Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Troutman Pepper Locke's Ashley Taylor Named to Hall of Fame by Virginia Lawyers Weekly
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 10 -- Troutman Pepper, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Troutman Pepper Locke's Ashley Taylor Named to Hall of Fame by Virginia Lawyers Weekly
RICHMOND - Troutman Pepper Locke vice chair and co-leader of the firm's nationally ranked State Attorneys General Practice, Ashley L. Taylor, Jr., has been named to the Virginia Lawyers Hall of Fame by Virginia Lawyers Weekly, recognizing his outstanding career, leadership, and lasting impact on the legal profession in Virginia and beyond.
Taylor consistently earns recognition for his work, including being listed for
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 10 -- Troutman Pepper, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Troutman Pepper Locke's Ashley Taylor Named to Hall of Fame by Virginia Lawyers Weekly
RICHMOND - Troutman Pepper Locke vice chair and co-leader of the firm's nationally ranked State Attorneys General Practice, Ashley L. Taylor, Jr., has been named to the Virginia Lawyers Hall of Fame by Virginia Lawyers Weekly, recognizing his outstanding career, leadership, and lasting impact on the legal profession in Virginia and beyond.
Taylor consistently earns recognition for his work, including being listed for12 consecutive years in Chambers USA, as well as distinctions from Lawdragon's 500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management, Virginia Business' Legal Elite Honors List, and Virginia Lawyers Weekly's Go To Lawyers for business litigation. These consistent honors reflect his deep commitment to excellence, client service, and the highest standards of professional integrity.
A former Virginia Deputy Attorney General and past commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Taylor has built one of the nation's leading State Attorneys General practices, recently ranked Band 1 Nationwide by Chambers USA. He helps guide firm strategy while maintaining a robust practice, representing Fortune 500 and other major companies in high-stakes investigations, enforcement actions, and litigation involving consumer protection, privacy and data security, financial services, health care, and other areas where state and federal enforcement intersect.
As a firm leader, Taylor has helped shape Troutman Pepper Locke's approach to regulatory and enforcement challenges, including integrating the State Attorneys General practice into the firm's Regulatory Investigations, Strategy, and Enforcement Practice Group (RISE), helping position the RISE group as a leader in regulatory compliance and consumer protection. He also co-founded the American Bar Association's State Attorneys General and Department of Justice Issues Committee, elevating State AG practice as a distinct and important discipline within the broader legal industry. Taylor is widely recognized for his work on litigation driving civic change; his longstanding commitment to mentoring young lawyers; and advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the profession.
* * *
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-lockes-ashley-taylor-named-to-hall-of-fame-by-virginia-lawyers-weekly/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
McGuireWoods Named to U.S. News & World Report's 2026 Best Companies to Work For: Law Firms
RICHMOND, Virginia, June 10 -- McGuireWoods, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
McGuireWoods Named to U.S. News & World Report's 2026 Best Companies to Work For: Law Firms
McGuireWoods was selected for inclusion in U.S. News & World Report's "Best Companies to Work For: Law Firms" list, which spotlights the country's top law firms based on workplace quality and employee satisfaction.
The list, part of U.S. News' broader "Best Companies to Work For" rankings, evaluates how law firms meet employees' needs and expectations.
The methodology considers six key factors: quality
... Show Full Article
RICHMOND, Virginia, June 10 -- McGuireWoods, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
McGuireWoods Named to U.S. News & World Report's 2026 Best Companies to Work For: Law Firms
McGuireWoods was selected for inclusion in U.S. News & World Report's "Best Companies to Work For: Law Firms" list, which spotlights the country's top law firms based on workplace quality and employee satisfaction.
The list, part of U.S. News' broader "Best Companies to Work For" rankings, evaluates how law firms meet employees' needs and expectations.
The methodology considers six key factors: qualityof pay and benefits; work-life balance; job stability; physical and psychological comfort; belongingness; and opportunities for professional development.
To calculate the rankings, U.S. News partnered with SurePoint Technologies and Revelio Labs to analyze employee sentiment and legal market data to rate how companies support the everyday experience of their workers.
McGuireWoods prioritizes initiatives that support employee growth, foster an inclusive workplace culture and promote work-life balance across its offices nationwide.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcguirewoods.com/news/press-releases/2026/6/mcguirewoods-named-to-u-s-news-world-reports-2026-best-companies-to-work-for-law-firms/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Jeff Merrifield Addresses U.S. Congress on Nuclear Permitting Reform to Advance Efficient Licensing
NEW YORK, June 10 -- Pillsbury, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Jeff Merrifield Addresses U.S. Congress on Nuclear Permitting Reform to Advance Efficient Licensing
Jeffrey Merrifield, a Pillsbury partner emeritus and the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council (USNIC), testified today before the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittee on Energy and Power. Merrifield, who served a Senate confirmed commissioner for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1998 to 2007, addressed the topic, "Nuclear Permitting Reform: Legislation
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, June 10 -- Pillsbury, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Jeff Merrifield Addresses U.S. Congress on Nuclear Permitting Reform to Advance Efficient Licensing
Jeffrey Merrifield, a Pillsbury partner emeritus and the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council (USNIC), testified today before the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittee on Energy and Power. Merrifield, who served a Senate confirmed commissioner for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1998 to 2007, addressed the topic, "Nuclear Permitting Reform: Legislationto Advance Efficient Licensing."
During his testimony, Merrifield described the role that nuclear power can play in securing the clean, reliable and resilient energy needed to power the nation's electric grid, decarbonize critical industrial capabilities and power the nation's increasing data demands.
Merrifield said that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has "come a long way" since he last spoke to the House in 2023, particularly as a result of the passage of the Advance Act of 2024 which required the agency to change its mission to enable the safe deployment of advanced nuclear technologies. He added that, "For the nuclear industry to thrive and grow, it needs a Commission structure that is collegial, efficient, risk-informed and predictable - standards that absent further tinkering it is well positioned to achieve."
Merrifield commented specifically on six pieces of legislation now being considered by the House committee and subcommittee.
To read Merrifield's full statement to Congress, please see here and his prior testimony in 2023 here.
Pillsbury, which was named the Most Innovative Law Firm in North America in the Energy Transition (Financial Times, 2023 and 2024) and is ranked among the elite by both Chambers USA and Chambers Global, possesses one of the world's top nuclear energy teams--a trailblazing practice with a track record full of firsts for more than 50 years, including having worked on large-scale nuclear energy projects and related matters and their financings in more than 30 countries on six continents.
USNIC is the leading U.S. business advocate for the promotion of nuclear advancement and the American supply chain globally. USNIC represents over 100 companies engaged in nuclear innovation and supply chain development, including technology developers, manufacturers, construction engineers, key utility movers, and service providers.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/jeff-merrifield-us-congress-nuclear-permitting-reform-advance-efficient-licensing.html
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Holland & Knight Secures Favorable Settlement for USA Properties Fund in Affordable Housing Litigation
MIAMI, Florida, June 10 -- Holland and Knight, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Holland & Knight Secures Favorable Settlement for USA Properties Fund in Affordable Housing Litigation
SAN FRANCISCO - Holland & Knight successfully defended USA Properties Fund Inc., the developer of the Hope Way Apartments, an approved affordable housing community in Placer County, California, against litigation brought by Placer Citizens for Neighborhood Rights Inc. (PCNR) to stop the project.
The settlement agreement that ends the litigation was announced on May 15, and it follows Holland
... Show Full Article
MIAMI, Florida, June 10 -- Holland and Knight, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Holland & Knight Secures Favorable Settlement for USA Properties Fund in Affordable Housing Litigation
SAN FRANCISCO - Holland & Knight successfully defended USA Properties Fund Inc., the developer of the Hope Way Apartments, an approved affordable housing community in Placer County, California, against litigation brought by Placer Citizens for Neighborhood Rights Inc. (PCNR) to stop the project.
The settlement agreement that ends the litigation was announced on May 15, and it follows Holland& Knight's successful representation of USA Properties Fund to secure entitlements for the project from Placer County.
The settlement allows USA Properties Fund to proceed with the immediate construction of 132 critically needed affordable apartment units, consistent with Placer County's housing element commitments. Under the terms of the agreement, additional development on the property will be deferred for four years while both parties engage in good-faith discussions about possible alternatives for the site.
The agreement establishes a structured process for additional construction beyond the initial phase. USA Properties Fund may elect to construct an additional 23 homes. Alternatively, USA Properties Fund may elect to complete a traffic count after the first 132 homes are leased to verify that traffic is within the scope of prior studies, at which time USA Properties Fund may develop the remainder of the approved project, adding 108 additional homes.
In exchange, PCNR agreed to dismiss its lawsuit and support USA Properties Fund's funding request to Placer County for the first 132 homes.
Holland & Knight Partners Daniel Golub and Will Sterling led the Firm's representation of USA Properties, which included securing project entitlements, appealing the determinations of the Placer County Planning Department, defending the ensuing litigation in collaboration with the county and negotiating the settlement agreement.
The Firm deployed a successful strategy utilizing key provisions of California Housing Element Law, Housing Accountability Act and State Density Bonus Law to secure entitlements for the project. In defending the litigation, Holland & Knight executed a litigation strategy relying on recently enacted litigation streamlining laws to bring the matter to a swift and favorable resolution.
Headquartered in Roseville, California, USA Properties Fund provides a full range of services for community development, including financing, development, construction services, rehabilitation services and property management. The company completed the most affordable apartment units by a California-based developer in 2025, according to Affordable Housing Finance.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hklaw.com/en/news/pressreleases/2026/06/holland-knight-secures-favorable-settlement-for-usa-properties-fund-in
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: New York's "Ghost Job" Bill Could Reshape Job Posting Practices - What Employers Should Know
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 10 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on June 9, 2026:
* * *
New York's "Ghost Job" Bill Could Reshape Job Posting Practices: What Employers Should Know
New York lawmakers just passed a bill last week that would require certain employers and job posting platforms to disclose whether a job ad is tied to a current opening -- and, if so, when the employer expects to fill it, or whether the posting is being used to build a future candidate pipeline. The bill targets so-called "ghost jobs," or postings that appear to advertise open roles but may instead
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 10 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on June 9, 2026:
* * *
New York's "Ghost Job" Bill Could Reshape Job Posting Practices: What Employers Should Know
New York lawmakers just passed a bill last week that would require certain employers and job posting platforms to disclose whether a job ad is tied to a current opening -- and, if so, when the employer expects to fill it, or whether the posting is being used to build a future candidate pipeline. The bill targets so-called "ghost jobs," or postings that appear to advertise open roles but may insteadbe used to collect resumes for future hiring needs. The bill would apply to employers with 100 or more employees and certain third-party job posting platforms. If Governor Hochul signs the bill that passed the legislature on June 2 in its current form, it would take effect immediately, giving covered employers little lead time to adjust their posting practices. Here's what you need to know as you prepare for this potential change.
Why This Matters
For years, job posting compliance has largely focused on pay transparency. The bill would move the conversation into hiring transparency.
The bill matters because many employers use job postings for more than immediate hiring. Some roles are active and budgeted. Others are evergreen postings used to build a pipeline. Still others may be paused because business needs, headcount approvals, or budgets have changed.
The bill does not ban pipeline recruiting. Instead, it would require more direct disclosures so applicants know whether an employer is hiring now, hiring later, or collecting resumes for future roles.
What Would the Bill Require?
The bill would apply to employers with 100 or more employees, as well as third-party job posting entities. A third-party job posting entity is defined as a person or entity that is not the employer and that posts multiple job vacancies or listings on behalf of, or independently of, employers for job seekers to search and apply to job postings on one platform.
Covered job advertisements would need to include one of three disclosures, depending on the employer's hiring intent:
* Current vacancy to be filled within 90 days. The ad would need to state, in bold capital letters, that the posting is for a current vacancy and that the employer intends to fill the position by a stated date: THIS POSTING IS FOR A CURRENT VACANCY AND THE EMPLOYER INTENDS TO FILL THIS POSITION BY (DATE).
* Current vacancy to be filled more than 90 days later. The ad would need to state, in bold capital letters, that the posting is for a current vacancy and that the employer intends to fill the position no sooner than a stated date: THIS POSTING IS FOR A CURRENT VACANCY AND THE EMPLOYER INTENDS TO FILL THIS POSITION NO SOONER THAN (DATE).
* No current vacancy. If the employer does not expect to fill the job, the ad would need to state, in bold capital letters, that the posting is not for a current vacancy and that the employer is seeking resumes for future openings: THIS POSTING IS NOT FOR A CURRENT VACANCY BUT THE EMPLOYER IS SEEKING RESUMES TO REVIEW IN THE FUTURE WHEN JOBS BECOME AVAILABLE.
The bill would also require employers and third-party job posting entities to remove job advertisements within two weeks after the position is filled or otherwise expires. Importantly, if an employer is aware or reasonably should be aware that a third-party job posting entity independently posted the position, the employer would have to notify that entity that the position has been filled.
Don't Overlook Recruiters, Vendors, and Job Boards
Compliance would not rest only with the company's internal HR or talent acquisition team. If the bill becomes law, employers may need to coordinate with job boards, staffing firms, recruiters, recruitment process outsourcing providers, and other vendors to make sure postings include the required language and are removed when a role is filled.
The bill's notice requirement also creates a practical monitoring issue. Employers may need a process to monitor postings that appear outside their own systems, including postings created or reposted by third-party platforms. If the employer knows or reasonably should know that a third-party posting entity independently posted the role, the employer would need to notify that entity once the position is filled.
What Are the Potential Penalties?
There is no private right of action in the bill. Instead, the bill would authorize the New York State Department of Labor to conduct audits of employer and third-party job posting entity practices and allow aggrieved individuals to report alleged violations. As a result, enforcement may not depend solely on employee complaints. Employers could face scrutiny through Department of Labor audits in addition to individual reports of alleged noncompliance.
The penalty structure could become expensive quickly.
* A violation would result in a $2,500 fine for each print publication or digital platform where the advertisement appears.
* The employer or third-party job posting entity would then have 30 days to rectify the violation.
* If the violation is not corrected within that 30-day period, the employer or third-party job posting entity would owe $5,000 for each print publication or digital platform where the advertisement appears.
* For each successive 30-day period of non-compliance, the fine would double.
* Because the fines are assessed on a per-platform basis, a single noncompliant posting that appears across multiple job boards could result in multiple penalties.
A Key Open Question: What If Hiring Plans Change?
The bill does not identify a safe harbor or good-faith defense for employers whose hiring timelines change after a posting goes live. The bill also does not specify how precise an employer's projected hiring timeline must be or whether employers will have an opportunity to update those projections without triggering liability. That is a practical concern because hiring plans often shift for legitimate reasons, including budget changes, headcount freezes, business needs, or candidate availability.
This gap reinforces the need for a flexible review process. If the bill becomes law, employers may need to update postings quickly when a role changes from active to paused, when the expected fill date moves, or when a position is filled.
The bill also authorizes the Commissioner of Labor to adopt implementing regulations, which may eventually provide guidance on formatting, cure procedures, and penalty assessments. But employers should not expect that guidance before the bill takes effect if Governor Hochul signs it into law.
5 Steps Employers Can Consider Taking Now
The bill is not yet law but covered employers that recruit in New York should start preparing now because it would take effect immediately if signed by the Governor.
1. Map where job ads appear. Identify every place your jobs are posted, including your career site, LinkedIn, Indeed, industry boards, staffing agencies, recruiter-managed platforms, and any automated job distribution tools.
2. Separate active roles from pipeline postings. HR and talent acquisition teams should know which postings are tied to approved openings and which are used to collect resumes for future needs.
3. Develop a process for setting and updating expected fill dates. If the bill becomes law, employers may need a reliable way to determine whether a role is expected to be filled within 90 days, more than 90 days out, or not tied to a current vacancy.
4. Create a takedown, monitoring, and notice protocol. The bill would require removal within two weeks after a position is filled. Employers should consider who owns that process, how they will confirm that third-party platforms have removed or updated ads, and how they will notify any third-party posting entity that they know or reasonably should know independently posted the position.
5. Review third-party posting relationships. Employers should confirm who can edit postings, who receives notice when a role is filled, how quickly vendors can remove or correct noncompliant ads, and whether vendor agreements should address compliance with New York job posting requirements.
Conclusion
We will continue to track developments on job posting disclosure requirements, so make sure that you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information direct to your inbox. If you have compliance questions, consult with your Fisher Phillips attorney, the author of this Insight, or any attorney in our New York City office to assess and minimize potential risks.
* * *
Related People
Amanda M. Blair
Associate
212.899.9989
ablair@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Melissa Camire
Partner
212.899.9965
mcamire@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/new-yorks-ghost-job-bill-could-reshape-job-posting-practices
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump's $100K H-1B Fee, But Employers Should Proceed With Caution
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 10 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on June 9, 2026:
* * *
Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump's $100K H-1B Fee, But Employers Should Proceed With Caution
Employers that rely on the H-1B visa program got significant relief on Monday when a Massachusetts federal judge vacated the Trump administration's $100,000 H-1B application fee, ruling that the president lacked the authority to impose it. But with an appeal almost certainly on the way and a conflicting ruling already on the books from another court, employers would be wise to treat this decision
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 10 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on June 9, 2026:
* * *
Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump's $100K H-1B Fee, But Employers Should Proceed With Caution
Employers that rely on the H-1B visa program got significant relief on Monday when a Massachusetts federal judge vacated the Trump administration's $100,000 H-1B application fee, ruling that the president lacked the authority to impose it. But with an appeal almost certainly on the way and a conflicting ruling already on the books from another court, employers would be wise to treat this decisioncautiously, not as the final step in the process. What should employers know about this significant development?
What Happened?
US District Judge Leo Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts sided with a coalition of 20 states that sued to block the September 2025 proclamation that added a $100K supplemental payment requirement on top of all existing fees for new H-1B petitions (which before the proclamation ranged from roughly $960 to $7,595). The states argued the fee would devastate their ability to hire teachers, university faculty, researchers, and healthcare workers.
Judge Sorokin agreed, finding that the proclamation exceeded the president's delegated authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act and, critically, that the $100,000 payment is a tax that only Congress has the power to impose.
Why the Court Called It a Tax
The central question in the case was whether the payment requirement constituted a tax, a penalty, or something else. The administration argued that it was a lawful "restriction on entry" authorized under INA Sections 212(f) and 215(a), which give the president broad authority to suspend or restrict the entry of noncitizens when their entry would be detrimental to the national interest. Judge Sorokin disagreed.
Drawing on the Supreme Court's landmark 2012 Affordable Care Act decision, the court concluded that the $100,000 payment is neither a penalty (which requires punishment for unlawful conduct, and hiring H-1B workers is plainly lawful) nor a legitimate regulatory fee (which must be tied to the cost of administering a service, and the government conceded this payment was not). By process of elimination, the court found it is a tax.
The judge said that the proclamation overstepped legal bounds because Congress has the exclusive constitutional power to tax, and nothing in the INA clearly delegates that taxing power to the president.
Judge Also Finds Administrative Procedures Act Violation
Beyond the taxing power issue, the court found that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA's) notice-and-comment requirements by rolling out the policy almost overnight without giving affected employers or the public any opportunity to weigh in. Judge Sorokin found the agencies failed to adequately explain their reasoning, consider alternatives, or assess the policy's consequences, and lacked a valid emergency or foreign-affairs justification for bypassing the process.
Similarly, the court held that the policy was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to consider the impact on sectors like healthcare and education that had long relied on H-1B workers.
The Conflict in the Courts
But this is not the only federal court to have weighed in on the $100,000 fee.
* Late last year, a federal judge in Washington, DC reached the opposite conclusion in a challenge brought by the US Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities, ruling that the administration was within its authority to impose the fee. That case is currently on appeal before the DC Circuit, which heard arguments in March and could rule at any time.
* A separate challenge brought by a nurse recruiting firm and a labor coalition is also pending.
* The result is a split in decisions, which substantially increases the chance that this issue ultimately lands before the Supreme Court.
What This Means for Employers Right Now
Judge Sorokin's ruling vacates the policy in its entirety, but the administration has every incentive to appeal and to seek to halt the ruling. That means an appeals court could even reinstate the fee requirement while litigation continues. Because the legal landscape could look very different as soon as this week or six months from now, employers should act cautiously as a result of Monday's ruling.
* If you have been sitting on H-1B petitions because of the fee, you should consult with your FP immigration counsel immediately about how to proceed.
* The same holds true if you paid the $100K fee on one or more petitions, as there may be recoupment or refund options available.
* Document your workforce planning decisions made in reliance on the fee. If the fee is reinstated on appeal, that record could matter for demonstrating reliance interests in future legal or regulatory proceedings.
* Cap-exempt employers (universities, nonprofit research organizations, and government research organizations) should be aware that the vacatur applies broadly. While your industries may have been disproportionately harmed by the fee, you remain subject to all pre-proclamation H-1B requirements.
Conclusion
Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor developments in this litigation and provide updates as the appeals process unfolds, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to receive the most up-to-date information directly to your inbox. Contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney on our Immigration Practice Team to discuss what this ruling means for your pending or planned H-1B petitions.
* * *
Related People
Shanon R. Stevenson
Partner
404.240.5842
sstevenson@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/federal-judge-strikes-down-trumps-h-1b-fee
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Congress Proposes First Comprehensive Federal AI Framework - Here's What It Means for Employers
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 10 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on June 9, 2026:
* * *
Congress Proposes First Comprehensive Federal AI Framework: Here's What It Means for Employers
Congress has taken its most significant step yet toward establishing a national framework for artificial intelligence, with a bipartisan pair of House lawmakers releasing a sweeping 269-page discussion draft that touches everything from frontier model safety to workforce protections. While much of the debate surrounding the Great American Artificial Intelligence Act of 2026 has focused on its
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 10 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on June 9, 2026:
* * *
Congress Proposes First Comprehensive Federal AI Framework: Here's What It Means for Employers
Congress has taken its most significant step yet toward establishing a national framework for artificial intelligence, with a bipartisan pair of House lawmakers releasing a sweeping 269-page discussion draft that touches everything from frontier model safety to workforce protections. While much of the debate surrounding the Great American Artificial Intelligence Act of 2026 has focused on itsproposed preemption of state AI laws, employers should focus their attention elsewhere, because this bill would directly affect how you manage layoffs, how you treat workers who raise AI concerns, and how closely the federal government monitors AI's impact on the labor market. What do you need to know about the June 4 proposal and what should you do to prepare?
Background on the Bill
Introduced June 4 by Representatives Jay Obernolte (R-CA) and Lori Trahan (D-MA), the Great American AI Act is a discussion draft, meaning it's in its early stages and subject to revision before formal introduction. The bill has drawn bipartisan support from four additional co-sponsors and has attracted early backing from House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA).
However, it also faces significant opposition from labor advocates, civil society groups, and even a formal House Democratic commission on AI that came out against it within hours of its release.
FP Government Relations Team Prediction
Our Government Relations team predicts that this bill appears unlikely to advance before the current Congress's August recess. However, the bill does jumpstart the AI regulation conversation in a significant way, and we will be monitoring whether the bill gains traction during the 2027 Congress.
The Preemption Picture Matters Less to Employers Than You Might Think
One of the bill's most contested features is its three-year preemption of state laws that regulate AI development - meaning the process of building and training frontier AI models. Critics argue this freezes state-level accountability at a critical moment; supporters argue a patchwork of 50 different development standards is unworkable.
For employers, though, this preemption has a critical limitation: it only applies to how AI systems are built, not how they are used or deployed. State laws governing how employers deploy AI in the workplace (including Colorado's algorithmic discrimination law, California's ADMT regulations and the slate of potential additional laws that may pass later this year, the Illinois Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act, Connecticut's new AI law, and New York City's automated employment decision tool audit requirements, among others) would remain fully intact.
Moreover, there is a growing trend of states amending existing privacy laws to impose requirements on employers that use AI for employment decisions. The most recent example is in Delaware (which you can read about here). These types of laws would also not be affected by the Great American Artificial Intelligence Act's preemption scheme.
New WARN Act Disclosure Requirements
The most concrete new employer obligation in the bill is a proposed amendment to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. Under current law, employers with 100 or more employees must provide 60 days' advance notice before covered mass layoffs. The bill would add a new disclosure requirement on top of that: when AI was a "substantial factor" in a qualifying mass layoff, the WARN notice must now say so explicitly.
Specifically, an AI-related WARN notice would need to identify that AI was a "substantial factor" in the layoff, describe the type and usage of the AI involved, provide a good-faith estimate of the percentage of job losses attributable to AI, and explain what steps (if any) the employer took to upskill or retrain affected workers before proceeding with the layoffs.
The bill includes a good-faith compliance standard, so employers who make reasonable estimates in their notices are protected from technical challenges on the percentages. The Secretary of Labor would have 300 days after enactment to issue guidance on how employers should make the "substantial factor" determination.
Broad Whistleblower Protections for AI-Related Disclosures
The bill would also establish robust federal whistleblower protections for employees and independent contractors who report what the bill calls "AI violations." Those would be defined broadly as any violation of federal law or regulations related to the development, deployment, or operation of artificial intelligence. That definition covers a wide range of conduct, and notably it extends to workers at any employer, not just the large frontier AI developers that are the primary targets of the bill's governance provisions.
Covered workers would be protected against discharge, demotion, suspension, threats, blacklisting, harassment, or any other form of discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment for making lawful disclosures to a regulatory official, the Attorney General, a law enforcement agency, or Congress.
* The remedies available to a worker who prevails on a retaliation claim are substantial: reinstatement with the same seniority the worker would have held but for the violation, two times the amount of back pay owed with interest, compensatory damages including litigation costs and attorneys' fees, and any other appropriate relief.
* The bill also includes an anti-waiver provision stating that these rights cannot be waived or limited by contract, policy, or even an arbitration agreement.
Federal Data Collection on AI's Workforce Impact
Beyond the direct obligations, the bill would create an AI Workforce Research Hub inside the Department of Labor, charged with evaluating AI's impact on the workforce, conducting scenario planning, and generating actionable insights for policymakers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau would update federal surveys to capture data on AI use and adoption.
While these provisions do not impose immediate obligations on individual employers, the data they generate will likely inform future enforcement priorities, regulatory guidance, and litigation trends. Employers who are already tracking their AI use internally will be better positioned as that federal data infrastructure matures.
What Employers Should Do Now
Employers should use this time to:
1. audit your AI deployment practices,
2. evaluate whether any current or anticipated reductions in force have an AI dimension that could potentially trigger the proposed WARN disclosures, and
3. review whether your existing whistleblower and anti-retaliation policies are broad enough to cover AI-related concerns.
You should also stay closely attuned to state AI developments, because regardless of what happens with this bill, the state compliance landscape for employer AI use is not standing still.
Conclusion
If you have any questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, any attorney in our AI, Data, and Analytics Practice Group or on our Government Relations team. Make sure you are subscribed to the Fisher Phillips Insight System to receive the latest developments straight to your inbox.
* * *
Related People
Benjamin M. Ebbink
Partner
916.210.0400
bebbink@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Usama Kahf, CIPP/US
Partner
949.798.2118
ukahf@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/congress-proposes-first-comprehensive-federal-ai-framework
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
