, provide "expert-level" assistance in creating a weapon of mass destruction, engage in conduct without meaningful human oversight, or evade the control of the developer or user.
* Whistleblower Protections. The Act prohibits frontier developers from preventing or retaliating against "covered employees" who report potential violations of the Act or safety concerns. Frontier developers must also notify covered employees in monthly status updates and maintain an anonymous internal reporting channel.
* False or Misleading Statements. Frontier developers shall not make a materially false or misleading statement about catastrophic risk from its frontier models or about its management of catastrophic risk.
Additional Requirements for Large Frontier Developers
Large frontier developers are subject to the requirements above, along with additional obligations.
* Frontier AI Frameworks. Beginning January 1, 2028, large frontier developers must develop, implement, comply with, and publicly post a "frontier AI framework" describing how they assess, identify, and respond to catastrophic risks associated with their models. The framework must address risk mitigation measures, adoption of national, international, and industry standards, use of third-party evaluators, cybersecurity protections for unreleased model weights, internal governance, and accountability mechanisms. The framework must be reviewed at least annually, and any material modifications must be published within 30 days.
* Additional Transparency Reporting. Large frontier developers must include additional information in the transparency reports required of all frontier developers. This includes summaries and results of their catastrophic risk assessments, the involvement of third-party evaluators, and steps taken to comply with their frontier AI framework. Notably, large frontier developers may not make materially false or misleading statements about their implementation of, or compliance with, their frontier AI framework.
* Internal Use Risk Reporting. Large frontier developers must provide the Agency with a summary of any assessment of catastrophic risk arising from internal use of its frontier models every three months (or on another reasonable schedule, the developer submits in writing to the Agency and the Attorney General and the Agency accepts), with written updates as appropriate.
* Annual Independent Third-Party Audits. Beginning January 1, 2028 (or within 90 days after becoming a large frontier developer), large frontier developers must retain an independent third-party to conduct annual compliance audits. The audit must assess substantial compliance with the Act and internal controls. Auditors must have demonstrated frontier-model safety expertise and be independent and free from financial conflicts. A high-level summary and a redacted audit report must be publicly posted and submitted to the Agency and Illinois Attorney General within 30 days after receipt.
* Disclosure and Registration. Beginning January 1, 2027, large frontier developers may not develop, deploy, or operate a frontier model, in whole or in part, in Illinois without maintaining a current disclosure statement with the Agency and paying the required fees. The required disclosures must include corporate identity information, Illinois offices, certain ownership interests, and designated governmental contracts. The filing must be renewed annually and when certain material changes occur. If a large frontier developer develops, deploys, or operates a frontier model in Illinois without a current disclosure statement, submits false information in a filing, or fails to pay required assessments, the Agency may impose penalties of $1,000 per day and may recover unpaid assessments and fees. A limited "safe harbor" applies to statements made in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances.
Enforcement and Penalties
The Illinois Attorney General has exclusive authority to enforce the Act, and there is no private right of action. Large frontier developers may face civil penalties of up to $1 million for a first violation and up to $3 million for each subsequent violation for failing to publish or submit required reports or disclosures, making prohibited false or misleading statements about catastrophic risk, failing to obtain required independent audits, or failing to report critical safety incidents.
Notably, enforcement is tied not only to the Act's requirements, but also to compliance with a developer's published frontier AI framework, potentially exposing companies to liability when their practices diverge from their published commitments.
Implications for AI Developers
As Illinois joins California and New York in regulating frontier AI models, developers should assess whether existing compliance efforts can be adapted to meet Illinois' new requirements. For large frontier developers, this means that compliance cannot only exist on paper. The policies, procedures, and controls described in a frontier AI framework will need to be implemented in practice and supported by records sufficient to demonstrate compliance during an annual independent third-party audit. Put differently, the audit requirement adds a new level of accountability by shifting from self-reported compliance to independent verification of a developer's safety practices.
If you have questions about AI regulations or need further assistance, contact Melissa Ventrone, Lauren Williams, or the Clark Hill Data Privacy, Protection & Cybersecurity team.
* * *
This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author(s) only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC or Clark Hill Solicitors LLP. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/illinois-ai-safety-measures-act-frontier-ai-developers/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Akerman Appoints Naheem Harris as Co-Chair of Real Estate Financing Practice
MIAMI, Florida, Aug. 28 -- Akerman, a law firm, issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026:
* * *
Akerman Appoints Naheem Harris as Co-Chair of Real Estate Financing Practice
Akerman today announced that New York-based Real Estate Partner Naheem Harris has been appointed Co-Chair of the firm's Real Estate Financing Practice, effective immediately. Naheem succeeds Samuel Zylberberg, who recently retired from the firm, and will lead the national practice alongside Co-Chair Beau Baker.
Together, Naheem and Beau will work to advance the practice's continued growth and deliver sophisticated ... Show Full Article MIAMI, Florida, Aug. 28 -- Akerman, a law firm, issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * Akerman Appoints Naheem Harris as Co-Chair of Real Estate Financing Practice Akerman today announced that New York-based Real Estate Partner Naheem Harris has been appointed Co-Chair of the firm's Real Estate Financing Practice, effective immediately. Naheem succeeds Samuel Zylberberg, who recently retired from the firm, and will lead the national practice alongside Co-Chair Beau Baker. Together, Naheem and Beau will work to advance the practice's continued growth and deliver sophisticatedcounsel to clients across the country.
"Naheem is an outstanding addition to the practice's leadership, and his deep experience representing lenders and borrowers in sophisticated real estate finance transactions makes him exceptionally well positioned to work alongside Beau and lead the practice into its next chapter," said Eric Rapkin, Chair of Akerman's Real Estate Practice Group. "We are excited about the opportunities ahead and confident that Naheem and Beau will continue to build on the strong foundation the practice has established. We are also grateful to Sam for his tremendous contributions and leadership of the practice over the years."
Naheem, who joined Akerman in 2024, focuses his practice on representing domestic and international real estate companies, institutional lenders, REITs, funds, and other real estate investors and operators. His experience includes bespoke mortgage, mezzanine, and preferred equity financings, borrower and lender representations, acquisitions and dispositions, development, partnerships, and joint ventures. He also advises owners and operators on real estate-related operational, organizational, and structural matters across asset classes including office, multifamily, single-family, build-to-rent, industrial, life sciences, and hospitality.
"I am honored to take on this leadership role and work alongside Beau to help guide Akerman's leading Real Estate Financing Practice," said Naheem. "The practice has built a strong reputation for handling sophisticated transactions and delivering strategic solutions to clients, and I look forward to contributing to its continued growth while helping our clients navigate an increasingly complex real estate financing environment."
* * *
About Akerman
Founded in 1920, Akerman is an Am Law 100 firm recognized by Vault among the nation's most prestigious law firms. The firm has more than 700 lawyers and business professionals throughout the United States.
Akerman's national Real Estate Financing Practice represents lenders and borrowers in a broad range of complex real estate financing transactions. The team, which includes former in-house counsel from major multinational banks, is consistently recognized by Best Lawyers, The Legal 500, and Law360 as a national leader in the real estate sector. Akerman represents a number of the nation's largest financial institutions, institutional investors, investment banks, banking associations, life insurance companies, and developers in a variety of domestic and international matters, from the most sophisticated capital market transactions, to workouts and bankruptcies, to more traditional conventional financings.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.akerman.com/en/firm/newsroom/akerman-appoints-naheem-harris-as-co-chair-of-real-estate-financing-practice.html
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Akerman Appoints Naheem Harris as Co-Chair of Real Estate Financing Practice
Akerman today announced that New York-based Real Estate Partner Naheem Harris has been appointed Co-Chair of the firm's Real Estate Financing Practice, effective immediately. Naheem succeeds Samuel Zylberberg, who recently retired from the firm, and will lead the national practice alongside Co-Chair Beau Baker.
Together, Naheem and Beau will work to advance the practice's continued growth and deliver sophisticated ... Show Full Article MIAMI, Florida, Aug. 28 -- Akerman, a law firm, issued the following news release on Aug. 27, 2026: * * * Akerman Appoints Naheem Harris as Co-Chair of Real Estate Financing Practice Akerman today announced that New York-based Real Estate Partner Naheem Harris has been appointed Co-Chair of the firm's Real Estate Financing Practice, effective immediately. Naheem succeeds Samuel Zylberberg, who recently retired from the firm, and will lead the national practice alongside Co-Chair Beau Baker. Together, Naheem and Beau will work to advance the practice's continued growth and deliver sophisticatedcounsel to clients across the country.
"Naheem is an outstanding addition to the practice's leadership, and his deep experience representing lenders and borrowers in sophisticated real estate finance transactions makes him exceptionally well positioned to work alongside Beau and lead the practice into its next chapter," said Eric Rapkin, Chair of Akerman's Real Estate Practice Group. "We are excited about the opportunities ahead and confident that Naheem and Beau will continue to build on the strong foundation the practice has established. We are also grateful to Sam for his tremendous contributions and leadership of the practice over the years."
Naheem, who joined Akerman in 2024, focuses his practice on representing domestic and international real estate companies, institutional lenders, REITs, funds, and other real estate investors and operators. His experience includes bespoke mortgage, mezzanine, and preferred equity financings, borrower and lender representations, acquisitions and dispositions, development, partnerships, and joint ventures. He also advises owners and operators on real estate-related operational, organizational, and structural matters across asset classes including office, multifamily, single-family, build-to-rent, industrial, life sciences, and hospitality.
"I am honored to take on this leadership role and work alongside Beau to help guide Akerman's leading Real Estate Financing Practice," said Naheem. "The practice has built a strong reputation for handling sophisticated transactions and delivering strategic solutions to clients, and I look forward to contributing to its continued growth while helping our clients navigate an increasingly complex real estate financing environment."
* * *
About Akerman
Founded in 1920, Akerman is an Am Law 100 firm recognized by Vault among the nation's most prestigious law firms. The firm has more than 700 lawyers and business professionals throughout the United States.
Akerman's national Real Estate Financing Practice represents lenders and borrowers in a broad range of complex real estate financing transactions. The team, which includes former in-house counsel from major multinational banks, is consistently recognized by Best Lawyers, The Legal 500, and Law360 as a national leader in the real estate sector. Akerman represents a number of the nation's largest financial institutions, institutional investors, investment banks, banking associations, life insurance companies, and developers in a variety of domestic and international matters, from the most sophisticated capital market transactions, to workouts and bankruptcies, to more traditional conventional financings.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.akerman.com/en/firm/newsroom/akerman-appoints-naheem-harris-as-co-chair-of-real-estate-financing-practice.html
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]