Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
McDonald Hopkins: NLRB Finalizes Withdrawal of 2023 Joint Employer Rule and Reinstates 2020 Standard
CLEVELAND, Ohio, April 10 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following commentary on April 9, 2026, by member Scott Opincar:
* * *
NLRB finalizes withdrawal of 2023 Joint Employer Rule and reinstates 2020 standard
On February 27, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) published a final rule formally withdrawing the 2023 standard for determining joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) and reinstating the prior 2020 rule. The Board's action follows a March 8, 2024, decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
... Show Full Article
CLEVELAND, Ohio, April 10 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following commentary on April 9, 2026, by member Scott Opincar:
* * *
NLRB finalizes withdrawal of 2023 Joint Employer Rule and reinstates 2020 standard
On February 27, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) published a final rule formally withdrawing the 2023 standard for determining joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) and reinstating the prior 2020 rule. The Board's action follows a March 8, 2024, decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texasin Chamber of Commerce v. NLRB, No. 6:23-CV-00553, which vacated the 2023 Rule in its entirety. Because the Board characterized this action as ministerial in nature--simply implementing the court's vacatur--the final rule took effect immediately upon publication without a prior notice-and-comment period.
Background
On October 27, 2023, the Board published a final rule (the 2023 Rule) that rescinded and replaced the 2020 rule governing joint employer status under the Act. The 2023 Rule established a broader standard for determining whether two employers are joint employers of particular employees. Shortly after its publication, on November 19, 2023, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other parties filed a legal challenge to the 2023 Rule in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On March 8, 2024, the court vacated the 2023 Rule. Because the 2023 Rule never took effect, the prior 2020 Rule has remained the operative standard for determining joint employer status since February 26, 2020.
In its February 27, 2026, final rule, the Board formally revised 29 C.F.R. Part 103, Subpart D to replace the text of the vacated 2023 Rule with the text of the 2020 Rule. The Board found good cause to make the rule effective immediately, rather than observing the typical 30-day waiting period. The Board also concluded that its action is not subject to the Congressional Review Act because it only implements the court's vacatur.
The 2020 joint employer standard now in effect
Under the reinstated 2020 Rule, an employer may be considered a joint employer of a separate employer's employees only if the two employers "share or codetermine the employees' essential terms and conditions of employment." To establish joint employer status, the alleged joint employer must possess and exercise "substantial direct and immediate control" over one or more essential terms or conditions of employment such that it "meaningfully affects matters relating to the employment relationship." The party asserting joint employer status bears the burden of proof, and the determination is made based on the totality of the relevant facts in each particular employment setting.
The 2020 Rule provides detailed definitions of what constitutes--and what does not constitute--direct and immediate control over each of the eight enumerated essential terms and conditions, including the following examples:
* Wages: An entity exercises direct and immediate control over wages if it actually determines wage rates, salary, or other rates of pay for another employer's individual employees or job classifications. Entering into a cost-plus contract, with or without a maximum reimbursable wage rate, does not constitute direct and immediate control.
* Benefits: An entity exercises direct and immediate control over benefits if it actually determines the fringe benefits provided to another employer's employees, including selecting benefit plans and benefit levels. Permitting another employer under an arm's-length contract to participate in its benefit plans does not constitute direct and immediate control.
* Hours of work: An entity exercises direct and immediate control if it actually determines work schedules or hours, including overtime, of another employer's employees. Establishing enterprise operating hours or specifying when services are needed does not constitute direct and immediate control.
* Hiring and discharge: An entity exercises direct and immediate control over hiring if it actually determines which particular employees will or will not be hired, and over discharge if it actually decides to terminate employment. Requesting changes in staffing levels, setting minimal hiring standards, or bringing misconduct to the attention of another employer that makes the actual decision does not constitute direct and immediate control.
* Supervision and direction: An entity exercises direct and immediate control over supervision by actually instructing employees how to perform their work or issuing performance appraisals, and over direction by assigning individual work schedules, positions, and tasks. Instructions that are limited and routine and consist primarily of telling employees what work to perform, or where and when to perform it, but not how to perform it, do not constitute direct and immediate control.
Key dates and effective date
The final rule was signed on February 25, 2026 and published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2026. The rule is effective immediately upon publication.
Practical implications for employers
The reinstatement of the 2020 Rule is welcome news for businesses that had opposed the broader 2023 standard. The 2020 Rule's requirement that an entity possess and exercise "substantial direct and immediate control" over essential terms and conditions of employment sets a higher threshold for joint employer status than the 2023 Rule would have imposed. In particular, indirect control, contractually reserved authority that is never exercised, and control over non-essential mandatory subjects of bargaining may only supplement--not independently establish--a finding of joint employer status.
* * *
Scott Opincar
Member
sopincar@mcdonaldhopkins.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcdonaldhopkins.com/insights/news/nlrb-finalizes-withdrawal-of-2023-joint-employer-rule
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Lounge: Accommodations Unleashed - What Employers Need to Know About Service and Emotional Support Animals
SAN FRANCISCO, California, April 10 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news about a podcast:
* * *
Littler Lounge: Accommodations Unleashed - What Employers Need to Know About Service and Emotional Support Animals
What happens when employees ask to bring animals into the workplace - and how should employers respond? In this episode of Littler Lounge, hosts Claire Deason and Nicole LeFave are joined by Littler shareholder Trevor Hardy to unpack the landscape of service animals, emotional support animals and workplace accommodations - for a conversation that proves these requests aren't
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, April 10 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news about a podcast:
* * *
Littler Lounge: Accommodations Unleashed - What Employers Need to Know About Service and Emotional Support Animals
What happens when employees ask to bring animals into the workplace - and how should employers respond? In this episode of Littler Lounge, hosts Claire Deason and Nicole LeFave are joined by Littler shareholder Trevor Hardy to unpack the landscape of service animals, emotional support animals and workplace accommodations - for a conversation that proves these requests aren'talways as straightforward as an ergonomic chair.
Drawing on both professional experience and personal perspective, Trevor walks through the issues an employer may need to consider when requests for service animals and emotional support animals come in, from understanding what federal and state laws do (and don't) say to managing coworker concerns, allergies, and the occasional skeptical side eye. The conversation explores what the interactive process really looks like in practice, why these requests are on the rise, and what happens when good intentions, legal requirements and office dynamics don't always align neatly.
Listen in for some helpful tips when accommodation requests come with fur, maybe a leash and a lot of questions.
(https://soundcloud.com/littler-interviews/224-littler-lounge)
* * *
Claire B. Deason
Shareholder
Minneapolis
cdeason@littler.com
* * *
Nicole S. LeFave
Shareholder
Austin
nlefave@littler.com
* * *
Trevor J. Hardy
Shareholder
Cleveland
thardy@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/podcast/littler-lounge-accommodations-unleashed-what-employers-need-know-about
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Virginia Advances Heat Illness Legislation While Other States Are Poised to Follow Suit
SAN FRANCISCO, California, April 10 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on April 9, 2026, by senior counsels Felicia K. Watson and Peter Vassalo and shareholders Gregory Tumolo and Charles F. Trowbridge:
* * *
Virginia Advances Heat Illness Legislation While Other States Are Poised to Follow Suit
Heat illness prevention continues to be a key focus for state regulators as they move to fill the void left by OSHA's still-uncompleted proposed heat standard. Most recently, the Virginia legislature approved heat illness prevention legislation,/1 and a growing number of states have
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, April 10 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on April 9, 2026, by senior counsels Felicia K. Watson and Peter Vassalo and shareholders Gregory Tumolo and Charles F. Trowbridge:
* * *
Virginia Advances Heat Illness Legislation While Other States Are Poised to Follow Suit
Heat illness prevention continues to be a key focus for state regulators as they move to fill the void left by OSHA's still-uncompleted proposed heat standard. Most recently, the Virginia legislature approved heat illness prevention legislation,/1 and a growing number of states havesignaled they may soon follow suit.
Pending Governor Abigail Spanberger's signature, Virginia companion bills HB1092 and SB288, if enacted, would require Virginia's Safety and Health Codes Board (the "Board"), in consultation with Virginia's Department of Labor & Industry, to develop standards protecting workers from heat illness in both indoor and outdoor work environments. These standards would need to be adopted by May 1, 2028. Per these bills, the standards must include:
1. Requirements to provide employees with access to water, rest, shade or climate-controlled environments when practicable, acclimatization protocols, and effective training;
2. Heat and high-heat procedures when the temperatures reach heat thresholds to be set by the Board at a later date; and
3. Emergency response procedures.
These bills contain two exceptions. First, these requirements would not apply when employees provide emergency services. In addition, the requirements would not apply when heat exposure lasts less than 15 consecutive minutes.
Not to be left behind, Colorado and Rhode Island are also considering legislation regulating heat illness. While Colorado currently has heat illness prevention requirements for agricultural workers, it is looking to expand its heat safety legislation with HB26-1272. If adopted, this bill would require the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to collect data on injuries, illnesses, and emergencies caused by heat or cold stress beginning January 1, 2027. The bill would also require employers of workers exposed to hot or cold temperatures to develop a temperature-related injury and illness prevention plan (TRIIPP) that must be submitted to the Division of Labor Standards and Statistics for review by September 1, 2028. The proposed bill includes a list of definitions, temperature safety requirements, training, and emergency response procedures.
Colorado's proposed legislation also authorizes a mechanism for plaintiffs to recover compensatory and punitive damages for employees who can prove the statute was violated with malice or reckless indifference to their rights, although an employer could avoid this by showing good-faith efforts to comply with the requirements.
This bill is currently pending before the House Appropriations Committee.
Rhode Island has three pending bills (H7966 and its Senate companion S2320, and H8311 (currently with no Senate companion)), which would regulate employee exposure to both hot and cold weather-related hazards. Like Colorado's, Rhode Island's bills would require the implementation and enforcement of a TRIIPP. Going even further, Rhode Island employers would be subject to numerous prescriptive measures including:
* "Extreme temperature" thresholds set at or above 90 F and at or below 30 F, without any consideration whether these temperatures represent serious health hazards at a given worksite;
* Specific requirements for acclimatization applicable to new employees and existing employees newly assigned to heat work, or absent from heat work for more than seven days;
* Delineating the size of mandatory shaded areas based on the number of resting employees;
* Specifying the precise temperature of available drinking water; and
* Requiring all employers to designate a specially trained temperature safety coordinator regardless of the size of a business or the transient nature of its workforce.
These bills are being held for further study by the House Labor Committee and the Senate Committee on Labor and Gaming. They have, however, been identified as a key legislative priority for the Rhode Island AFL-CIO. As demonstrated by these legislative initiatives, individual states, regardless of whether they maintain approved OSHA State Plans, are moving to address heat illness through legislation. While OSHA continues to enforce its general duty clause with respect to heat-related hazards, this may represent an unwillingness to wait to see what federal OSHA heat illness regulations may require. Employers should closely monitor legislative developments concerning weather-related hazards and consider consulting experienced workplace safety counsel on the potential impact such legislation may have on their operations.
* * *
See Footnotes
1/ As of April 9, 2026, California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Colorado, Maryland, and Nevada have adopted heat illness prevention standards.
* * *
Authors
Felicia K. Watson
Senior Counsel
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Peter Vassalo
Senior Counsel
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Gregory Tumolo
Shareholder
Providence
* * *
Charles F. Trowbridge
Shareholder
Tysons Corner
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/virginia-advances-heat-illness-legislation-while-other-states-are-poised-follow
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Oregon Court Clarifies That Asking for a Raise Is Protected by Wage Transparency Law
SAN FRANCISCO, California, April 10 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on April 9, 2026, by shareholder Paul E. Cirner:
* * *
Oregon Court Clarifies That Asking for a Raise Is Protected by Wage Transparency Law
At a Glance
* Oregon court clarifies that wage transparency statute's protections extend beyond pay discussions with co-workers.
* Merely asking for a raise is protected activity under state law.
* Employers may lawfully deny a raise request but cannot retaliate against an employee for making the request.
*
In a clarification of Oregon's wage transparency statute,
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, April 10 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on April 9, 2026, by shareholder Paul E. Cirner:
* * *
Oregon Court Clarifies That Asking for a Raise Is Protected by Wage Transparency Law
At a Glance
* Oregon court clarifies that wage transparency statute's protections extend beyond pay discussions with co-workers.
* Merely asking for a raise is protected activity under state law.
* Employers may lawfully deny a raise request but cannot retaliate against an employee for making the request.
*
In a clarification of Oregon's wage transparency statute,the Oregon Court of Appeals has held that ORS 659A.355 protects an employee from retaliation for merely asking for a raise, even where no claim of pay inequity or class-based discrimination is alleged. In Mirkovic v. Tenasys Corp., 348 Or App 70 (2026), the court rejected a narrow reading of the statute and found that its protections extend beyond coworker wage discussions to include employee employer wage negotiations.
The decision reverses a trial court's grant of summary judgment for the employer and provides important guidance for Oregon employers navigating compensation discussions with employees.
Background
The plaintiff worked as a software engineer for the defendant. In the spring of 2022, she requested both a promotion and a salary increase. After the employer offered her a new title and raise, the plaintiff emailed one of the company's owners seeking an additional $5,000 increase and future consideration for a director-level role. The following Tuesday--just days after her follow-up email--the company terminated her employment.
The plaintiff sued under ORS 659A.355, alleging that the termination constituted unlawful retaliation based on her inquiry about wages. The employer moved for summary judgment, contending that the statute protects only wage discussions among employees intended to promote pay equity and not individual requests for a raise directed to management.
Although the trial court initially denied the motion, it later reversed course on the eve of trial, relying heavily on the federal district court's decision in O'Donnell v. Ameresco, Inc., 716 F Supp 3d 1035 (D. Or. 2024), and concluding that ORS 659A.355 does not apply where there is "zero discrimination issue at all."
The Court of Appeals' Analysis
The court of appeals framed the issue narrowly: Does ORS 659A.355 protect an employee from adverse action when the employee inquires about their own wages by requesting a raise? The court's answer was unequivocal--yes.
Plain Text Controls
The court began, as Oregon courts must, with the statutory text. ORS 659A.355(1)(a) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to retaliate against an employee because the employee has: "[i]nquired about, discussed or disclosed in any manner the wages of the employee or of another employee." Emphasizing the phrase "the wages of the employee," the court concluded that the statute's language plainly encompasses an employee's inquiry into their own compensation--including a request for a raise. Nothing in the statute limits its reach to coworker discussions or to circumstances involving alleged pay discrimination. Nor did the statutory exception in ORS 659A.355(2), addressing unauthorized disclosures by employees with access to others' wage information, suggest any narrowing of that protection here.
Rejection of the "Pay Equity Only" Theory
The court expressly rejected the argument--adopted by the trial court--that ORS chapter 659A's general anti-discrimination purpose limits ORS 659A.355 to pay equity disputes involving protected classes. To the contrary, the court explained that protecting employees who engage in open wage discussions with their employers advances, rather than contradicts, the legislature's anti-discrimination objectives. Wage transparency, including direct conversations about pay with management, serves as a tool to uncover and prevent unlawful disparities. The court also clarified that O'Donnell was neither binding nor persuasive in this context, noting that it arose in the distinct framework of a common law wrongful discharge claim rather than a statutory retaliation claim under ORS 659A.355.
Legislative History Confirms Broad Protection
Although the court found the statutory text clear, it also concluded that the legislative history reinforced its interpretation. Citing floor debates and committee hearings on House Bill 2007 (2015), the court noted explicit statements from legislators confirming that the statute was intended to protect:
* Employee-to-employer wage discussions, and
* Requests for raises, without fear of discipline or retaliation.
In the court's words, the legislature chose "wording broad enough to address more than the specific problem that prompted it."
Practical Takeaways for Employers
The decision serves as an important reminder that, in Oregon:
* Requesting a raise is protected activity under ORS 659A.355.
* Employers may lawfully deny a raise request--but may not retaliate by discharging, demoting, or otherwise disadvantaging the employee because the request was made.
* Retaliation risk exists even in the absence of an alleged pay disparity or protected-class discrimination claim.
The court of appeals emphasized that factual questions may still determine whether an adverse action was because of a wage inquiry. Accordingly, employers should carefully evaluate timing, documentation, and decision making processes surrounding discipline or termination following compensation discussions.
Conclusion
Mirkovic establishes clear precedent that Oregon's wage transparency statute protects more than just conversations among coworkers. It also protects the common conversation between an employee and a boss about pay. How an employer responds to a raise request can matter just as much as whether the employer grants it.
* * *
Paul E. Cirner
Shareholder
Portland
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/oregon-court-clarifies-asking-raise-protected-wage-transparency-law
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Law360 Selects 6 Troutman Pepper Locke Attorneys for 2026 Editorial Advisory Boards
ATLANTA, Georgia, April 10 -- Troutman Pepper, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Law360 Selects 6 Troutman Pepper Locke Attorneys for 2026 Editorial Advisory Boards
NEW YORK - Six Troutman Pepper Locke attorneys will serve on the 2026 Law360 Editorial Advisory Boards. As members, they will provide feedback on the publication's coverage and offer insights to help shape Law360's reporting within their respective practice areas.
Board Memberships:
Consumer Protection
Ashley L. Taylor, Jr. (Washington, D.C. | Richmond)
* * *
Delaware
James Levine (Wilmington)
* * *
Employment
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, April 10 -- Troutman Pepper, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Law360 Selects 6 Troutman Pepper Locke Attorneys for 2026 Editorial Advisory Boards
NEW YORK - Six Troutman Pepper Locke attorneys will serve on the 2026 Law360 Editorial Advisory Boards. As members, they will provide feedback on the publication's coverage and offer insights to help shape Law360's reporting within their respective practice areas.
Board Memberships:
Consumer Protection
Ashley L. Taylor, Jr. (Washington, D.C. | Richmond)
* * *
Delaware
James Levine (Wilmington)
* * *
EmploymentAuthority Wage and Hour
Richard Reibstein (New York)
* * *
Energy
Brandon Marzo (Atlanta)
* * *
Media and Entertainment
Amin Al-Sarraf (Los Angeles)
* * *
New Jersey
Matt Berns (Philadelphia | Princeton)
* * *
Troutman Pepper Locke
Troutman Pepper Locke helps clients solve complex legal challenges and achieve their business goals in an ever-changing global economy. With more than 1,600 attorneys in 30+ offices, the firm serves clients in all major industry sectors, with particular depth in energy, financial services, health care and life sciences, insurance and reinsurance, private equity, and real estate. Learn more at troutman.com.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.troutman.com/insights/law360-selects-6-troutman-pepper-locke-attorneys-for-2026-editorial-advisory-boards/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
In Bloomberg Law , Lisa Bebchick, Amy Jane Longo, Devon Caton, and Ashley Stamegna Discuss Insider Trading Risks in Prediction Markets
BOSTON, Massachusetts, April 10 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
In Bloomberg Law , Lisa Bebchick, Amy Jane Longo, Devon Caton, and Ashley Stamegna Discuss Insider Trading Risks in Prediction Markets
Litigation & enforcement partners Lisa Bebchick, Amy Jane Longo, counsel Devon Caton, and associate Ashley Stamegna authored a new article in Bloomberg Law (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/insider-trading-in-prediction-markets-poses-compliance-risks), examining the compliance risks that prediction markets pose for companies and their employees
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, April 10 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
In Bloomberg Law , Lisa Bebchick, Amy Jane Longo, Devon Caton, and Ashley Stamegna Discuss Insider Trading Risks in Prediction Markets
Litigation & enforcement partners Lisa Bebchick, Amy Jane Longo, counsel Devon Caton, and associate Ashley Stamegna authored a new article in Bloomberg Law (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/insider-trading-in-prediction-markets-poses-compliance-risks), examining the compliance risks that prediction markets pose for companies and their employeeswho may have access to material nonpublic information (MNPI).
In the article, the authors highlight the rapid expansion of prediction market platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi, noting that employees who trade on MNPI in these markets could face civil or criminal liability for insider trading from the CFTC, SEC, or DOJ. They observe that some platforms have already begun to self-police MNPI misuse and urge companies to "stay apprised of enforcement trends in this area and consider steps to reinforce existing policies and procedures to guard against insider trading and misuse of MNPI," including reviewing training programs and surveillance tools.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/04/in-bloomberg-law-attorneys-discuss-insider-trading-risks-in-prediction-markets
Dorsey Recognized in Multiple Regions in Vault's Prestige Rankings
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, April 10 -- Dorsey and Whitney, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Dorsey Recognized in Multiple Regions in Vault's Prestige Rankings
International law firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP has been recognized for its continued strength and reputation across multiple regions in Vault's 2026-2027 Best Law Firms by Region Rankings. Dorsey was ranked among the most prestigious law firms in:
* Best Law Firms in the Midwest
* Best Law Firms in the Mountain States
* Best Law Firms in the Pacific Northwest
Vault's regional prestige rankings are based on assessments
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, April 10 -- Dorsey and Whitney, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Dorsey Recognized in Multiple Regions in Vault's Prestige Rankings
International law firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP has been recognized for its continued strength and reputation across multiple regions in Vault's 2026-2027 Best Law Firms by Region Rankings. Dorsey was ranked among the most prestigious law firms in:
* Best Law Firms in the Midwest
* Best Law Firms in the Mountain States
* Best Law Firms in the Pacific Northwest
Vault's regional prestige rankings are based on assessmentsfrom associates who evaluate the reputations of peer firms within their own markets. The rankings are derived from Vault's Annual Associate Survey, conducted from late 2025 into early 2026, and reflect the views of thousands of associates across the legal industry.
Dorsey's recognition in multiple regions highlights the Firm's continued strength and reputation in key markets throughout the United States. These recognitions reflect Dorsey's established presence across key markets in the Midwest (including Chicago, Minneapolis, and Des Moines), the Mountain States (including Denver, Salt Lake City, Boise, Missoula, and Anchorage), and the Pacific Northwest, including Seattle.
Vault is a leading provider of law firm rankings and career resources, with its law firm profiles and rankings receiving more than 11 million pageviews annually and being distributed to hundreds of educational institutions, including leading law schools across the country.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/news/press-releases/2026/04/vault-prestige-rankings
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
