Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer Confirms New London Office at 8 Exchange Square
NEW YORK, Feb. 10 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer confirms new London office at 8 Exchange Square
Clients, people and sustainability at the heart of the firm's decision
*
Global law firm Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer is pleased to announce the signing of an agreement for the relocation of its London office to 8 Exchange Square on the City's Broadgate Estate. The firm's new London office will bring together its people from its current offices across the Broadgate Estate and Bank Street, Canary Wharf. It is expecting
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Feb. 10 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer confirms new London office at 8 Exchange Square
Clients, people and sustainability at the heart of the firm's decision
*
Global law firm Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer is pleased to announce the signing of an agreement for the relocation of its London office to 8 Exchange Square on the City's Broadgate Estate. The firm's new London office will bring together its people from its current offices across the Broadgate Estate and Bank Street, Canary Wharf. It is expectingto take occupation in 2030.
Jeremy Walden, Executive Partner, UK and EMEA, said:
"This exciting news marks a significant milestone in the strategic vision of our global business. We are delighted to be continuing our long-term relationship with the Broadgate joint venture. Its commitment to community, innovation and sustainability is fully aligned with our own values and ambitions. We are partnering to deliver a new, state-of-the-art environment that is designed around the needs of our people and clients and perfectly positioned to deliver the next phase of our London success."
About 8 Exchange Square:
Location: Situated adjacent to Liverpool Street Station, 8 Exchange Square benefits from a prime City location. It is a few steps away from the firm's current building, Exchange House, on Primrose Street.
Special features: There will be quality amenities designed to support our people and our clients, featuring modern workspace, a dedicated reception, ground-floor signage, cycling facilities, and a rooftop terrace.
Sustainability: The development will be aligned with our ESG priorities including reducing both embodied and operational carbon and will target top-tier certifications for sustainable and healthy buildings such as BREEAM New Construction for Offices, NABERS UK 5*, and an EPC Rating A+.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hsfkramer.com/news/2026-02/hsf-kramer-confirms-new-london-office-at-8-exchange-square
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Dentons Lee Successfully Hosts Seminar on Key Labor Law Precedents and Corporate Practical Responses
WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Dentons Lee Successfully Hosts Seminar on Key Labor Law Precedents and Corporate Practical Responses
Dentons Lee successfully hosted a seminar titled "Key Labor Law Precedents and Corporate Practical Responses," focusing on major labor law precedents in 2025 and the practical implications of the amended Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (commonly referred to as the "Yellow Envelope Act").
The seminar provided an overview of recent court decisions shaping labor law practice and examined how the amended
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Dentons Lee Successfully Hosts Seminar on Key Labor Law Precedents and Corporate Practical Responses
Dentons Lee successfully hosted a seminar titled "Key Labor Law Precedents and Corporate Practical Responses," focusing on major labor law precedents in 2025 and the practical implications of the amended Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (commonly referred to as the "Yellow Envelope Act").
The seminar provided an overview of recent court decisions shaping labor law practice and examined how the amendedlegislation has altered the corporate risk landscape, with a particular focus on practical compliance and response strategies for companies.
In the first session, Attorney Eunjee Kim analyzed key labor law precedents and their impact on corporate practice. This was followed by a discussion on the core aspects of the amended Trade Union Act, including the expanded definition of "employer" and changes to liability related to industrial action. The seminar concluded with a Q&A and panel discussion jointly led by Attorney Seon Ae Choi and Yongseok Hwang, Senior Advisor to Dentons Lee and Managing Partner of Log-in Labor Law Firm, who addressed practical questions from participants.
The seminar was well received by legal and HR professionals and was recognized as providing valuable guidance on navigating the evolving labor law environment.
* * *
About Dentons
Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dentonslee.com/en/about-dentons-lee/news/2026/february/dentons-lee-successfully-hosts-seminar-on-key-labor-law-precedents-and-corporate-practical-responses
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Mother of Special Needs Student Criminally Assaulted on the Playground by a Tulsa Public School Teaching Assistant Files Federal Lawsuit
LOS ANGELES, California, Feb. 9 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Mother of Special Needs Student Criminally Assaulted on the Playground by a Tulsa Public School Teaching Assistant Files Federal Lawsuit
*
Gibson Dunn and SolomonSimmonsLaw today filed suit, on behalf of Shanta Isom, the mother of J.I., a Tulsa Public Schools ("TPS" or the "District") student who was violently attacked by a teaching assistant at a TPS elementary school in February 2024. The lawsuit alleges federal antidiscrimination and constitutional violations
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Feb. 9 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Mother of Special Needs Student Criminally Assaulted on the Playground by a Tulsa Public School Teaching Assistant Files Federal Lawsuit
*
Gibson Dunn and SolomonSimmonsLaw today filed suit, on behalf of Shanta Isom, the mother of J.I., a Tulsa Public Schools ("TPS" or the "District") student who was violently attacked by a teaching assistant at a TPS elementary school in February 2024. The lawsuit alleges federal antidiscrimination and constitutional violationsagainst Tulsa Public Schools and the teaching assistant, Nicholas Stowell, who committed the assault.
On February 9, 2024, Nicholas Stowell violently attacked J.I., a seven-year-old first grader, on the playground at his elementary school. The attack was caught on video, showing J.I. playing on the playground with other students when Stowell approached him. Stowell then dragged a limp J.I. by his arm across the playground to a picnic table where Stowell slammed J.I. onto the bench repeatedly and placed him in an apparent headlock before J.I. was able to free himself.
Stowell was arrested that day and charged with felony child abuse. He later pleaded guilty to that charge and is currently serving a six-year noncustodial sentence. TPS publicly defended itself to the press that same day but failed to inform J.I.'s guardian of the assault at the time it occurred-an apparent coverup of the incident to avoid public fallout from the attack. It was not until days later that Ms. Isom was informed of the assault, and due to the delay, J.I. was unable to receive prompt medical care.
The assault also caused regression of J.I.'s condition and exacerbated the manifestations of his disabilities, which TPS was legally obligated to accommodate. TPS further discriminated against J.I. by failing to implement an adequate individualized education program ("IEP") for J.I., failing to train its staff to properly engage with disabled students like J.I., and illegally refusing his request to reenroll in school the following calendar year.
TPS has a history of abusive and unequal treatment toward students with disabilities, including failing to develop adequate IEPs and a pattern and practice of tolerating mistreatment of special needs students. TPS is currently under formal review for significant racial and ethnic disparities in its discipline of students with disabilities and has been sued repeatedly for alleged physical assaults by TPS employees against children in its care.
Ms. Isom is suing TPS for violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for, among other things, failing to implement legally-required accommodations for J.I., covering up the assault, and denying J.I. his right to education on account of his disabilities in violation of federal law. Ms. Isom has also brought claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments against TPS and Stowell for the criminal abuse of her son.
Karin Portlock, partner at Gibson Dunn, stated: "Criminal abuse and discrimination have no place at school. Not only were J.I.'s rights clearly violated by this gruesome assault, but his young life has been tragically altered by mistreatment at the hands of TPS, which failed to serve him as a student with disabilities. Our schools need to protect our children, not endanger them. We are honored to represent Ms. Isom in her fight for justice for her son."
Damario Solomon-Simmons of SolomonSimmonsLaw also stated: "This case exposes a systemic failure by Tulsa Public Schools to protect a child with disabilities who was entitled to safety, dignity, and meaningful access to education. Instead, J.I. suffered violence, neglect, and exclusion in a place meant to protect him. This lawsuit enforces the basic promise of our Constitution and federal law and seeks to ensure that no TPS student with disabilities is ever placed in harm's way or quietly pushed out of school again."
Ms. Isom, stated: "I'm proud to file this lawsuit on behalf of my son and make sure this does not happen to another child."
The complaint is available here.
***
Original text here: https://www.gibsondunn.com/mother-of-special-needs-student-criminally-assaulted-on-the-playground-by-a-tulsa-public-school-teaching-assistant-files-federal-lawsuit/
Troutman Pepper Locke Continues Growth of Energy Transactional Practice With Addition of Allison Perlman in Los Angeles
CHICAGO, Illinois, Feb. 9 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Troutman Pepper Locke, a law firm, posted the following news:
* * *
Troutman Pepper Locke Continues Growth of Energy Transactional Practice With Addition of Allison Perlman in Los Angeles
*
Arrival Boosts Firm's West Coast Energy and Infrastructure Capabilities
LOS ANGELES - Allison Perlman has joined Troutman Pepper Locke's Energy Transactional Practice Group as a partner in the firm's Los Angeles office. She joins from McDermott Will & Schulte, where she advised investors, lenders, and developers on transactions involving renewable energy
... Show Full Article
CHICAGO, Illinois, Feb. 9 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Troutman Pepper Locke, a law firm, posted the following news:
* * *
Troutman Pepper Locke Continues Growth of Energy Transactional Practice With Addition of Allison Perlman in Los Angeles
*
Arrival Boosts Firm's West Coast Energy and Infrastructure Capabilities
LOS ANGELES - Allison Perlman has joined Troutman Pepper Locke's Energy Transactional Practice Group as a partner in the firm's Los Angeles office. She joins from McDermott Will & Schulte, where she advised investors, lenders, and developers on transactions involving renewable energyand energy transition projects across the globe. Perlman's practice spans the lifecycle of renewable energy transactions, including project finance, project development, M&A, tax equity and tax credit transfer transactions, equipment supply, and other key commercial arrangements for wind, solar, storage, and emerging renewable technologies. She regularly structures complex capital arrangements and negotiates risk allocation for projects from development through construction and operations.
"Allison's arrival reinforces the firm's commitment to serving the West Coast's dynamic energy landscape," said Christine Byrnes, leader of Troutman Pepper Locke's Energy Transactions Practice Group. "Her extensive finance experience with large-scale infrastructure and energy projects further strengthens our support for clients in a rapidly evolving market and complements the recent additions of Thomas Heffernan and Andres Chaves to the practice group."
Perlman also has significant experience advising on large-scale infrastructure projects, including transportation, broadband and social infrastructure, and has counseled public authorities, sponsors, contractors, and lenders on domestic and cross-border transactions across North America and overseas. Notably, she represented a developer on a major Midwest solar project, handling multimillion-dollar financing transactions for what would become one of the largest photovoltaic facilities in the U.S. Perlman has also advised clients on the negotiation and documentation of construction loan facilities and letter of credit facilities for wind project developments.
"Allison has a strong and growing reputation in the California market and deep client relationships. Her addition is a significant advantage for the firm and a key step in advancing our strategic priorities in California," said Tambry Lynette Bradford, Los Angeles office managing partner.
"I am thrilled to join Troutman Pepper Locke's highly regarded Energy Transactional Practice Group. The firm's strong platform and deep experience in digital infrastructure and data centers create an ideal environment to help clients navigate complex financings and bring critical wind, solar, and infrastructure projects to market," said Perlman.
Troutman Pepper Locke's market-leading energy practices help clients with their most important and complex matters throughout the U.S. and beyond. From electric power, oil and gas, or emerging technologies, the cross-discipline team is equipped to handle any related matters, drawing on the depth of the firm's knowledge in the market. Troutman Pepper Locke regularly advises electric utilities, independent power producers, banks, upstream and midstream natural gas companies and service companies, private equity funds, and other large corporations. Learn more at energylawinsights.com.
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/troutman-pepper-locke-continues-growth-of-energy-transactional-practice-with-addition-of-allison-perlman-in-los-angeles/
Littler: Policy Week in Review - February 6, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 7 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Policy Week in Review - February 6, 2026
Congressional and Administrative News
At a Glance
The Policy Week in Review, prepared by Littler's Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), sets forth WPI's updates on federal, state, and local matters.
By Shannon Meade, Jim Paretti, Alex MacDonald, and Maury Baskin
DOL Announces Minimum Wage Rate Change for Federal Contractors
The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division issued a notice setting a new minimum wage rate of $13.65 per hour for workers performing
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 7 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Policy Week in Review - February 6, 2026
Congressional and Administrative News
At a Glance
The Policy Week in Review, prepared by Littler's Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), sets forth WPI's updates on federal, state, and local matters.
By Shannon Meade, Jim Paretti, Alex MacDonald, and Maury Baskin
DOL Announces Minimum Wage Rate Change for Federal Contractors
The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division issued a notice setting a new minimum wage rate of $13.65 per hour for workers performingwork on or in connection with federal contracts entered into between January 1, 2015 and January 29, 2022 that were not renewed or extended on or after January 30, 2022. The minimum wage for tipped employees performing work in connection with those covered contracts increases to $9.55 per hour. The rate changes will go in effect 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. Read Littler's analysis here.
DHS and DOL Release Supplemental H-2B Visas for 2026
The Departments of Homeland Security and Labor published a temporary rule authorizing up to, but not more than, an additional 64,716 H-2B visas for Fiscal Year 2026 to be distributed in three allocations. The supplemental visas will be available only to those American businesses that "are suffering or will suffer impending irreparable harm, i.e., those facing permanent and sever financial loss, as attested by the employer."
Bipartisan Joint Employer Bill Gains Support
The congressional Problem Solvers Caucus, a group of Republican and Democratic members of Congress seeking solutions to key issues facing the country, endorsed the American Franchise Act, which aims to protect the franchise business model by amending the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act to clarify that a franchisor may be considered a joint employer of the employees of a franchisee only if the franchisor possesses and exercises substantial direct and immediate control over the essential terms and conditions of employment. The bipartisan bill is sponsored by Representatives Kevin Hern (R-OK) and Don Davis (D-NC) and currently has 77 cosponsors.
* * *
Authors
Shannon Meade
Executive Director, Workplace Policy Institute
Washington, D.C.
* * *
James A. Paretti
Shareholder
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Alexander T. MacDonald
Shareholder
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Maury Baskin
Shareholder
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/policy-week-review-february-6-2026
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Untangling the Varying Requirements of State and Local Fair Workweek Laws
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 7 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 6, 2026, by shareholder Eli Freedberg and associate Andrew Klaben-Finegold:
* * *
Untangling the Varying Requirements of State and Local Fair Workweek Laws
At a Glance
* Fair workweek laws in various U.S. jurisdictions require covered employers to provide advance notice of schedules, premium pay for changes, the right to decline shifts, and the right to additional hours, among others.
* These laws also require employers to maintain detailed records, with significant penalties for non-compliance.
*
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 7 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 6, 2026, by shareholder Eli Freedberg and associate Andrew Klaben-Finegold:
* * *
Untangling the Varying Requirements of State and Local Fair Workweek Laws
At a Glance
* Fair workweek laws in various U.S. jurisdictions require covered employers to provide advance notice of schedules, premium pay for changes, the right to decline shifts, and the right to additional hours, among others.
* These laws also require employers to maintain detailed records, with significant penalties for non-compliance.
*Compliance involves a host of structural and cultural challenges for covered employers, including training managers on scheduling rules, documenting schedule changes and employee consent, and checking local requirements to avoid costly violations.
*
Many localities across the United States, including Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, Berkeley, San Francisco, and Emeryville, California; New York City, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Chicago and Evanston, Illinois; Seattle, Washington; and the state of Oregon, have enacted a category of wage and hour rules commonly referred to as "fair workweek" or "predictable scheduling" legislation. These laws are designed to provide predictable schedules to employees across myriad industries, but most commonly the retail and hospitality industries, in order to allow these employees to plan their budgets, and coordinate multiple jobs and caregiving responsibilities.
While the specifics of each locality's fair workweek law vary, these ordinances generally seek to provide scheduling stability to employees in covered industries by: (i) requiring covered employers to publish work schedules at least 14 days in advance of the first day covered by the work schedule;/1 (ii) requiring covered employers to obtain consent from employees prior to adding hours or shifts to the employees' work schedules once the schedules have been published and posted; (iii) prohibiting employers from unilaterally reducing hours included in a posted work schedule; (iv) requiring covered employers to pay their employees "schedule change premiums" when changing work schedules after the deadline to post the schedules passed; (iv) requiring covered employers to issue "good faith estimates" (which provide projections of the days the employee will be expected to work, and the work hours within those days) to their employees prior to commencing employment; (v) prohibiting covered employers from scheduling employees to work on back-to-back days with less than 10 or 11 hours between the end of the first shift and the start of the second shift, without first getting the employees' consent to work such a shift and by requiring the covered employer to pay a "clopening premium" anytime such shifts are worked; and (vi) prohibiting covered employers from hiring new employees (or engaging contracted labor) before offering the shifts the new hire would work to existing employees.
While these rules may appear simple or logical, covered employers have struggled to comply with these laws. The localities that enforce these fair workweek laws have pursued covered employers aggressively and have secured several 7-8-figure settlements. This is likely because each jurisdiction subjects covered employers to onerous recordkeeping requirements. Indeed, covered employers that fail to maintain the required records to demonstrate and establish compliance with the applicable predictive scheduling ordinances will often be presumed to have violated the applicable fair workweek law. Accordingly, all covered employers should frequently audit themselves and any automated recordkeeping systems they employ to facilitate fair workweek compliance, and should refresh their management about the applicable rules. To assist in that effort, we have drafted a high-level overview of the common fair workweek requirements which, again, will vary by jurisdiction.
Covered Employer and Employee
While retail and fast-food employers are covered employers under most jurisdictions' fair workweek laws, some jurisdictions' laws are more expansive. For example, Chicago's law covers employers in the building services, healthcare, hotel, manufacturing and warehouse service industries. Likewise, San Francisco's fair workweek law covers employers that operate a "formula retail establishment," which can include amusement game arcade operators, bars, drive-up facilities, eating and drinking establishments, liquor stores, massage establishments, movie theaters, restaurants, and many other businesses. It is important to check each jurisdiction's statute to determine whether your business constitutes a "covered employer."
In general, the fair workweek ordinances generally apply to non-exempt employees who spend a defined period of time working for a covered employer within the geographic limits of a particular city. Generally, an employee's residence is not factored into coverage determinations; however, coverage determinations can get tricky when employees are transferred among multiple work sites that cross city lines. Further complicating matters is that each jurisdiction has nuances when defining who "covered employees" are. Some laws, like Chicago's fair workweek law, do not apply to non-exempt employees who earn above a specific hourly rate. Some fair workweek laws may not apply to non-exempt managers, while others may. Again, it is vital that any employer in a covered industry check its local rules.
Good-Faith Estimate
Covered employers are generally required to provide their employees with a written, good-faith estimate of their work schedule before the employees begins their first day of work. This good-faith estimate must identify the projected days and hours the employee can expect to work for either a specified period of time or for the duration of employment. While the good-faith estimate is not a binding contract,/2 some jurisdictions (e.g., Philadelphia, Los Angeles City and Los Angeles County) regulate how much a weekly schedule can deviate from a good-faith estimate and require covered employers to update the good-faith estimate when there is a long-term and indefinite change to the projected days and hours of work. Other jurisdictions, like Seattle, provide that the good-faith estimate expires a year after issuance, and must be updated at that time. To comply with this facet of the fair workweek laws, covered employers can develop standardized onboarding procedures where they obtain a new employee's availability and use that availability to craft a good-faith estimate within the new hire's windows of availability in order to ensure that the employee will actually be working during the times reflected in the good-faith estimate. Employers within jurisdictions that require periodic updates to the good-faith estimate, can establish protocols to ensure that the good-faith estimate reflects their employees' actual work schedules.
Right to Request Changes to Work Schedule
Several, but far from all, ordinances provide employees with the right to request certain work hours, work times, or locations of work. Generally, employers may accept or decline the request if they notify the employee, in writing, of the reason for any denial (see, e.g., Philadelphia, Berkeley, Emeryville, LA City, LA County, and San Francisco). Chicago and Evanston, Illinois have similar rules, but require the covered employer to notify the employee of their decision to accept or reject the requested change within three days. Seattle has the most onerous right to request schedule change rule. In Seattle, at the time of hire and during employment, if the employee's request is due to a major life event (as defined by the ordinance), the covered employer must engage in an interactive process with the employee to discuss the request, and may require verifying information from the employee with adequate notice and reasonable time to respond. The employer must grant the request unless the employer has a bona fide business reason for denial and, if it does, it must provide a written response to the requesting employee.
Advance Notice of Work Schedule
Employers are generally required to provide employees with advance notice of their work schedules at least 14 calendar days before the first day of the schedule. Typically, schedules must span a week's worth of time; and covered employers are typically required both to deliver a copy of the schedule to each covered employee by electronic or in-person means and to post the weekly work schedules in a conspicuous location in the workplace.
Most jurisdictions also require covered employers to both deliver and post updated schedules if they make changes to the weekly schedule, including changes to date, time, or location of any scheduled (or unscheduled) shift that occurs after the deadline to post and deliver the schedules. Most jurisdictions require covered employers to keep and maintain records that demonstrate the date and time each schedule was posted at the workplace and the date and time each schedule was individually transmitted to each employee.
Access to Hours for Current Employees
Most jurisdictions that have fair workweek laws/3 and other jurisdictions including San Jose, California, Burien, Renton, Seattle, Tacoma, Tukwila and Everett, Washington prohibit covered employers from hiring new employees (including contractors and temporary employees) unless they have first offered additional work hours and shifts to current employees.
While the process of offering the open shifts to current employees varies by jurisdiction, typically covered employers must both post, and individually deliver a written (or electronic) notice of open shifts that identify: (i) the role that needs to be filled, (ii) the projected dates and hours of work that the covered employer needs to fill, (iii) identify whether the shift is permanent or temporary, and (iv) provide instructions to employees to volunteer to fill the open shifts. Some ordinances specify the length of time the offer must remain open to current employees (usually between 24 and 72 hours) while others simply require the offer be posted for a "reasonable time" without a further definition of that duration.
Some jurisdictions require covered employers to offer the open shifts to all employees, while other jurisdictions merely require covered employers to offer open shifts or hours to employees that the covered employer reasonably determines are qualified to perform the available work. For example, if a covered employer needs to fill cashier shifts, that employer would not be required to offer cashier hours to employees who have not been trained in cash handling or in the use of the employer's point-of-sale system in the jurisdictions that allow the covered employer to limit the recipients of the notice.
Covered employers may only hire new employees to meet increased demand if: (i) no current employees are qualified to fill the open position; (ii) no current employees volunteer to claim the open hours; or (iii) allowing current employees to take on the additional work would require the payment of overtime (or other premium pay) to current employees.
Some jurisdictions affirmatively state that an employee who accepts these "access to hours" offers do not get predictability pay for such changes, while other jurisdictions do require predictability pay for employees who accept such offers.
Premium Pay for Work Schedule Changes
With the exception of covered retail employers/4 in New York City, covered employers in each fair workweek jurisdiction are required to issue premium pay whenever they change a covered employee's work schedule after the deadline for transmitting/posting the initial work schedule has passed. While the method for calculating the amount of schedule change premiums varies by jurisdiction, typically, the covered employer will be required to pay employees one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of pay when the schedule change results in no loss of time or additional work time exceeding 15-20 minutes (depending on the jurisdictional grace period)./5 Changes that result in a loss of work time typically require the employer to compensate the employee at one-half of the employee's regular rate of pay for the total amount of reduced hours./6 Again, many jurisdictions have different formulas for calculating the amount of schedule change premium pay, so it is vitally important to check your local jurisdiction's rules.
Generally, covered employers will not be required to issue premium pay when:
* An employee initiates the requested schedule change (usually this must be memorialized in some written document);
* An employee's hours are reduced due to the employee's violation of law or of the employer's policies;/7
* The employer's operations are compromised pursuant to law, an act of God, or utilities failure; or
* Employees mutually swap shifts with each other pursuant to company policy.
Notably, an employee simply agreeing or consenting to work additional hours or shifts does not exempt a covered employer from having to pay the employee schedule change premium pay. Additionally, covered employers are generally prohibited from requiring an employee to find coverage for a shift if they cannot work due to protected reasons. As always, exceptions to the schedule change premium pay requirements vary by jurisdiction, so checking local rules is essential.
Consent/Right to Decline Schedule Changes
In addition to paying premium pay for alterations described above, each jurisdiction requires that employees either provide consent for the schedule change, or provides the employee the right to decline the schedule change. Employers cannot retaliate against employees who withhold consent or who exercise their right to decline the schedule change. However, when employers need to reduce shift lengths or cancel shifts altogether, they do not need to obtain employee consent, and employees do not have right to decline the reduction or cancellation.
Rest Time Between Shifts (Clopening)
Employers are required to give employees at least 9 to 11 hours of rest between shifts unless the employee gives written consent to be scheduled for a shift that begins fewer than 9 to 11 hours after the conclusion of their previous shift. When an employee consents to work a shift that starts less than 9-11 hours after their previous shift, they are entitled to premium pay which varies per jurisdiction, but can be as high as time-and-a-half (1.5x) the hourly rate for some or all hours worked in the second shift.
In Los Angeles County, for example, if an employee works 4:00 p.m. to midnight on Saturday, and then accepts a shift from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sunday, the employee would earn time-and-a-half only for the first two hours of the Sunday shift, and not the entire shift on Sunday.
Record Keeping
Each jurisdiction requires that the employer maintain sufficient records to demonstrate compliance with the rules. Thus, employers must document the issuance (and reissuance as required) of good-faith estimates, offers of work to existing employees, proof of when and where every schedule was published to each employee and republished when changes were made, the reason for each change, that premium was paid when required or that a certain exception applied, that consent was given for the change, and that consent for working a clopening shift was provided. These records generally must be kept for three years.
This becomes the most tedious aspect of compliance for many employers as they have to consider, at every location, how they will manage and document shift changes./8 For many industries, shift changes used to be rather informal, perhaps via telephone or text message. However, the absence of documentation on behalf of the employer during an investigation supports the finding of a violation. In addition to maintaining records of the changes, those records also need to document the reason for the change to support an argument that an exception to predictability pay applied. Additionally, payroll records should be amended to readily reflect fair workweek compliance pay so that investigators can see, in every pay period, that fair workweek premium were paid when necessary.
Penalties and Enforcement
As noted earlier, many administrative agencies that enforce fair workweek laws have recovered millions of dollars from companies those agencies accused of violating the ordinances. In addition, the class action bar has begun filing class actions alleging violations of applicable fair workweek ordinances. One reason why these agencies and the class action bar have been aggressively pursuing these claims is that each ordinance includes hefty penalties--ranging from $300-$1,000 per violation per employee per day--paid both to the employee and to the city/county/state for violations of fair workweek rules. Additional penalties can also be assessed for alleged repeat offenders.
A prevailing employee will be entitled to such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to remedy the violation, including, without limitation, the payment of any minimum wages, the payment of penalties, reinstatement in employment and/or injunctive relief, and sometimes reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
Next Steps
Compliance with predictable scheduling laws provides a host of structural and cultural challenges for covered employers. For example, managers need to be trained to realize that they are obligated to finalize, publish, and distribute schedules with far more advance notice than they may be used to. Similarly, managers need to be reminded that predictable scheduling laws prohibit even minor schedule deviations. Managers who may be used to texting with employees and asking employees to cover for shifts need to understand that their employees can decline the request, and if the employee consents, that consent should be documented somewhere besides the manager's cell phone. Likewise, managers must ensure that employees leave at the scheduled end time of their shift, even if they are busy. Allowing employees to stay more than 15-20 minutes after the scheduled end time, without an employee's consent, could constitute a violation and schedule change premium pay would be owed. Perhaps most difficult, managers need to understand that they simply cannot hire new employees to meet anticipated demand. Instead, they need to comply with the access to hours process or risk incurring heavy fines and penalties.
* * *
See Footnotes
1/ The New York City fair workweek law that applies to retail employers requires covered employers to notify their employees of their work schedules with "only" 72 hours' advance notice.
2/ Covered employers in New York City are not required to provide good-faith estimates. New York City retailers do not have to provide any form of estimate to their employees; but New York City fast food employers are required to provide employees with "regular schedules," which functions as an enforceable promise to provide set and recurring schedules throughout the duration of employment. Fast food employers in New York City can only reduce a fast-food worker's schedule below the hours reflected in the regular schedule when there is "good cause" to do so, or for "bona fide economic reasons."
3/ With the exception of Oregon, and covered retail employers in New York City.
4/ Three are separate rules in New York City for "Fast Food Employees" which are more onerous than those that apply to "Retail Employees."
5/ Premiums can be prorated for changes of less than one hour in some jurisdictions.
6/ Some fair workweek jurisdictions cap the schedule change reduction premium at four hours.
7/ Not necessarily in NYC for fast-food workers.
8/ There are third-party electronic scheduling applications that can be used here, and note that the City of New York has prepared recommended specifications for such systems. See Eli Z. Freedberg, Roya Aghanori, and Andy Klaben Finegold, New York City Releases Software Specifications for Fast-food Employer Fair Workweek Compliance, Littler ASAP (Oct. 6, 2025).
* * *
Authors
Eli Freedberg
Shareholder
New York
* * *
Andrew Klaben-Finegold
Associate
Columbus
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/untangling-varying-requirements-state-and-local-fair-workweek-laws
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Fourth Circuit Allows Implementation of DEI Executive Orders to Proceed
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 7 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary by shareholder David J. Goldstein:
* * *
Fourth Circuit Allows Implementation of DEI Executive Orders to Proceed
On February 6, 2026, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a final published opinion vacating the district court's preliminary injunction against several elements of Executive Order 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing and Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, which imposed certain requirements
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 7 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary by shareholder David J. Goldstein:
* * *
Fourth Circuit Allows Implementation of DEI Executive Orders to Proceed
On February 6, 2026, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a final published opinion vacating the district court's preliminary injunction against several elements of Executive Order 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing and Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, which imposed certain requirementson federal contractors and grantees of federal funds regarding DEI. Recipients of federal grants brought this action based on a claim that the requirements were unconstitutional on their face. While the Fourth Circuit's decision does not preclude future challenges to the administration's views as to what constitutes unlawful DEI or when contracts or grants may be terminated, the court has held that such challenges will have to be based on specific allegations that the executive orders are being implemented unlawfully. This means that federal contractors and grant recipients must continue to live, at least for now, with substantial uncertainty as to what it means to "certify" that they are not operating any programs promoting DEI that violate applicable federal anti-discrimination laws.
Enforcement Threat Provision
With respect to EO 14151's so-called "Enforcement Threat Provision" (the president's directive that the attorney general submit a report with recommendations for enforcing federal civil rights laws and deterring DEI programs that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences), the Fourth Circuit found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a claim.
Plaintiffs had argued that they feared retribution by the Trump administration so that they would be forced to restrict "their speech and conduct in support of diversity, equity, and inclusion" or face penalties. The Fourth Circuit, however, found that these allegations overstated the Enforcement Threat Provision's text. In particular, the court reasoned that the Enforcement Threat Provision would harm plaintiffs only if:
(1) the Attorney General includes in her report a plan or strategy of cutting funds for organizations that engage in DEI, even though the [P]rovision does not mention funding; (2) the President adopts that aspect of the proposed strategic enforcement plan; (3) the plan, however finalized, includes [p]laintiffs (or at least one of them) within the scope of the funding-cut strategy; and (4) some government actor enforces that part of the approved plan and slashes funding.
The court found that this "multi-tiered speculation" was inconsistent with standing.
Termination and Certification Provisions
With regard to EO 14151's so-called Termination Provision (requiring termination of all "equity-related" grants or contracts) and EO 14173's Certification Provision (mandating that federal contracts and grants include terms requiring compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws and certification that no DEI programs violate these laws), the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had standing and that their claims were constitutionally ripe.
The court then noted that the plaintiffs were challenging these provisions on their face and that "[f]acial invalidation is, manifestly, strong medicine that has been employed by [courts] sparingly and only as a last resort." According to the court, in order to prevail, plaintiffs would have to show that the provisions are unconstitutional in all of their applications or that they lack any "plainly legitimate sweep."
The court held that the plaintiffs could not make such a showing with regard to the Termination Provision because the EO does not ask anything of plaintiffs or regulate private conduct but only "instructs the President's subordinates to act, and then only 'to the maximum extent allowed by law.'" In other words, the "Provision, at this stage at least, is nothing more than 'an outward-facing' policy directive from the President to his agents." As the president clearly has authority to determine policy priorities and instruct his agents to make funding decisions based on those priorities, it is not for the courts to determine whether such policy is sound. The only issue for the courts is whether the policy is unconstitutionally vague for funding recipients.
Applying the Supreme Court's decision in National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, the Fourth Circuit found that the policy here, while perhaps vague, was not unconstitutionally vague: "when the Government is acting as patron rather than as sovereign, the consequences of imprecision are not constitutionally severe."
The court also rejected plaintiffs' First Amendment Challenge to the Certification Provision. The court first noted that, on its face, the Provision only requires compliance with existing federal laws which plaintiffs have not challenged. According to the court,
What plaintiffs are really asking us to do is read subtext into the Provision's text. And what they're really challenging is how the Administration and its agency actors interpret antidiscrimination law in relation to plaintiffs' DEI programming. Neither is fertile ground for a facial attack against the Certification Provision.
Instead, we're bound by the text. If the President, his subordinates, or another grantor misinterprets federal antidiscrimination law, plaintiffs "can challenge that interpretation in a specific enforcement action." But we can't conclude today that a "substantial number of the [Certification Provision's] applications" will be unconstitutional.
Next Steps
In light of the Fourth Circuit's decision, federal contractors and grant recipients should carefully review all contract terms regarding compliance with federal non-discrimination laws or DEI practices and, before agreeing to such provisions, should consider potential risks. Federal contractors and grant recipients that then choose to agree to such provisions should carefully audit their policies and practices on an ongoing basis to ensure that they are complying, in good faith, with their representations.
* * *
Authors
David J. Goldstein
Shareholder
Minneapolis
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/fourth-circuit-allows-implementation-dei-executive-orders-proceed
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
