Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
WilmerHale Recognized in 2026 IAM Patent 1000 Rankings
WASHINGTON, June 4 -- WilmerHale, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
WilmerHale Recognized in 2026 IAM Patent 1000 Rankings
The IAM Patent 1000 has again recognized WilmerHale and a number of its partners in its annual rankings, which focus exclusively on patent practice and serve as a leading resource for identifying world-class patent expertise. According to IAM, the guide highlights firms and individuals based on the depth of their knowledge, market presence and sophistication of their work.
Gold, Silver and Bronze designations are awarded in the litigation categories, and Highly
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 4 -- WilmerHale, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
WilmerHale Recognized in 2026 IAM Patent 1000 Rankings
The IAM Patent 1000 has again recognized WilmerHale and a number of its partners in its annual rankings, which focus exclusively on patent practice and serve as a leading resource for identifying world-class patent expertise. According to IAM, the guide highlights firms and individuals based on the depth of their knowledge, market presence and sophistication of their work.
Gold, Silver and Bronze designations are awarded in the litigation categories, and HighlyRecommended and Recommended are given in the other categories. In the 2026 guide, WilmerHale earned 10 practice rankings, and 33 individual lawyer recognitions.
Firm Rankings:
* Gold, Litigation, United States: National
* Gold, Litigation, Massachusetts
* Silver, Litigation, California
* Silver, Litigation, Colorado
* Silver, Litigation, DC Metro
* Silver, Litigation, New York
* Silver, Litigation, United Kingdom: England and Whales
* Recommended, International
* Recommended, Post Grant Proceedings, United States: National Recommended, Transactions, Massachusetts
Individual Lawyer Recognitions:
* David Cavanaugh - Prosecution, Highly Recommended (DC Metro); Transactions, Recommended (DC Metro); Post Grant Proceedings, Highly Recommended (United States: National)
* James Dowd - Litigation, Silver (California)
* Ben Fernandez - Prosecution, Recommended (Colorado); Transactions, Highly Recommended (Colorado)
* Stephen Gillespie - Transactions, Recommended (California)
* Bob Gunther - Litigation, Gold (New York)
* Judith Hasko - Transactions, Recommended (California)
* Jeff Johnson - Transactions, Recommended (Massachusetts)
* Omar Khan - Litigation, Bronze (New York)
* Bill Lee - Litigation, Gold (Massachusetts); International Trade Commission, Highly Recommended (United States: National); Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Recommended (United States: National)
* Sonal N. Mehta - Litigation, Silver (California)
* Joe Mueller - Litigation, Gold (Massachusetts)
* Chris Noyes - Litigation, Bronze (New York)
* Heather Petruzzi - Prosecution, Recommended (DC Metro)
* Lisa Pirozzolo - Litigation, Gold (Massachusetts); Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Recommended (United States: National)
* Kevin Prussia - Litigation, Bronze (Massachusetts)
* Mark Selwyn - Litigation, Silver (California)
* Matthew Shade - Litigation, Bronze (United Kingdom: England and Wales)
* Mindy Sooter - Litigation, Gold (Colorado)
* Michael Summersgill - Litigation, Silver (Massachusetts)
* Anthony Trenton - Litigation, Bronze (United Kingdom: England and Wales)
* Cindy Vreeland - Litigation, Silver (Massachusetts)
* Annsley Ward - Litigation, Bronze (United Kingdom: England and Wales)
* Seth Waxman - Litigation, Silver (DC Metro); Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Recommended (United States: National)
* Emily Whelan - Litigation, Gold (Massachusetts); Prosecution, Recommended (Massachusetts)
* Amy Wigmore - Litigation, Silver (DC Metro)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/news/20260603-wilmerhale-recognized-in-2026-iam-patent-1000-rankings
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Thompson Hine Earns Multiple IAM 1000 Rankings for Minnesota IP Practice
CLEVELAND, Ohio, June 4 -- Thompson Hine, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Thompson Hine Earns Multiple IAM 1000 Rankings for Minnesota IP Practice
Thompson Hine LLP is pleased to announce that partners Christopher Larus and William Manske have been recognized by International Asset Management's IAM 1000.
Larus, who leads the firm's Intellectual Property & Technology Litigation practice and the Minneapolis office, was one of only six lawyers in the state who received a gold ranking. Additionally, the firm's Minnesota office received a firmwide ranking.
The IAM Patent 1000
... Show Full Article
CLEVELAND, Ohio, June 4 -- Thompson Hine, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Thompson Hine Earns Multiple IAM 1000 Rankings for Minnesota IP Practice
Thompson Hine LLP is pleased to announce that partners Christopher Larus and William Manske have been recognized by International Asset Management's IAM 1000.
Larus, who leads the firm's Intellectual Property & Technology Litigation practice and the Minneapolis office, was one of only six lawyers in the state who received a gold ranking. Additionally, the firm's Minnesota office received a firmwide ranking.
The IAM Patent 1000guide highlights leading global practitioners in patent prosecution, licensing, and litigation, identifying top patent professionals in key jurisdictions worldwide.
The rankings are determined through a comprehensive five-month research process, which includes approximately 1,800 interviews with attorneys, patent attorneys, and in-house counsel, as well as feedback from peers and clients and independent research.
The publication evaluates and ranks law firms and individual lawyers in various categories within their respective jurisdictions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.thompsonhine.com/insights/thompson-hine-earns-multiple-iam-1000-rankings-for-minnesota-ip-practice/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Morgan Lewis Earns Asian Legal Business 2026 IP Rankings
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, June 4 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Morgan Lewis, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Morgan Lewis Earns Asian Legal Business 2026 IP Rankings
BEIJING, HONG KONG, SHANGHAI, TOKYO: For the 11th consecutive year, Asian Legal Business has recognized Morgan Lewis as a leading global law firm for intellectual property (IP) in its recently released 2026 Asia IP Rankings and China IP Rankings. The annual reports rank international law firms across Asia and China for IP work, including copyright, trademarks, and patents. Inclusion on this comprehensive list
... Show Full Article
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, June 4 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Morgan Lewis, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Morgan Lewis Earns Asian Legal Business 2026 IP Rankings
BEIJING, HONG KONG, SHANGHAI, TOKYO: For the 11th consecutive year, Asian Legal Business has recognized Morgan Lewis as a leading global law firm for intellectual property (IP) in its recently released 2026 Asia IP Rankings and China IP Rankings. The annual reports rank international law firms across Asia and China for IP work, including copyright, trademarks, and patents. Inclusion on this comprehensive listof international law firms across Asia recognized for IP work is determined by firm submissions, interviews, editorial resources, and market recommendations.
Practice Rankings
* Japan - Tier 1
* China International - Tier 2
See the complete 2026 Asian Legal Business Asia IP rankings (https://www.legalbusinessonline.com/node/88833)
See the complete 2026 Asian Legal Business China IP rankings (https://china.legalbusinessonline.com/node/88806)
* * *
Our Beijing and Shanghai offices operate as representative offices of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. In Hong Kong, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius is a separate Hong Kong general partnership registered with The Law Society of Hong Kong.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.morganlewis.com/news/2026/06/morgan-lewis-earns-asian-legal-business-2026-ip-rankings
McDonald Hopkins Issues Commentary: AI-Assisted Inventions - Is Your Document Retention Policy Keeping Up?
CLEVELAND, Ohio, June 4 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 3, 2026, by counsel Malisheia Douglas and member
Aaron Fishman:
* * *
AI-assisted inventions: Is your document retention policy keeping up?
Artificial intelligence tools -- from consumer-facing platforms to enterprise-deployed systems-- are now deeply embedded in scientific, engineering, and product development workflows. The rise of generative AI and machine learning tools has transformed R&D across industries, with AI systems increasingly being used to generate novel solutions. Increasingly,
... Show Full Article
CLEVELAND, Ohio, June 4 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 3, 2026, by counsel Malisheia Douglas and member
Aaron Fishman:
* * *
AI-assisted inventions: Is your document retention policy keeping up?
Artificial intelligence tools -- from consumer-facing platforms to enterprise-deployed systems-- are now deeply embedded in scientific, engineering, and product development workflows. The rise of generative AI and machine learning tools has transformed R&D across industries, with AI systems increasingly being used to generate novel solutions. Increasingly,these tools are generating outputs that if substantial human contribution is present would constitute patentable inventions.
The USPTO is paying attention -- including, most recently, human inventorship requirements for ornamental designs, one of the latest topics at the heart of design patent protection. As recently as March 2026, the USPTO explored the role of Generative AI in design patents, noting that Generative AI is playing an increasingly significant role in designers' creative processes -- and that this may present barriers to design patent protection, since only natural humans can be inventors. That observation is not merely academic. It signals a recognition that the legal framework has not yet caught up to the way designers actually work in the age of artificial intelligence.
That fundamental shift brings with it the need to document the human contribution to prove patent eligibility and in many ways document retention may become even more crucial to prove or defend against attacks to patent validity. Most companies have existing document retention policies designed to capture and preserve evidence of innovation -- lab notebooks, experimental results, invention disclosures, and patent prosecution files. However, many of these policies were not designed with AI in mind. The gap between documentation policies and the ability to capture how innovation actually happens is no longer a theoretical concern. It is an active and growing threat to the enforceability of patents that companies have invested significant resources to obtain.
This article examines: (1) how AI tools -- both public and enterprise -- may be silently circumventing your document retention policies; (2) the risks of using public AI tools, including inadvertent public disclosure and unintentional IP infringement; and (3) best practices for updating policies, training inventors, and meeting your duty of candor to the USPTO.
The legal framework: What the law currently requires
Under current U.S. law, only a natural person can be named as an inventor. AI systems, including generative AI and other computational models, are instruments used by human inventors -- analogous to laboratory equipment, computer software, research databases, or any other tool that assists in the inventive process. Any application listing an AI system as an inventor or joint inventor will be rejected under 35 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 101 and 115.
This principle was firmly established in Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022), where Dr. Steven Thaler alleged that his DABUS AI system generated two inventions. Patent applications naming DABUS as inventor were refused by the USPTO, and that refusal was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. The holding was unambiguous: an "inventor" must be a human, and an application for patent which fails to list any human as an inventor should be denied -- making proof of human conception critical. In the Patent Act, "individuals" - and, thus, "inventors" - are unambiguously natural persons.
While the Federal Circuit has long held that "conception is the touchstone of inventorship," Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the USPTO has since issued successive rounds of guidance on how this principle applies when AI assists in the inventive process. The current operative framework issued November 28, 2025, acknowledges that AI systems may provide services and generate ideas, but they remain tools used by the human inventor who conceived the claimed invention. Thus, when a natural person uses AI to develop an invention, the key question is whether that person made a substantial contribution to the conception of the invention under the traditional standard of conception. While the substantial contribution inquiry is binding on USPTO examiners, the guidance itself is not binding on courts. This almost certainly sets the stage for future evaluation of "edge cases," where courts and the USPTO will need to determine whether a human who recognizes, selects, or refines an AI-generated output has contributed enough to conception to have "invented" the subject matter -- representing the most significant open issue arising from the updated guidance. As AI-assisted innovation accelerates, practitioners should expect further clarification -- likely through case law -- on conception and patent inventorship in the AI context.
The document retention gap: How AI is undermining your IP protection without you knowing it
Traditional retention frameworks were not built for AI
Most companies with active R&D and design programs maintain document retention policies that capture lab notebooks, experimental results, invention disclosure forms, prior art searches, and patent prosecution correspondence. These records serve a critical legal function: they create a contemporaneous evidentiary record of human conception that can be used to establish and defend inventorship, support validity in post-grant proceedings, and demonstrate compliance with the duty of candor to the USPTO. These frameworks were designed for a world where inventors and designers worked with physical and conceptual materials and documented their work in files that could be saved and organized. AI-assisted design and invention works very differently -- and the gap between existing policy frameworks and current innovation practice is widening every day.
The silent gap: What AI interactions are not being saved
When inventors use AI tools -- even enterprise or private systems -- the prompts, queries, intermediate outputs, and iterative interactions that led to an invention may not be saved or retained at all. This lack of documentation might seem advantageous (i.e., making it difficult for a challenger to prove an AI was involved). However, as discussed below, the duty of candor is still an obligation for inventors, practitioners, and anyone associated with the filing and prosecution of the patent application in making representations before the USPTO. As further discussed below, digital forensics will likely make any perceived advantage from the lack of documentation moot. This creates a critical evidentiary void: if inventorship is later challenged, the company may be unable to demonstrate what the human inventor actually contributed versus what the AI generated -- potentially fatal to patent validity. For design patent purposes, this gap is especially dangerous. The entire inventive act in design patent law is the conception of the ornamental appearance. If no record exists of the designer's iterative decisions -- which AI-generated options were rejected, which were refined, what specific visual choices the designer made -- then the "conception" by a natural person could be called into question.
Companies should maintain version control for AI-generated materials to track how human inventors conceived of the invention, and refined, selected, and integrated AI outputs -- including, for example, the selection of inputs provided to AI tools and any configuration or training of the AI tools. This principle applies with equal -- and arguably greater -- force to design workflows. Patent applicants must clearly demonstrate how a natural person conceived the invention, and detailed records of human input -- especially where AI-generated outputs are involved -- will be critical to withstand scrutiny.
Third-party vendors: The contractual gap
Enterprise and third-party AI vendors may not, by default, log or preserve user prompts and inputs, version histories of AI-generated outputs, iterative refinements made by the human inventor, or the AI model version used at the time of generation. Existing vendor agreements and terms of service may not address document retention obligations at all, let alone align them with the company's internal IP policies or industry standards for innovation recordkeeping. Vendor defaults may actively work against the company's interests: some systems auto-delete session histories; others use inputs for model training, creating potential public disclosure risks; and few provide the kind of tamper-evident logging that would satisfy evidentiary standards in litigation.
Recommended contractual protections include: requiring vendors to retain all session data for the full term of any patent issuing from the relevant application (up to 20 years from filing for utility patents, and 15 years from grant for design patents), plus any applicable post-expiration challenge periods, to ensure that documentation remains available to defend against validity challenges that may arise throughout the patent's enforceable life; requiring exportable, tamper-evident logs; prohibiting use of inputs for model training; and including audit rights.
The public AI risk: Disclosure and inadvertent infringement
Many public AI systems -- consumer-facing services like ChatGPT, Gemini, and similar tools -- learn from user interactions, meaning that prompts and inputs may be retained and used for model training, may resurface as outputs provided to other unrelated users, and may constitute a "public disclosure" under patent law that starts the one-year clock under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 102 -- or, in some circumstances, such as for patent filings in countries that have no grace period, immediately bar patentability. For design work, this risk is particularly concrete. If a designer uses a public AI image-generation tool to develop a product's ornamental appearance and those prompts and outputs are retained and used for training, the visual concepts that could have been protected as design patents may have already been publicly disclosed.
There is a second, often-overlooked danger: inadvertent IP infringement. AI systems generate outputs based on training data that may include patented inventions, proprietary methods, and protected prior art. Inventors who rely on AI-generated solutions without conducting a Freedom to Operate (FTO) analysis run serious risks. The AI-suggested solution may already be patented by a third party, making commercialization an infringement risk; the company may unknowingly pursue patent protection for subject matter that is already prior art, wasting prosecution resources and exposing the application to invalidity; and there is no way to determine the provenance of AI-generated outputs without independent investigation. Best practice: treat AI-generated outputs as you would any third-party contribution -- conduct a thorough FTO search and prior art analysis before investing in patent prosecution or committing resources to product development based on AI-suggested solutions.
Best practices: Protecting design and utility IP rights in an AI-assisted environment
The duty of candor
Under 37 C.F.R. Sec. 1.56, applicants, attorneys, and agents owe a duty of candor and good faith to the USPTO, including a duty to disclose all information material to patentability. The USPTO guidance does not introduce a formal requirement to disclose the use of AI systems in the inventive process. However, it highlights that this falls within the existing duty of individuals involved in patent applications to disclose all information material to the invention's patentability, including proper inventorship. For AI-assisted inventions, this means disclosing evidence if an inventor's claimed contribution was actually performed by an AI system, as such information raises questions of proper inventorship.
Failure to make appropriate disclosures where material information exists could render the patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct. See Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc). Inventors and companies should proceed on the assumption that, in any future patent challenge or litigation, opposing counsel will use digital forensic techniques to identify AI tools used during development, recover prompt histories, session logs, and AI-generated outputs, and demonstrate that the claimed human conception was actually AI-generated. If the AI contribution is substantial and undisclosed, forensic evidence could be used to invalidate the patent, support an inequitable conduct defense, or demonstrate that the named human inventor did not actually conceive the invention.
Updating your document retention and AI governance policies
Companies should take the following concrete steps to align their document retention and AI governance policies with the current legal landscape:
* Audit existing document retention policies to identify gaps relating to AI-generated content and AI-assisted workflows.
* Update invention disclosure forms to require inventors to identify: (a) whether AI tools were used; (b) which tools; and (c) the nature and extent of AI involvement.
* Require that all AI-assisted innovation and design activities be conducted using only approved private or enterprise AI systems.
* Negotiate and update vendor agreements to include appropriate data retention, logging, confidentiality, and audit provisions.
* Implement version-controlled AI session logs as part of the standard innovation documentation package.
* Train all R&D and design personnel on the distinction between public and private AI tools and the legal consequences of using the wrong tool.
* Establish a regular review cycle for AI governance policies given the pace of legal and technological change.
For design teams specifically, documentation practices should mirror -- and in some respects exceed -- those required of utility patent inventors. The designer's iterative decision-making process is the inventive act. Require inventors to document their design conception, including processes, problem framing, and design choices before running or integrating AI tools, and when AI proposes multiple outputs, document why the inventor selected or modified a particular output. Leaving such decisions undocumented is a risk no company should take.
Ensuring vendor and enterprise system compliance
Companies must also audit whether their AI vendor agreements address: data retention and logging obligations; access and exportability of session logs and prompt histories; data security and confidentiality protections consistent with trade secret requirements under the Defend Trade Secrets Act; and alignment with the company's internal document retention schedule. This is especially critical for design teams relying on third-party generative AI image tools, where vendor terms rarely contemplate the IP documentation needs of a patent applicant.
Conclusion
The USPTO's March 2026 guidance is a marker, not a finish line. The legal framework governing AI-assisted inventions is still evolving, and the evidentiary standards that will ultimately define what counts as human conception in an AI-assisted workflow have not yet been set by the courts. What is clear is that the gap between how companies innovate today and the records they will need tomorrow is real, growing, and carries consequences that existing document retention policies were not designed to address. The question for companies that use AI in their R&D and design workflows is not whether this issue will arise, but whether their documentation practices will be adequate when it does.
* * *
Malisheia Douglas
Counsel
mdouglas@mcdonaldhopkins.com
* * *
Aaron Fishman
Member
afishman@mcdonaldhopkins.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcdonaldhopkins.com/insights/news/ai-assisted-inventions-is-your-document-retention-policy-keeping-up
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Mayer Brown's Global Intellectual Property Practice Secures Leading Rankings in 2026 IAM Patent 1000
CHICAGO, Illinois, June 4 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Mayer Brown, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Mayer Brown's global Intellectual Property practice secures leading rankings in 2026 IAM Patent 1000
Mayer Brown and 17 lawyers across seven jurisdictions have been recognized in the 2026 edition of the Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Patent 1000, which "shines a spotlight on the firms and individuals that are deemed outstanding in the pivotal area of patent law."
The publication lauded the firm's "high-caliber practice," noting that "Mayer Brown is distinguished by its strength
... Show Full Article
CHICAGO, Illinois, June 4 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Mayer Brown, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Mayer Brown's global Intellectual Property practice secures leading rankings in 2026 IAM Patent 1000
Mayer Brown and 17 lawyers across seven jurisdictions have been recognized in the 2026 edition of the Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Patent 1000, which "shines a spotlight on the firms and individuals that are deemed outstanding in the pivotal area of patent law."
The publication lauded the firm's "high-caliber practice," noting that "Mayer Brown is distinguished by its strengthsupporting clients in navigating product development, regulatory approval, and commercial partnerships to ensure that innovation is matched with carefully structured legal and business frameworks."
The guide ranked the firm in seven jurisdictions:
* Germany
* Hong Kong
* International
* United States: California
* United States: Illinois
* United States: New York
* United States: Washington DC
Seventeen lawyers received individual rankings:
* Jamie Beaber, Washington DC and US National: Litigation
* Benjamin Beck, Germany
* Christoph Crutzen, Germany: Infringement
* James Ferguson, Illinois: Litigation
* Lisa Ferri, New York: Litigation
* Alan Grimaldi, Washington DC: Litigation
* Amita Haylock, Hong Kong: Litigation
* Gary Hnath, Washington DC and US National: Litigation
* Edward Johnson, California: Litigation
* Gabriela Kennedy, Hong Kong: Transactions
* Kfir Levy, Washington DC: Litigation
* Michael Molano, California: Litigation
* Vera Nackovic, Illinois: Transactions
* Brian Nolan, New York: Litigation
* Manuel Velez, New York: Litigation
* Ulrich Worm, Germany: Infringement
* Oliver Yaros, London: Transactions
Learn more about Mayer Brown's global Intellectual Property practice here (https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/services/intellectual-property).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/news/2026/06/mayer-browns-global-intellectual-property-practice-secures-leading-rankings-in-2026-iam-patent-1000
Littler Issues Commentary: Conscience Protection Laws - What Healthcare Employers Should Know
SAN FRANCISCO, California, June 4 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 3, 2026, by shareholder Lisa M. Griffith, associate Min Song and research attorneys Hannah T. Stilley and Joe St. James:
* * *
Conscience Protection Laws: What Healthcare Employers Should Know
At a Glance
* Several states have enacted or are considering laws providing "conscience protection" for healthcare employers.
* These laws enable workers to opt out of participating in certain treatments or services on ethical, moral, or religious grounds, and prevent their employers from discriminating
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, June 4 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 3, 2026, by shareholder Lisa M. Griffith, associate Min Song and research attorneys Hannah T. Stilley and Joe St. James:
* * *
Conscience Protection Laws: What Healthcare Employers Should Know
At a Glance
* Several states have enacted or are considering laws providing "conscience protection" for healthcare employers.
* These laws enable workers to opt out of participating in certain treatments or services on ethical, moral, or religious grounds, and prevent their employers from discriminatingagainst them for such objections.
-
As Utah Senate Bill 174, Exercise of Religious Beliefs and Conscience Amendments, went into effect on May 6, 2026, healthcare employers should be aware not only of this law's broad requirements, but also of the growing trend nationally of similar "conscience protection" laws for healthcare employees.
In 2025, Tennessee and Idaho established their own "Medical Ethics Defense Acts," each providing broad conscience protections for healthcare providers. Both laws adopt protections for those with ethical, moral, or religious objections to participating in healthcare procedures, treatments, and services and, provide that healthcare providers cannot be discriminated against for objecting to participating in such healthcare services.
This year, in addition to the Utah statute, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island's legislatures are all considering similar conscience protection proposals, and, a similar medical conscience bill was signed into law in Iowa on May 19, 2026. At the federal level, the EEOC has renewed its attention on enforcement of religious discrimination claims, and the Department of Health and Human Services has reestablished the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division within its Office for Civil Rights to prioritize the enforcement of conscience protections for health care workers under certain federally-funded programs and statutes, and investigate complaints of discrimination based on refusals to comply with employment requirements due to conscience or religious beliefs. Healthcare employers should be cognizant of this growing trend, both because of this type of legislation's wide-reaching staffing, antidiscrimination, and accommodation obligations, as well as the increased federal attention on potential violators.
Utah's Free Exercise of Religious Beliefs or Conscience Law
As of May 6, 2026, healthcare providers in Utah have broad protections in the workplace due to religious belief or conscience. As defined, "conscience" is a sincerely held belief as to the rightness or wrongness of an action or inaction. Notably, "religious belief" is not defined by the new law.
Right to Refuse Participation Due to Religious Belief or Conscience
The law allows healthcare providers to refuse to participate in or provide a healthcare service that violates the provider's religious beliefs or conscience, and prohibits providers from being held civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for exercising these rights. However, the law does not override existing requirements imposed by federal law to provide screenings, examinations, and stabilizing treatment to patients, or to patients in emergency departments.
Covered Healthcare Providers and Services
Conscience protections are available to healthcare providers across broad disciplines that are licensed, certified, or regulated under Utah law, including physicians, physical therapists, nurses, and dentists. The conscience protections apply to nearly any part of the medical care process, from examinations and diagnosis to therapy, research, and providing medical advice.
Employee Advance Notice Requirement and Employer Obligations
Healthcare providers who refuse to participate in healthcare services due to belief or conscience must provide advance notice to their employer. The notice must include the healthcare service or services in which the provider refuses to participate because it violates their right of religious belief or conscience. Employers or healthcare institutions that receive a healthcare provider's advance notice must, to the extent reasonably practical, schedule staffing in a way to avoid placing a provider in a situation that requires them to be called upon to perform a service that violates their religious beliefs or conscience.
Discrimination Protections
Under the new law, healthcare employers are prohibited from discriminating against or taking adverse action against a healthcare provider as a result of their refusal to participate in services that violate their conscience, or because they believe that they provided any information relating to the employer's violation of the new conscience law. The law defines a prohibited "adverse action" broadly, including an employee's being assigned increased administrative duties or reduction of privileges. However, the law does allow employees to be transferred, demoted, or terminated if the duties to which they object are considered essential to what they were hired to perform, or are so numerous that granting the employee requests would cause an undue hardship on the employer.
Recommended Practices for Healthcare Employers
In light of these broad conscience protection laws and increased federal scrutiny of workplace conscience claims, healthcare employers must carefully balance their obligation to ensure patients receive timely, nondiscriminatory care with their duty to accommodate employees' conscience objections. While Utah's new law makes clear that a provider's refusal to provide care alone is not evidence of unlawful discrimination against a patient, employers should be mindful that if the refusal results in delays, denial of care, or a disparate impact on protected classes, they can be found responsible for failing to meet those care obligations. Employers should therefore affirmatively focus their overall compliance efforts to ensure that there is no adverse impact on outcomes, while honoring the protected refusal. This includes implementing clear staffing coverage protocols, establishing complaint escalation pathways, and adopting neutral policies that ensure continuity of patient care. Employers should also consider conducting periodic audits of refusal patterns and patient outcomes to identify any unintended disparities or access issues.
Employers should also exercise heightened caution when making staffing and employment decisions involving employees who assert religious objections. Since Utah's new law defines "adverse action" broadly, routine decisions such as schedule changes, although contemplated by the statute, may create litigation risk if perceived as retaliatory. Recommended practices include centralizing review of accommodation-related decisions, clearly defining essential job functions, maintaining flexible staffing models (including cross-trained backup coverage), and thoroughly documenting all decisions with legitimate, non-retaliatory business justifications. Sound compliance strategies treat these issues as systemwide operational challenges rather than ad hoc personnel matters. In addition, employers should invest in proactive training and communication strategies to minimize operational disruptions and reduce legal exposure. This includes educating supervisors and frontline staff on how to recognize and respond to accommodation requests in a consistent manner, as well as clarifying the limits of protected refusals, particularly where emergency care, patient safety, or legal obligations are implicated.
Ultimately, healthcare employers should maintain neutral, consistently applied accommodation processes, while ensuring that all patients have timely and equitable access to care. Employers should consult with knowledgeable counsel to help navigate the balancing act of accommodating employees' religious beliefs, as well as the effects on staffing and coverage requirements.
* * *
Authors
Lisa M. Griffith
Shareholder
Long Island
* * *
Min Song
Associate
Philadelphia
* * *
Hannah T. Stilley
Research Attorney
Kansas City - Global Services Center
* * *
Joe St. James
Research Attorney
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/conscience-protection-laws-what-healthcare-employers-should-know
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Florida Supreme Court Gives Employers Stronger Defense Against Whistleblower Claims - Your 6-Step Action Plan
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 4 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on June 3, 2026:
* * *
Florida Supreme Court Gives Employers Stronger Defense Against Whistleblower Claims: Your 6-Step Action Plan
Does a fired employee who believes your company broke the law have a viable claim for retaliation under Florida's whistleblower statute? Not without proving the conduct actually violated a law, rule, or regulation. The Florida Supreme Court just raised the bar on May 28 for retaliation claims under the Florida Private Whistleblower Act (FPWA), holding that it's not enough for an
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 4 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on June 3, 2026:
* * *
Florida Supreme Court Gives Employers Stronger Defense Against Whistleblower Claims: Your 6-Step Action Plan
Does a fired employee who believes your company broke the law have a viable claim for retaliation under Florida's whistleblower statute? Not without proving the conduct actually violated a law, rule, or regulation. The Florida Supreme Court just raised the bar on May 28 for retaliation claims under the Florida Private Whistleblower Act (FPWA), holding that it's not enough for anemployee to merely have a good-faith, objectively reasonable belief that their employer broke the law. For Florida employers, this decision strengthens a critical line of defense, but it also comes with nuances that demand attention. Here's what you need to know about the ruling and six steps you should consider taking now.
Safety-Related Complaints Led to a Retaliation Lawsuit
Key Facts in the Case: Clint Gessner worked for Gulf Power Company for nearly a decade, and he claimed he raised several safety-related concerns during that time. Ultimately, Gulf Power fired Gessner for allegedly using racially disparaging language during a meeting.
The Lawsuit: Gessner then sued his employer under the FPWA, alleging that he was discharged in retaliation for objecting to practices he "reasonably and objectively believed" were in violation of state or federal laws.
The Employer's Argument: Gulf Power argued that the employee needed to show more than a reasonable and objective belief of a violation, and he didn't show that he objected or refused to participate in conduct that actually violated a law, rule, or regulation.
The District Court's Decision: Gessner relied on prior 4th District precedent and argued that he did not need to prove a legal violation - only that he had a good-faith, objectively reasonable belief that the employer's actions were unlawful. The trial court rejected that view and sided with the employer. The 1st District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that an employee bringing a claim under the FPWA must establish that they objected to or refused to participate in an employer activity, policy, or practice that constituted an actual violation of a law, rule, or regulation.
Conflict Among Florida Appeals Courts: The 1st District's ruling aligned with the 2nd District and certified a conflict with 4th District precedent. While the case was pending before the Florida Supreme Court, the 5th District also aligned with the 1st and 2nd Districts, deepening the conflict. The Supreme Court accepted review to resolve the issue.
Florida Supreme Court Rejects the "Reasonable Belief" Standard
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that an employee can prevail under the FPWA by showing only a good-faith, objectively reasonable belief that the employer's conduct was unlawful.
The court emphasized that the statute does not include language protecting objections to "suspected" violations or "alleged" noncompliance, even though the Florida Legislature has used similar language in other whistleblower-related statutes. Accordingly, the court held that an employee must establish that the employer's activity, policy, or practice is, by definition, in violation of the law.
The decision resolves the conflict between Florida's appellate courts, disapproves the "reasonable belief" approach taken by the 4th District, and approves the 1st, 2nd, and 5th Districts' decisions to the extent they are consistent with the Florida Supreme Court's clarified standard.
The Court Clarifies the "Actual Violation" Standard
Although the court rejected the employee's reasonable-belief standard, it also clarified that the statute does not require an employee to prove that the employer already completed an unlawful act, was in the act of violating the law at the moment of discharge, or had been found by an agency or court to have violated the law.
The Court explained that the FPWA protects objections to an employer activity, policy, or practice that is unlawful by definition. For example, an employee who refuses to participate in a future act that would be illegal if carried out may still be protected, even if the employer never completes the act.
While the employee in this case showed that he raised several workplace safety concerns, the Florida Supreme Court said he didn't present sufficient evidence that any activity, policy, or practice to which he objected was, by definition, in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.
By contrast, an employee who identifies a specific statute and presents evidence that the employer's practice meets each element of that violation would likely satisfy the court's standard, which underscores the importance of specificity in any future FPWA claim.
6 Steps for Florida Employers to Take Now
The Florida Supreme Court's decision gives employers a stronger defense against FPWA claims based only on an employee's belief that workplace conduct was unlawful. But the ruling should not be viewed as a license to ignore complaints. The best retaliation claims are still the ones that never happen. What steps can you take to adequately respond to employee concerns and reduce the risk of retaliation claims? Consider taking these six steps.
1. Develop a Strong Performance Management System
Implement a robust performance management system that includes goal setting, periodic check-ins, and year-end feedback. Feedback should be specific and include tangible examples of achievements and areas requiring improvement. This process should be transparent to employees and applied consistently year after year.
Train managers to view performance management as a critical responsibility rather than a routine administrative task. Ensure they provide accurate feedback and constructive criticism to avoid vague or conflicting statements. For instance, if an employee with average performance reviews is terminated for poor performance, the lack of clear feedback could lead to claims of inconsistency.
2. Create and Regularly Review Written Policies and Procedures
Provide every employee with a copy of your workplace policies and procedures during onboarding and require them to sign an acknowledgment. Train managers to appropriately address policy violations and apply policies consistently and uniformly.
Clearly communicating policies and procedures helps promote transparency and establish expectations. Providing specific examples of policy violations allows managers to reference them in written disciplinary actions and ensure employees understand expectations. Review these policies regularly to ensure they align with updated legal requirements as well as internal operational changes.
3. Apply Discipline Consistently
Terminations should rarely come as a surprise. Implement a written disciplinary policy, acknowledged by all employees, to ensure clarity. Managers should receive training on how to apply this policy and effectively document violations to maintain a clear record. Human Resources staff should oversee disciplinary actions to verify consistency across the organization. Consistency can help employers better respond to claims of unequal treatment and demonstrate fair enforcement of workplace policies.
4. Keep Detailed Records of Conversations
Follow up on verbal discussions of workplace concerns with written communication, which could be as simple as an email, to create a record of what was discussed and agreed upon. Documenting these conversations helps mitigate the risk of misinterpretation and provides evidence of the employer's efforts to communicate clearly and address employee concerns.
5. Create Reporting Procedures for Employee Concerns
Ensure your company has robust reporting procedures for employees to raise concerns. Creating reporting procedures allows concerns to be addressed quickly before they escalate into serious disputes. Additionally, the scope of an employee's concerns should be well documented so there isn't any dispute over the substance of the complaint.
When employees see that their concerns are handled respectfully and timely, they are more likely to trust the dispute resolution process. Overall, reporting procedures encourage open communication between all parties and provide clear documentation of the issues.
6. Conduct a Prompt and Thorough Investigation
Be prepared to investigate complaints immediately to demonstrate a prompt response. Each investigation should be conducted with a genuine effort to fairly and impartially determine what occurred, whether the conduct violated company policy and, if so, what action should be taken.
Properly train investigators to use sound judgment based on the allegations of each complaint. Investigators should document the complaint, witness interviews, and any materials that were reviewed, as well as their findings and any corrective action taken.
Conclusion
We'll continue to monitor developments in this area and provide updates as warranted, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to receive the latest news directly to your inbox. For more information, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in our Florida offices.
* * *
Related People
Rebecca Bovinet
Associate
954.847.4720
rbovinet@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Garrett S. Kamen
Partner
954.847.4735
gkamen@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Brett P. Owens
Partner
813.769.7512
bowens@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Ralph A. Peterson
Senior Counsel
813.769.7452
rapeterson@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/florida-supreme-court-gives-employers-stronger-defense-against-whistleblower-claims
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
