Featured Stories
Faegre Drinker: Reducing Barriers to Out-Of-State Pediatric Care Through the Accelerating Kids' Access to Care Act
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, July 28 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Reducing Barriers to Out-Of-State Pediatric Care Through the Accelerating Kids' Access to Care Act
Health Affairs Forefront
-
Faegre Drinker Consulting Principal Nick Manetto co-authored an article for the Health Affairs Forefront blog with Joshua Greenberg, vice president for government relations at Boston Children's Hospital, examining how implementation of the Accelerating Kids' Access to Care Act can improve access to specialized pediatric care for children enrolled in Medicaid
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, July 28 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Reducing Barriers to Out-Of-State Pediatric Care Through the Accelerating Kids' Access to Care Act
Health Affairs Forefront
-
Faegre Drinker Consulting Principal Nick Manetto co-authored an article for the Health Affairs Forefront blog with Joshua Greenberg, vice president for government relations at Boston Children's Hospital, examining how implementation of the Accelerating Kids' Access to Care Act can improve access to specialized pediatric care for children enrolled in Medicaidand the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
The authors discuss the increasing need for out-of-state pediatric care as highly specialized treatment becomes concentrated at regional centers of excellence and outline how the new law is designed to streamline provider enrollment across state Medicaid and CHIP programs.
They also offer recommendations for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as it develops regulations to implement the legislation, including leveraging existing enrollment systems, standardizing data requirements, facilitating facility-level enrollment, and reducing administrative barriers that can delay care for medically complex children.
The article further explores additional policy opportunities to enhance access to specialized pediatric care nationwide.
Full article: https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/reducing-barriers-out-state-pediatric-care-through-accelerating-kids-access-care-act
* * *
Meet the Authors
Nicholas P. Manetto
Principal - Faegre Drinker Consulting
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 312 7499
nicholas.manetto@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/7/reducing-barriers-to-out-of-state-pediatric-care-through-the-accelerating-kids-access-to-care-act
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Issues Commentary: DOJ Returns to Targeted Second Request Investigations, Publishes Model Timing Agreement
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, July 28 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 27, 2026, by counsel Anna M. Behrmann, associate Mihajlo Gasic and partners Matthew R. Levy and Kathy L. Osborn:
* * *
DOJ Returns to Targeted Second Request Investigations, Publishes Model Timing Agreement
Streamlined Process Signals Continued Pro-Business Approach to Merger Review under the Second Trump Administration
At a Glance
* On July 23, 2026, the DOJ announced it is resuming targeted second request investigations and published a model timing agreement to expedite
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, July 28 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 27, 2026, by counsel Anna M. Behrmann, associate Mihajlo Gasic and partners Matthew R. Levy and Kathy L. Osborn:
* * *
DOJ Returns to Targeted Second Request Investigations, Publishes Model Timing Agreement
Streamlined Process Signals Continued Pro-Business Approach to Merger Review under the Second Trump Administration
At a Glance
* On July 23, 2026, the DOJ announced it is resuming targeted second request investigations and published a model timing agreement to expeditemerger review under the HSR Act, replacing the broader investigative approach adopted during the Biden administration.
* The announcement reflects the Trump administration's broader effort to reduce regulatory burdens on deal parties while maintaining antitrust enforcement, including a return to consent decrees and structural remedies over litigation to block deals.
* Companies should expect shorter, less costly second request processes from the DOJ, but proactive engagement with regulators and awareness of expanding state-level enforcement remain critical.
-
On July 23, 2026, the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division (DOJ) announced it has returned to implementing targeted Second Request investigations to expedite merger review under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act. The DOJ also published a model timing agreement in connection with the announcement. Together, these actions represent the latest in a series of steps by the Trump administration to reduce regulatory burdens on merging parties while preserving the government's ability to investigate transactions that raise potential competitive concerns.
Background
Under the HSR Act, mergers and other transactions above certain financial thresholds must be reported to the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) before closing. If either agency identifies potential competition concerns, it may issue a "second request" -- a formal demand for additional documents and information -- that typically adds months to deal timelines and imposes significant compliance costs. Prior to the Biden administration, the DOJ and the FTC routinely executed targeted second request investigations, entering into timing agreements with merging parties that prioritized the submission of information most relevant to the agencies' competitive concerns. After reviewing this priority information, the reviewing agency could close its investigation, modify or narrow the second request, or require full compliance.
The Biden administration moved away from this targeted approach in favor of broader investigations. The Biden-era FTC also adopted sweeping changes to the HSR notification form that roughly tripled average preparation time, but those amended rules were subsequently vacated by the Eastern District of Texas. Merging parties currently file under the pre-2025 form while the agencies solicit public comment on a revised HSR form.
The Announcement
Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr. framed the return to targeted reviews as an effort "to eliminate bureaucratic burdens while still preserving the integrity of second request investigations." He further stated the change "will allow for quicker and more efficient review of proposed transactions; more effective use of taxpayer resources; and above all, helps the [DOJ] do its job to safeguard a competitive marketplace while keeping America open for business."
The model timing agreement outlines the mechanics of the targeted process. Under the agreement, the parties commit to an expedited production of "priority" documents and information the DOJ has identified as most pertinent to resolving its competitive questions. Following review of the priority production, the DOJ will notify the parties whether it intends to: (1) close the investigation or grant early termination; (2) modify or narrow the second request; or (3) proceed with the investigation and require full compliance with the original second request.
Importantly, the DOJ emphasized that it "remains open to good faith negotiations regarding modifications to second requests in all cases" and "will continue to require full compliance in circumstances in which broader information is necessary to reach an enforcement decision."
While this announcement applies only to the DOJ, the FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson has signaled a broadly aligned philosophy, stating the FTC "must get out of the way quickly" when a merger does not violate antitrust laws "to avoid bogging down innovation and interfering with the forces of a free and competitive market."
M&A Enforcement under the Trump Administration
This announcement is part of the Trump administration's broader approach to merger enforcement. The current administration has consistently signaled its preference for reducing procedural hurdles on deal parties while not materially decreasing antitrust enforcement activity.
Enforcement by the Numbers
The recently released FY2025 HSR Annual Report, covering October 2024 through September 2025, provides a useful snapshot of the transition between administrations. The agencies issued 41 second requests in FY2025, representing 2.1% of notified transactions -- a slight decrease from FY2024's 3.0% rate but consistent with the long-standing average of approximately 2-3%. Total merger enforcement actions dropped from 32 in FY2024 to 18 in FY2025.
Return of Consent Decrees
The early dip in enforcement actions may reflect the second Trump administration's preference for settlement. During the Biden administration, agencies strongly favored litigation to block deals rather than negotiated settlements. The second Trump administration has returned to accepting structural remedies (e.g., divestitures) and behavioral commitments as the primary tools for resolving competition concerns.
Broader Themes
The second Trump administration also has articulated an "America first" antitrust framework, with enforcement priorities oriented toward protecting workers, consumers, small businesses, and US manufacturing. Industries in the crosshairs of the administration's policy priorities -- such as agriculture, health care, labor, technology, and manufacturing -- continue to draw focused scrutiny, while the agencies have signaled greater willingness to clear transactions quickly in other sectors.
Implications for Transacting Parties
For companies contemplating M&A transactions during the remainder of the second Trump administration, we note the following practical considerations.
Reduced Second Request Timelines and Costs
Parties that receive a second request from the DOJ should anticipate greater willingness to negotiate the scope of production, prioritize targeted submissions, and engage in constructive dialogue about the DOJ's competitive concerns. This should translate into shorter investigations and lower compliance costs for many transactions.
Proactive Engagement Remains Critical
The availability of a targeted process places a premium on early and substantive engagement with the DOJ. Parties and their counsel should be prepared to identify and address the DOJ's likely competition concerns proactively, offering to prioritize relevant information to facilitate a more efficient review. For high-profile or politically sensitive transactions, companies also should consider developing a broader engagement strategy that accounts for the White House's increasingly direct role in antitrust enforcement decisions during this administration.
State Enforcement May Intensify
Companies also should be mindful that state attorneys general may seek to fill any perceived gaps in federal enforcement. Multiple states have enacted or expanded their own premerger notification regimes, and multistate coalitions have shown a willingness to investigate and prosecute transactions independently of -- and at times in opposition to -- the enforcement decisions of federal authorities.
In Conclusion
The antitrust laws are nuanced and complex and their application to specific transactions is fact sensitive. We strongly recommend that companies contemplating a merger or acquisition consult with experienced antitrust and HSR counsel early in the deal process to navigate the current regulatory landscape and develop an effective engagement strategy.
* * *
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
* * *
Meet the Authors
Anna M. Behrmann
Counsel
Indianapolis
+1 317 237 1016
anna.behrmann@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Kathy L. Osborn
Partner
Indianapolis
+1 317 237 8261
kathy.osborn@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Matthew R. Levy
Partner
Indianapolis
+1 317 237 1114
matthew.levy@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Mihajlo Gasic
Associate
Chicago
+1 312 569 1142
mihajlo.gasic@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/7/doj-returns-to-targeted-second-request-investigations-publishes-model-timing-agreement
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Richmond Law Firm McGuireWoods Represents John Laing Group in Financing Acquisition of Connecticut Utility
RICHMOND, Virginia, July 28 -- McGuireWoods, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
McGuireWoods Represents John Laing Group in Financing Acquisition of Connecticut Utility
McGuireWoods advised John Laing Group, a leading international investor and active manager of core infrastructure assets, on its financing for the acquisition of a Connecticut water system serving 735,000 people in 60 municipalities.
John Laing supported Aquarion Water Authority (AWA), which was formed by Connecticut lawmakers in 2024, in its purchase of the Aquarion Company from Eversource. John Laing's role
... Show Full Article
RICHMOND, Virginia, July 28 -- McGuireWoods, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
McGuireWoods Represents John Laing Group in Financing Acquisition of Connecticut Utility
McGuireWoods advised John Laing Group, a leading international investor and active manager of core infrastructure assets, on its financing for the acquisition of a Connecticut water system serving 735,000 people in 60 municipalities.
John Laing supported Aquarion Water Authority (AWA), which was formed by Connecticut lawmakers in 2024, in its purchase of the Aquarion Company from Eversource. John Laing's roleis part of a broader financing solution, which includes a public bond issuance led by Bank of America and included Barclays as an additional underwriter.
McGuireWoods partners Jake Spilman and Douglas Lamb led the deal team. Other key members of the deal team included counsel Clinton Randolph and Ryan Thompson, partner Robert Kaplan and associate Johnny Mac Yates.
"We were proud to assist John Laing with this transaction and for our continued partnership with John Laing," Spilman said. "The deal reflects John Laing's commitment to providing innovative financing to support essential infrastructure."
McGuireWoods' full-service team of lawyers work cohesively with colleagues in all of the firm's groups to deliver end-to-end deal support tailored to each transaction.
* * *
URL: John Laing Group
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcguirewoods.com/news/press-releases/2026/7/mcguirewoods-represents-john-laing-group-in-financing-acquisition-of-connecticut-utility/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Medical Certificate From Day One in Germany - What Is Changing, What Remains the Same - and What Employers Can Do Now
SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 28 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 27, 2026, by senior associates Johanna Kreienkamp and Alke Helene Sundermann:
* * *
Medical Certificate from Day One in Germany: What Is Changing, What Remains the Same - and What Employers Can Do Now
In early July 2026, the German Coalition Committee of the CDU/CSU (conservative political party union) and SPD (social democratic political party) announced a proposal to create an obligation to submit a certificate of incapacity for work from the first day of illness and to abolish telephone-based
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 28 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 27, 2026, by senior associates Johanna Kreienkamp and Alke Helene Sundermann:
* * *
Medical Certificate from Day One in Germany: What Is Changing, What Remains the Same - and What Employers Can Do Now
In early July 2026, the German Coalition Committee of the CDU/CSU (conservative political party union) and SPD (social democratic political party) announced a proposal to create an obligation to submit a certificate of incapacity for work from the first day of illness and to abolish telephone-basedcertification of incapacity for work. At first glance, this may sound like a significant tightening of obligations for employers and employees alike. In reality, however, less is likely to change than expected. The real challenges lie in the details, which will only be clarified once a draft bill is published.
For Now, Only a Political Announcement - Section 5 EFZG Continues to Apply
The basis for the announcement is the "Program for Growth and Employment" published on July 2, 2026. No draft bill has yet been presented; Federal Chancellor Merz has announced that the legislative process is to be completed by the end of 2026. Until then, Section 5 of the German Continued Remuneration Act (Entgeltfortzahlungsgesetz, EFZG), which sets forth an employee's obligations to notify and provide proof to their employer when they are unable to work due to illness, remains unchanged.
At the July 2, 2026 press conference, Mr. Merz expressly confirmed that businesses should be able to deviate from the new rule by individual agreement, works agreement, or collective bargaining agreement. Whether such deviations will be permissible only in favor of employees - for example, by retaining the three-day period - or in both directions will only become clear once the draft bill is available. For the time being, employers therefore do not need to take immediate action.
What many do not know: Employers can already require proof from day one
The planned reform would turn an existing employer prerogative into the statutory default rule: under Section 5 para. 1 sentence 3 EFZG, employers in Germany are already entitled to require a medical certificate earlier than after three days - including from the first day of illness and without any specific reason. The only limits are arbitrary or discriminatory instructions.
For employees covered by statutory health insurance, the duty to provide proof has operated differently since the mandatory electronic certificate of incapacity for work (eAU) was introduced on January 1, 2023: employees are no longer required to submit a paper certificate, but rather to have their incapacity for work medically certified. The medical practice transmits the data, and the employer retrieves it from the health insurance fund.
Open implementation issues - what the legislation still needs to address
Several practical questions remain in the absence of a draft bill. What qualifies as the "first day" - the first calendar day or the first working day missed due to illness? This is crucial for shift models, weekends, and public holidays. Which options for retroactive certification or video consultations will remain available once telephone-based sick leave certification is abolished? And how medical practices are expected to cope with the anticipated influx if every sick employee suddenly needs a certificate from day one is another issue that remains unaddressed.
There is also a terminological inconsistency: the coalition decision refers to a mandatory "submission" of the certificate of incapacity for work - although, as described above, employees covered by statutory health insurance have not submitted anything since 2023. How a statutory submission requirement to submit can be reconciled with the existing eAU procedure remains unclear.
No proof = no pay? Not automatically
Employees who are ill are entitled to continued remuneration regardless of whether they submit a certificate. The decisive factor is solely whether incapacity for work actually existed (Section 3 EFZG). In cases of doubt, the burden of proof lies with the employee.
For employers, this means that an unsuccessful eAU retrieval alone is not sufficient to suspend continued remuneration. It may be due to a technical error, or it may indicate that the employee did not in fact consult a physician. Section 7 EFZG was drafted for the paper-based system and does not provide a clear answer. This gap already exists today - and the reform would present an opportunity to finally address it.
Practical implications
The announced and widely discussed obligation to provide proof of incapacity for work from day one may sound like a tightening of obligations, but it will likely merely elevate an existing employer's discretionary right to the statutory standard. What will be decisive is how far the announced derogation clause will extend: deviations by individual employment contract, works agreement, and collective bargaining agreement are intended to remain possible. Until the draft bill is published, it is worth using the situation as an opportunity to review the company's existing agreements. Specifically, employers should consider the following:
* Review contracts and policies: Are employees' notification and proof obligations in the event of illness clearly regulated? Is there already a requirement to provide a medical certificate from day one?
* Define a strategic position: Does the company want to require a certificate from the first day as a general rule, or only in specific circumstances - for example, in cases of frequent short-term absences?
* Observe co-determination rights: Any employer wishing to introduce or tighten a company-level requirement to provide a certificate from the first day already must involve the works council (Section 87 para. 1 no. 1 BetrVG). Once the legislation enters into force, co-determination will no longer apply to the "whether" - but it will continue to apply to the design of any exceptions and processes.
Until the draft bill is available, the rule is therefore better to wait and see. Anyone who acts prematurely may have to readjust at a later stage.
* * *
Authors
Johanna Kreienkamp
Senior Associate
Hamburg
jkreienkamp@littler.com
* * *
Alke Helene Sundermann
Senior Associate
Hamburg
asundermann@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/medical-certificate-day-one-germany-what-changing-what-remains-same-and-what
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Hughes Hubbard Earns Chambers High Net Worth Ranking for Art and Cultural Property Law Excellence
NEW YORK, July 28 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Hughes Hubbard Earns Chambers High Net Worth Ranking for Art and Cultural Property Law Excellence
Art Law practice and practice chair Dan Weiner earn Chambers honors.
Highlights
* Ranked in Band 2 nationwide for Art and Cultural Property Law.
* Recognized for the seventh consecutive year.
* Practice Chair Dan Weiner earned a Band 1 individual ranking.
-
For the seventh consecutive year, Chambers High Net Worth recognized Hughes Hubbard among the nation's leading law firms for Art and Cultural Property
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, July 28 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Hughes Hubbard Earns Chambers High Net Worth Ranking for Art and Cultural Property Law Excellence
Art Law practice and practice chair Dan Weiner earn Chambers honors.
Highlights
* Ranked in Band 2 nationwide for Art and Cultural Property Law.
* Recognized for the seventh consecutive year.
* Practice Chair Dan Weiner earned a Band 1 individual ranking.
-
For the seventh consecutive year, Chambers High Net Worth recognized Hughes Hubbard among the nation's leading law firms for Art and Cultural PropertyLaw.
The guide ranked the firm's Art Law practice in Band 2 nationwide and highlighted its work on both transactional and contentious matters for artists, galleries, dealers, collectors and institutions.
"The lawyers are exceptional," a client said. "What sets them apart has to do with how bright they are, their experience level, but also the care and thoroughness they put into cases."
Practice Chair Dan Weiner was individually recognized as Band 1, with clients saying, "Daniel's depth of understanding of the art world is unmatched. He is able to provide us with excellent advice and representation as a result."
Recently, the firm advised Sompo, the Japanese insurance giant, in its successful defense of a $1.7 billion federal court action seeking return of one of Vincent van Gogh's iconic Sunflowers paintings.
Published by Chambers & Partners, the Chambers High Net Worth rankings are based on independent research and interviews with professionals and clients across the private wealth industry.
* * *
Featured Lawyers
Daniel H. Weiner
Partner
Locations
New York
Miami
daniel.weiner@hugheshubbard.com
+1 (212) 837-6874
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hugheshubbard.com/news-insights/news/hughes-hubbard-earns-chambers-high-net-worth-ranking-for-art-and-cultural-property-law-excellence
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Guns In Your Business - Practical Steps for Employers and Businesses Following SCOTUS' Ruling Barring Concealed Carry Limits
ATLANTA, Georgia, July 28 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 27, 2026:
* * *
Guns In Your Business: Practical Steps for Employers and Businesses Following SCOTUS' Ruling Barring Concealed Carry Limits
The Supreme Court recently invalidated state laws that create a blanket ban on concealed carry holders bringing guns onto private property open to the public, and it may require employers and businesses across the country to revisit their policies on weapons in the workplace. Whether your company is open to allowing weapons on your property or not, the June 25
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, July 28 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 27, 2026:
* * *
Guns In Your Business: Practical Steps for Employers and Businesses Following SCOTUS' Ruling Barring Concealed Carry Limits
The Supreme Court recently invalidated state laws that create a blanket ban on concealed carry holders bringing guns onto private property open to the public, and it may require employers and businesses across the country to revisit their policies on weapons in the workplace. Whether your company is open to allowing weapons on your property or not, the June 25ruling in Wolford v. Lopez clarifies that only property owners - not the state - can institute blanket gun bans on private property that is open to the public. While the decision only directly impacts laws in five states and Washington, DC, businesses and employers that want to restrict guns on their privately owned property will now need to take steps to clearly communicate those restrictions, and companies that don't mind allowing concealed weapons on their property no longer have to be concerned with state laws potentially limiting that access. Here's everything you need to know about the ruling, as well as a few reminders to keep your workplace safe, no matter what your policy is.
SCOTUS Decision Strikes Down Blanket-Ban State Laws
The Supreme Court held that Hawaii's law barring licensed concealed-carry holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner's express authorization violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The majority said the state's default rule was too broad under the Second Amendment's text and the historical-tradition approach the Court has used in recent gun cases.
The ruling made clear that states generally cannot impose a blanket rule requiring concealed-carry permit holders to get express permission before entering private property that is open to the public, such as stores, restaurants, or banks.
The decision will immediately impact the jurisdictions that have passed similar laws:
* Hawaii
* District of Columbia
* California
* Maryland
* New York
* New Jersey
It will also prohibit other states from passing future similar bans.
What Does This Mean For Your Business?
The ruling centered on private property open to the public, so it's important to remember that businesses still have room to set their own rules around guns on their property and for states to continue regulating sensitive locations, like schools, churches, or courthouses. The decision does not give anyone the right to enter private, non-public property with a firearm, and it does not disturb gun bans in sensitive places.
For employers and retail operators anywhere in the US, the decision offers an important reminder: if you want a no-firearms rule, make sure it is communicated in a way that can support enforcement.
* Businesses that want to keep firearms out will now need to rely on their own property rights and clearly communicate that policy, rather than on a state default ban. Business owners who want to exclude firearms should post signs, adopt written policies, or otherwise give notice that guns are not allowed.
* If your business prefers to allow concealed weapons on your property, this ruling generally expands that right.
* Keep in mind: Several states have certain "parking lot" or "guns at work" laws that limit the restrictions businesses can place on employees legally possessing or storing firearms in their personal vehicles while parked on employer property. These laws don't require employers to allow guns inside buildings, but they generally restrict blanket "no firearms anywhere on our property" policies that include parking areas.
Safety Risks
While you know what's best for your business, whether you should allow guns on your business' property is not only a personal decision, but also a workplace safety decision. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers to take feasible steps to minimize risks of violence in workplaces where there is a recognized hazard of violence or serious personal injury.
Your business can also face other liability exposure if you allow employees to be armed. Especially without training, background screening, or a permit, an employee could unintentionally create a dangerous situation at your business if they mishandle or improperly secure the weapon. This could result in civil liability, an investigation from a federal or state workplace safety agency, or a serious injury or death at your workplace or place of business. Having a clearly communicated gun policy that is vetted by legal counsel is key if you want to allow weapons on your business' property.
Key Lessons, No Matter Your Policy
Employers that want to allow weapons on their business' private property should consider:
* Developing a comprehensive workplace safety program that includes staff and manager training on responding to gun-related incidents, including de-escalation, and reporting procedures.
* Ensuring you have a written and easily accessible workplace gun policy that defines what guns or other weapons are allowed, outlines where weapons are permitted and prohibited and sets discipline procedures for violations of the policy.
* Reviewing local and state rules where you're operating to ensure you're aware of additional restrictions or reporting requirements.
Employers that want to enforce gun restrictions on their business' private property should consider:
* Reviewing whether their current firearms policy depends on a state "no-carry unless authorized" rule, because that default may no longer be enforceable.
* Posting clear signage about your gun policy. Print and display signs at the entrances to your business, regardless of whether you own, lease, or rent the space.
* Working with your HR team and legal counsel on how they want to handle notice of their company's gun policy, employee training, and enforcement of violations of the policy.
* Establishing a point of contact with law enforcement so you can respond quickly if a problem involving firearms arises.
* * *
Conclusion
Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor any new developments related to gun law policies that impact employers so make sure you are signed up for Fisher Phillips' Insight System to receive updates straight to your inbox. If you have questions about gun safety policies or your workplace safety program, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any member of our Workplace Safety and Catastrophe Management Practice Group.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/scotus-ruling-barring-concealed-carry-limits
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: 5 Common Background Screening Mistakes For Retail Employers to Avoid
ATLANTA, Georgia, July 28 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 27, 2026:
* * *
5 Common Background Screening Mistakes For Retail Employers to Avoid
Retail employers often need to fill jobs fast, with seasonal demands, high turnover, and multiple store locations all pushing hiring managers to hire quickly. But properly vetting applicants is particularly important in retail given the risks around cash handling, inventory, customer-facing roles, and employee safety - not to mention the fact that background screening is one of the most heavily regulated aspects of
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, July 28 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 27, 2026:
* * *
5 Common Background Screening Mistakes For Retail Employers to Avoid
Retail employers often need to fill jobs fast, with seasonal demands, high turnover, and multiple store locations all pushing hiring managers to hire quickly. But properly vetting applicants is particularly important in retail given the risks around cash handling, inventory, customer-facing roles, and employee safety - not to mention the fact that background screening is one of the most heavily regulated aspects ofthe hiring process. When retailers rush the process or let each managers handle it their own way, they risk running afoul of federal, state, and local background check laws. How can you build a consistent process that satisfies the law while still obtaining reliable information that allows you to make informed hiring decisions? This Insight covers five of the most common mistakes retailers should avoid in the background screening process.
1. Allowing Individual Managers to Make Hiring Decisions Without Proper Guidance
Without a consistent process, managers may apply different standards across locations. For example, one local manager may permit an applicant to start work while the background screening is pending. Another may make quick decisions based solely on information contained in a background report without fully reviewing the circumstances. And yet another might not consider whether information from a background check is relevant to the position. When managers follow different practices, retailers risk inconsistent treatment of applicants and potential compliance issues.
* While federal law permits conditional employment, retailers should generally not allow applicants start working while a background screening is pending.
* Train your managers to recognize that a background report is there to provide information to support a hiring decision, not automatically determine the outcome.
* Your hiring staff should carefully review the results, consider the nature of the information, and follow applicable requirements before taking action.
* Provide your managers with clear guidance on how to handle background screening information and make hiring decisions.
2. Not Having Proper Stand-Alone Disclosure and Authorization Forms
Compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)'s disclosure requirements has been an ongoing area of litigation for employers.
*
* Make sure you provide applicants with a proper stand-alone disclosure before obtaining a background report for employment purposes.
* Avoid including disclosures within employment applications or other documents. Even information that is helpful or informative can create challenges if it distracts from the required disclosure. Read more here about FCRA disclosures.
* Typos, unclear language, or provisions that arguably change the meaning of a disclosure can create compliance concerns. Make sure to regularly review your forms to ensure they satisfy current legal requirements.
3. Not Considering State and Local Requirements
Multi-state retailers must consider that background screening requirements can vary by state and local jurisdiction. Some states, counties and cities impose additional restrictions on when and how employers may consider criminal history information during the hiring process.
*
* For example, the City of Philadelphia recently made changes to its ban on criminal history inquiries.
* Other jurisdictions require employers to conduct an individualized assessment to determine whether an applicant's or employee's criminal history has a direct, adverse, and negative bearing on the person's ability to perform the responsibilities of the position. This may require consideration of factors such as the nature of the offense, how much time has passed, and the relationship between the information and the position.
* Local managers may not realize that requirements differ from one location to another. Depending on the jurisdiction, you may need to provide additional notices, follow specific procedures, or conduct an individualized assessment before making certain employment decisions.
* Ensure your hiring managers and HR professionals understand that a process that works in one location may not meet the requirements of another.
4. Failing to Follow Required Pre-Adverse and Adverse Action Procedures
Retailers may also face challenges when hiring managers move too quickly after receiving background screening results. Taking adverse action based on information contained in a background report without following the required process can create significant compliance risk.
*
* Before taking adverse action, you generally must provide:
* A copy of the background report;
* A summary of rights under the FCRA; and
* A reasonable period (five business days) for the applicant or employee to review the information and dispute potential errors.
* This waiting period allows applicants or employees to identify inaccurate information, explain the circumstances surrounding the information, or provide additional details for consideration before a final decision is made. For more on FCRA's Pre-Adverse and Action Notice Requirement, see our four-step compliance plan here.
5. Not Implementing a Clear and Documented Background Screening Process
For retailers, background screening requires more than just obtaining a written report. You need to develop a consistent process, trained decision-makers, and clear procedures that account for changing federal, state, and local requirements.
*
* Because of the complex legal landscape governing background screenings, technical mistakes regarding disclosures, authorizations, evaluations and adverse action procedures are quite common, especially for the multi-state retailer.
* Implement a comprehensive background screening procedure vetted by qualified employment counsel and tailored to your company's jurisdictional coverage requirements.
* Your process should identify who reviews background reports, who makes final hiring decisions, and how decisions should be documented. The process should also outline the steps for conducting background screening, obtaining required authorizations, evaluating the results, and completing any required adverse action procedures in compliance with applicable laws.
* Train all your hiring managers and HR professionals on the background screening procedures at onboarding and at least annually.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as warranted. Make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information direct to your inbox. If you have questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney on our Retail Industry Team or our FCRA and Background Screening Practice Group.
* * *
Related People
Frank F. Martinez
Partner
212.899.9966
fmartinez@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Anthonia N. Ogbechie
Associate
440.740.2152
aogbechie@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/background-screening-mistakes-to-avoid
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
