Targeted News Service

Law/Legal

Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups

Featured Stories

Littler Issues Commentary: Social Media Vetting Expansion for Visa Applicants

SAN FRANCISCO, California, Dec. 19 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Dec. 18, 2025:

* * *

Social Media Vetting Expansion for Visa Applicants

By George Michael Thompson

On December 15, the Department of State (DOS) announced it will expand its social media vetting requirement to additional nonimmigrant visa classifications, including H-1B, H-4 dependents, F, M, and J. As a result of this expansion, all applicants for such visas will be instructed to adjust the privacy settings on "all of their social media profiles to public." Those profiles will then be subject to review ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Dec. 19 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Dec. 18, 2025: * * * Social Media Vetting Expansion for Visa Applicants By George Michael Thompson On December 15, the Department of State (DOS) announced it will expand its social media vetting requirement to additional nonimmigrant visa classifications, including H-1B, H-4 dependents, F, M, and J. As a result of this expansion, all applicants for such visas will be instructed to adjust the privacy settings on "all of their social media profiles to public." Those profiles will then be subject to reviewas part of their visa application process for entry into the United States.

Additionally, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has announced it is discussing making such an online presence review part of the application process for the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) currently used by Visa Waiver Program (VWP) travelers from 42 countries. Specifically, CBP is proposing that applicants be required to provide their social media history for the past five years. However, this remains a proposed change subject to public comment by February 9, 2026.

The DOS, meanwhile, has begun to implement its social media vetting for applicants and will use this additional online presence information as part of its visa screening and vetting process to identify individuals inadmissible to the United States. Specifically, the DOS notes this includes "those [applicants] who pose a threat to U.S. national security or public safety."

In implementing this additional review, the DOS reiterates that a "U.S. visa is a privilege, not a right."

What exactly will such consular and border officers be looking for?

While the government has not clearly stated what could be identified as potential threats to "U.S. national security or public safety" when conducting this social media vetting, recent changes to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) policy manual in its adjudication of immigration-related benefits can provide some potential clues.

In August, USCIS noted that "any involvement [by an applicant/requestor] in anti-American or terrorist organizations" as well as any evidence of "antisemitic activity" will be considered an "overwhelmingly negative factor in any discretionary analysis." Per USCIS Spokesperson Matthew Tragesser, "America's benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is committed to implementing policies and procedures that root out anti-Americanism and supporting the enforcement of rigorous screening and vetting measures to the fullest extent possible."

Conclusion

Applicants for the above-mentioned visa classifications (H-1B, H-4, F, M, and J) should be prepared to set their social media profiles to public and expect their online profiles to be reviewed by consular and border officials as part of their application process. This additional review process may also result in delays in visa appointments as consular posts seek to expand their review processes and implement additional social media vetting.

Individuals with concerns prior to seeking entry into the United States should contact immigration counsel.

* * *

Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/social-media-vetting-expansion-visa-applicants

[Category: BizLaw/Legal]

Hogan Lovells and Cadwalader Announce Intent to Combine, Creating a Firm With Unprecedented Strength in Key G20 Markets

NEW YORK, Dec. 19 -- Cadwalader, a law firm, issued the following news release on Dec. 18, 2025:

* * *

Hogan Lovells and Cadwalader Announce Intent to Combine, Creating a Firm With Unprecedented Strength in Key G20 Markets

Largest law firm combination in history will create the world's fifth largest firm by revenue, with annual revenue in excess of US$3.6 billion and 3,100 attorneys located in preeminent markets across the Americas, EMEA, and APAC

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader will bring unmatched finance, corporate, regulatory, and disputes capabilities to clients in financial markets, particularly ... Show Full Article

Ogletree Deakins Promotes 19 Attorneys to Shareholder Across Global Footprint

ATLANTA, Georgia, Dec. 18 -- Ogletree Deakins, a law firm, issued the following news release:

* * *

Ogletree Deakins Promotes 19 Attorneys to Shareholder Across Global Footprint

Ogletree Deakins, one of the largest labor and employment law firms representing management, is pleased to announce that 19 of the firm's attorneys have been elected to shareholder. The 2026 newly elected shareholder class comprises attorneys from 15 offices around the world, representing the firm's continued growth across its global footprint.

"I am thrilled to congratulate our newest class of shareholders. This achievement ... Show Full Article

Littler Issues Commentary: Some Place or Another - Nevada Supreme Court Expands Reach of Nevada's Luring Statute

SAN FRANCISCO, California, Dec. 18 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Dec. 17, 2025:

* * *

Some Place or Another: Nevada Supreme Court Expands Reach of Nevada's Luring Statute

By Roger Grandgenett, Kelsey Stegall and Andrew Clark

Enacted in 1967, Nevada's "employment-luring" statute prohibits employers from inducing, influencing, persuading, or engaging prospective employees to "change from one place or another in this state" or to "bring workers of any class or calling into this state" by "false or deceptive representations, false advertising or false pretenses." Such ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Dec. 18 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Dec. 17, 2025: * * * Some Place or Another: Nevada Supreme Court Expands Reach of Nevada's Luring Statute By Roger Grandgenett, Kelsey Stegall and Andrew Clark Enacted in 1967, Nevada's "employment-luring" statute prohibits employers from inducing, influencing, persuading, or engaging prospective employees to "change from one place or another in this state" or to "bring workers of any class or calling into this state" by "false or deceptive representations, false advertising or false pretenses." Suchrepresentations/pretenses relate to the (a) kind or character of work to be done; (b) amount and character of the compensation to be paid for the work; (c) sanitary or other conditions of employment; or (d) existence of a strike or other trouble between the employees and management. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 613.010. The statute further provides that an employee can bring a claim under this statute if an employer "induce[d] the worker to change his or her place of employment, or place of abode . . . ."

Given this language, Nevada courts have routinely found that the phrase "change from one place to another in this state" required an employee to physically relocate from another state to Nevada, or at least, to change their place of residence before the statute applied. For example, federal courts in Nevada have required employees bringing a luring claim to demonstrate that they physically relocated their place of residence. See Severson v. Absolute Dental Grp., LLC, No. 2:22-cv-01916-GMN-VCF, 2023 WL 2772004 (D. Nev. Apr. 1, 2023); Turner v. Harvard MedTech of Nev., LLC, No. 2:22-cv-1264-JCM (BNW) (D. Nev. July 27, 2023).

In Severson, the plaintiff's claim under NRS 613.010 failed because, despite putting her Arizona house on the market in preparation for moving to Nevada, the plaintiff never actually moved to Nevada prior to her employment being terminated. The court held that because the plaintiff did not allege that "she physically relocated to Nevada, her claim under NRS 613.010 fails as a matter of law."

Similarly, in Turner, the court found that the plaintiff, who was recruited and ultimately left one job for the recruited job, could not bring a claim under NRS 613.010 because he did not physically relocate to Nevada. The court found that while the plaintiff did change his place of employment, he did not change his "place of abode" as stated in the statute. Based on the Severson and Turner decisions, Nevada employers were able to achieve dismissal of a "luring" claim if the employee never actually moved their physical location for employment.

However, on December 4, 2025, the Nevada Supreme Court substantially expanded the reach of this statute. In Field Effect Security, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (2025), the court held that the text and history of NRS 613.010 merely require employees to change their place of employment to satisfy the statute's initial prong and do not require employees to relocate their place of residence.

In this case, a former employee argued that the company lured him away from a competitor based on false promises about his role and compensation. The employee did not relocate his residence to accept the position with the company and lived at the same Las Vegas residence before, during, and after his employment. As did the defendants in Severson and Turner, the employer argued that the statute did not apply because it required an employee to have physically relocated their residence. The Nevada Supreme Court disagreed, finding that "changing a place of employment satisfies the requirements for a civil claim under NRS 613.010." In so doing, the Nevada high court rejected the federal courts' contrary positions. Therefore, to bring a claim under NRS 613.010, Nevada employees need only demonstrate that they changed their place of employment.

Notably, the Nevada Supreme Court did not offer additional guidance on what conduct constitutes false or deceptive misrepresentations or false advertising about the employment to create liability. However, it is now clear that an employee need only demonstrate that they moved from one employer to another to satisfy the "change from one place to another" language in NRS 613.010.

Given this decision, there will likely be an uptick in claims filed under NRS 613.010, and employers should be prepared to defend against them accordingly. Employers can take proactive steps to review their recruiting, interviewing, and offer making practices. Employers may also wish to revisit template offer letters, recruiting scripts, and onboarding communications to minimize the risk that candidates later claim they were "lured" by false or misleading statements. Accordingly, employers in Nevada should consult with experienced employment counsel to assess their current practices and develop a strategy that reduces exposure moving forward.

* * *

Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/some-place-or-another-nevada-supreme-court-expands-reach-nevadas-luring-statute

[Category: BizLaw/Legal]

Littler Issues Commentary: Polish Employers Receive the Gift of EU Pay Transparency Obligations in Recruitment

SAN FRANCISCO, California, Dec. 18 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Dec. 17, 2025:

* * *

Polish Employers Receive the Gift of EU Pay Transparency Obligations in Recruitment

At a Glance

- Poland is the first major economy in Europe to transpose portions of the EU Pay Transparency Directive into national law.

- Article 5 of the Directive addresses an employer's pay transparency obligations for job applicants.

- Poland has largely adopted Article 5's language and obligations with a few specific changes.

By Natalia Bigdowska,/* Joanna Dudek,/** and Morgan Matson

Just ... Show Full Article

In Fast Company, Nitish Upadhyaya and Michelle DiMartino Explain How to 'Read the Room' to Spot Culture Risks

BOSTON, Massachusetts, Dec. 18 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:

* * *

In Fast Company, Nitish Upadhyaya and Michelle DiMartino Explain How to 'Read the Room' to Spot Culture Risks

*

In Fast Company, Nitish Upadhyaya, Director of Behavioral Insights at Ropes & Gray's R&G Insights Lab and Michelle DiMartino, Organizational Research & Design Specialist at Ropes & Gray's R&G Insights Lab, authored an article titled, "Reading the room: How to spot culture risks at your company while you can still fix them," examining how organizations can detect ... Show Full Article

HLB Files Pro Bono Amicus Brief Defending Access to Lifesaving Vaccines

LOS ANGELES, California, Dec. 18 -- Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, a law firm, issued the following news on Dec. 16, 2025:

* * *

HLB Files Pro Bono Amicus Brief Defending Access to Lifesaving Vaccines

Hooper, Lundy & Bookman filed an amicus brief on December 16, 2025, in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Kennedy, a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging recent actions by Secretary Kennedy that would operate to reduce access to lifesaving vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine, and otherwise adversely impact the healthcare system.

HLB was retained ... Show Full Article

Existing Customer Login