Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Squire Patton Boggs Recognized in Legal 500 EMEA 2026
TYSONS, Virginia, March 28 -- Squire Patton Boggs, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Squire Patton Boggs Recognized in Legal 500 EMEA 2026
In the newly published 2025 edition of Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa, Squire Patton Boggs has been recommended for its expertise across practices and locations.
For dispute resolution and arbitration, Squire Patton Boggs "houses a large team, with strong activity in disputes linked to Latin America, Central Asia, and North Africa, as well as Central Europe." The team "can combine forces with colleagues from the firm's other international
... Show Full Article
TYSONS, Virginia, March 28 -- Squire Patton Boggs, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Squire Patton Boggs Recognized in Legal 500 EMEA 2026
In the newly published 2025 edition of Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa, Squire Patton Boggs has been recommended for its expertise across practices and locations.
For dispute resolution and arbitration, Squire Patton Boggs "houses a large team, with strong activity in disputes linked to Latin America, Central Asia, and North Africa, as well as Central Europe." The team "can combine forces with colleagues from the firm's other internationaloffices (particularly in the US and Dubai), manages a strong investment arbitration caseload, mainly representing states ... in large and sensitive disputes, including several billion-dollar cases. The team also handles commercial arbitration, while its diverse range of work spans various industry sectors, including construction, energy and infrastructure." In litigation work, the firm is also active across numerous industries such as the energy, insurance, corporate, real estate, and financial services sectors, as well as the pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices, digital health and research sectors. Clients have commented, "The team is truly extraordinary, and the support they provide always adds value."
For transactional work, Squire Patton Boggs offers "outstanding client service" and acts across sectors, "well equipped to handle domestic and cross-border M&A, buyouts, and disposals, as well as investments, divestments, and commercial agreements." The private equity practice frequently receives instructions from sponsors, investment funds, management teams and shareholders related to mid-market leveraged buyouts and related cross-border transactions, with clients describing "a technical and practical team, agile and collaborative, offering clear solutions for complex operations. They stand out for their close customer relationships and modern approach."
The firm also "covers a myriad banking and finance issues spanning acquisition, project, and real estate finance for a broad portfolio of international financial institutions and multinational corporations."
In Brussels, Squire Patton Boggs has "expanded its capabilities in chemical and environmental policy" and has "notable expertise in chemical and environmental regulations, and the practice provides advocacy, regulatory compliance, and litigation services, representing clients before EU courts and regulatory bodies."
Recommended Practices:
Belgium
* Commercial, Corporate and M&A
* Competition - EU and Global
* EU Regulatory - Chemicals
Czech Republic
* Banking, Finance and Capital Markets
* Commercial, Corporate and M&A
* Dispute Resolution
* Employment
* Real Estate and Construction
France
* Dispute Resolution - International Arbitration
* Dispute Resolution - White-Collar Crime - Firm to Watch
* EU, Competition and Distribution - Firm to Watch
* Employment
* Industry Focus - Healthcare and Life Sciences
* Insurance
* Intellectual Property: Patents
* Private Equity - LBO
Germany
* Corporate
* Real Estate
Ireland
* Commercial, Corporate and M&A
Italy
* Commercial, Corporate and M&A
* Industry Focus - Energy
* Tax
Poland
* Banking and Finance
* Dispute Resolution
* Employment
* Energy and Natural Resources
* TMT
Slovakia
* Commercial, Corporate and M&A
* Dispute Resolution
* Employment
* Real Estate and Construction
Spain
* Banking and Finance
* Commercial, Corporate and M&A
* Data Privacy and Data Protection
* Dispute Resolution
* Employment
* Private Equity
* Projects and Energy
* Real Estate and Construction
* Tax
Saudi Arabia
* Commercial, Corporate and M&A
United Arab Emirates
* Commercial, Corporate and M&A
* Construction (including Disputes)
* Dispute Resolution - Arbitration and International Litigation
* Dispute Resolution - Compliance and Investigations
* Employment
Individual recognitions:
Commercial, Corporate and M&A
* Marek Hrubes (Czech Republic)
* Omar Momany (United Arab Emirates)
* Matt Powell (United Arab Emirates)
Data Privacy and Data Protection
* Bartolome Martin (Spain)
Dispute Resolution
* Eva Dragunova (Slovakia)
* Rostislav Pekar (Czech Republic)
* Vladimir Polach (Czech Republic)
* Maria Polakova (Czech Republic)
* Tatiana Prokopova (Slovakia)
* Matej Pustay (Czech Republic)
Dispute Resolution - Compliance and Investigations
* Richard Gibbon (United Arab Emirates)
Dispute Resolution: International Arbitration
* Jose Ricardo Feris (France)
Employment
* Malgorzata Grzelak (Poland)
* Sabina Krajickova (Czech Republic)
* Sarah Lawrence (United Arab Emirates)
* Habib Saeed (United Arab Emirates)
EU Regulatory - Chemicals
* Thomas Delille (Belgium)
* Peter Sellar (Belgium)
Industry Focus - Energy
* Paolo Zamberletti (Italy)
Insurance
* Valerie Ravit (France)
* Carole Sportes (France)
Real Estate and Construction
* Lenka Landro (nee Vagundova) (Slovakia)
* Lenka Nova (Czech Republic)
* Tatiana Prokopova (Slovakia)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.squirepattonboggs.com/news/squire-patton-boggs-recognized-in-legal-500-emea-2026/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Ogilvy Futures Report: Human Premium
NEW YORK, March 28 (TNSrep) -- Ogilvy, an advertising, marketing and public relations agency, issued the following news:
* * *
Ogilvy Futures Report: The Human Premium
In its ninth annual report into key communications trends and marketing challenges, Ogilvy PR Australia reveals that communicators in 2026 are navigating two dominant, yet counterintuitive forces.
The latest Ogilvy Futures report explores 14 key trends and their impact on brands, marketing and consumer behavior, and underpinning it all: the impact of AI content and agents, and the juxtaposing need for human connection.
While
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, March 28 (TNSrep) -- Ogilvy, an advertising, marketing and public relations agency, issued the following news:
* * *
Ogilvy Futures Report: The Human Premium
In its ninth annual report into key communications trends and marketing challenges, Ogilvy PR Australia reveals that communicators in 2026 are navigating two dominant, yet counterintuitive forces.
The latest Ogilvy Futures report explores 14 key trends and their impact on brands, marketing and consumer behavior, and underpinning it all: the impact of AI content and agents, and the juxtaposing need for human connection.
Whilerunning towards platforms and new technologies, consumers are increasingly assuming everything they see is synthetic. When everything can be faked, reality becomes a luxury.
As a result, audiences are trading algorithmic feeds for serialized stories, corporate sounding messaging for creator-led commerce, and polished campaigns for participatory culture. They're demanding substance - and the brands that fail to provide it will be left behind.
Each of the trends in the report include advice for brands looking to navigate the rapidly changing consumer behaviors.
Click here to download Ogilvy's 9th annual Futures report, "The Human Premium" (https://www.ogilvypr.com.au/futures9).
Interested in bigger, bolder ideas? Sign up for our newsletter for more insights on how brands can make an impact on the world.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ogilvy.com/ideas/ogilvy-futures-report-human-premium
[Category: BizAdvertising]
Littler: Policy Week in Review - March 27, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 28 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Policy Week in Review - March 27, 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 legislation, regulations, and congressional activity affecting the workplace.
By Shannon Meade, Jim Paretti, Alex MacDonald, and Maury Baskin
Senate Passes Partial DHS Funding Legislation; House Rejects It; DHS Shutdown Continues
After a shutdown lasting over a month (41 days) at the Department
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 28 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Policy Week in Review - March 27, 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 legislation, regulations, and congressional activity affecting the workplace.
By Shannon Meade, Jim Paretti, Alex MacDonald, and Maury Baskin
Senate Passes Partial DHS Funding Legislation; House Rejects It; DHS Shutdown Continues
After a shutdown lasting over a month (41 days) at the Departmentof Homeland Security (DHS) and ensuing failed negotiations in the Senate to reach consensus on legislation to fund the Department over demands for reforms to immigration enforcement, the Senate finally voted early this morning to pass a bill to partially fund the DHS. The deal funds most of DHS except for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol. The legislation shifted over to the House for consideration where it was rejected this afternoon by House conservatives who want full-year ICE and CBP funding, plus voter-ID requirements added to the bill. Moments later, amid mounting TSA pressures and long wait lines at airport security check points, President Trump signed an executive order ensuring TSA workers are paid during the continuing DHS shutdown.
* * *
White House Issues Executive Order Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors
On March 26, President Trump issued an executive order (EO), Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors. As outlined in the accompanying Fact Sheet, the EO requires that all federal contracts that are subject to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act include a clause prohibiting contractors and their subcontractors from engaging in racially discriminatory DEI activities; directs the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance to contracting agencies to ensure compliance and identify economic sectors that pose a particular risk of engaging in racially discriminatory DEI activities; authorizes contracting agencies to cancel, terminate, or suspend contracts -- and to suspend or debar contractors -- for failure to comply; directs the attorney general to prioritize potential claims under the False Claims Act against contractors or subcontractors that are in violation of the contractual terms prohibiting racially discriminatory DEI activities, and ensure the prompt review of related civil actions brought by private persons; and directs the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to amend Federal Acquisition Regulations to include this clause and remove any conflicting provisions. Read Littler's ASAP here.
* * *
DOL Issues Proposed Rule to Increase Wages Paid to Foreign Workers in Certain Visa Programs
The Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration issued a proposed rule on March 26 that would update the methodology used for determining prevailing wage levels in the permanent labor certification, H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 visa programs to align with wages paid similarly employed American workers. According to the DOL, the proposed rule is "designed to protect the wages and job opportunities of American workers by stripping away the ability of employers to pay substandard wages to foreign workers in certain visa categories." Public comments are due 60 days from publication in the Federal Register. Read Littler's ASAP here.
* * *
NLRB Asks Court to Rule That Its Members and ALJs Can be Fired at Will
In a motion filed in federal court, the National Labor Relations Board asked a federal judge to rule that its five presidentially appointed members, as well as its administrative law judges (ALJs), can be fired by the president at will. The Board filed the motion in a case attacking statutory removal protections for those officials. The case was filed by a company facing unfair-labor-practice charges. Those charges would have been heard first by an ALJ and then potentially reviewed by the Board members. By statute, the members and the ALJs can be removed only for certain reasons, including misconduct or neglect of duty. The company argued that these limits on removal are unconstitutional because they interfere with the president's ability to manage the executive branch. Last year, the court ruled in the company's favor and blocked the charges from moving forward. Now, in this recent filing, the Board asked the court to sever the removal protections. It argued that once the removal protections are out of the way, the constitutional problem will be gone, and the charges can proceed.
* * *
White House Names James Murphy as NLRB Chair
The National Labor Relations Board also announced that James Murphy had been named Board chair. A longtime Board attorney, Murphy was appointed as a Board member last year. Murphy has spoken publicly of the need to reduce the Board's backlog of cases. The backlog grew significantly in 2025, most of which the Board spent without enough members to make up a quorum. The backlog is likely to remain Murphy's top priority.
* * *
House Democrats Request Appropriators Increase Funding to Address Growing USCIS Case Backlogs
U.S. Representatives Lou Correa (D-CA) and Dan Goldman (D-NY), along with other House Democrats, wrote a letter to the House Appropriations Committee requesting $700 million for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to help the agency address the growing backlog of cases awaiting adjudication. The letter attributes this backlog to DOGE-related federal workforce reductions that led to the termination of USCIS employees responsible for processing immigration and asylum applications.
* * *
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-march-27-2026
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: UK - Consultation Launched on Protection From Detriments for Taking Industrial Action
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 28 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 27, 2026, by knowledge lawyer Emily Bodger:
* * *
UK: Consultation Launched on Protection from Detriments for Taking Industrial Action
The Government has launched a consultation on types of prohibited detriments for employees taking industrial action.
*
The UK Employment Rights Act 2025 ("ERA 2025") introduces new protections for workers against detriments by their employer to penalise, prevent or deter them from taking official industrial action. On February 26, 2026, the UK Government launched
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 28 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 27, 2026, by knowledge lawyer Emily Bodger:
* * *
UK: Consultation Launched on Protection from Detriments for Taking Industrial Action
The Government has launched a consultation on types of prohibited detriments for employees taking industrial action.
*
The UK Employment Rights Act 2025 ("ERA 2025") introduces new protections for workers against detriments by their employer to penalise, prevent or deter them from taking official industrial action. On February 26, 2026, the UK Government launcheda consultation seeking input from stakeholders to inform regulations on what types of detriment should be prohibited.
Background
The ERA 2025 introduces new provisions to address gaps in existing legislation, highlighted by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom's 2024 judgment in Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer (see our previous articles here and here). The Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 ("TULRCA") currently protects workers from detriments related to trade union membership and taking part in trade union activities at an appropriate time. However, the Mercer case found that this did not extend protection to official industrial action, which the court declared as incompatible with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to free assembly and association).
The Government has sought to address this, and so the ERA 2025 amends TULRCA, granting workers the right not to be subjected to "detriments of a prescribed description" by their employer for the "sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from taking protected industrial action, or penalising the worker for doing so." The Government explains that this means that actions or inactions by an employer that may be classed as a detriment, but which are not for the "sole or main purpose" of penalising, preventing or deterring a worker from taking industrial action would not be prohibited. An example given in the consultation is where an employer sanctions an employee to discipline behaviour that happened to occur during industrial action, but which amounted to misconduct (such as failing to comply with confidentiality obligations). However, the burden would be on the employer to show what their main purpose was in imposing the alleged detriment.
According to the Government's recent timeline, this reform is due to come into force in October 2026.
Consultation Options
The Government has the power to define prohibited detriments through secondary legislation and is seeking views on two main options for how to define the types of "prescribed" detriments to be covered:
Option 1 (the Government's Lead Option): Prohibit All Detriments
This would protect workers against all detriments that they may be subject to for the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring them from taking industrial action. The Government explains that this option would be the fullest protection for workers and would align with detriment protections that exist elsewhere in TULRCA. The burden would be on the employer to show what their sole or main purpose was in imposing the detriment.
The Government believes this option would ensure clarity and consistency across public and private sectors, as well as guarding against the risk that some employers may seek to overuse unprohibited detriments. However, they recognise that it may limit employers' abilities to manage industrial action.
Option 2: Create a List of Prohibited Detriments
This alternative would be to create a list of prohibited detriments. The Government's Options Assessment considers three possibilities for constructing a list:
1. Specifying a list of detriments, for example disciplinary action or being rejected for a promotion
2. Outlining categories of detriments, for example opportunities for career progression
3. Setting out detriments based on the level of severity and impact on the individual worker
While this would permit employers greater flexibility to manage disputes, the Government is concerned that this option may produce unintended consequences and would create inconsistency with other definitions of detriments.
Regardless of which option is pursued, the Government has made clear in the consultation that it does not intend deductions from pay following industrial action (including deductions for partial performance) to be treated as detriments, as is currently the case.
Acas Uplift
The consultation also proposes adding detriment claims for taking industrial action into the list of claims to which the Acas uplift applies. This would mean that if a claim was brought by an individual claiming that they had experienced a detriment for taking industrial action, if the employer had unreasonably failed to follow the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures where it applied, the amount the employer would have to pay in awards for a successful claim could be increased by up to 25%. If the employee had unreasonably failed to follow the Code, the award could be reduced by up to 25%.
Next Steps
We wait to see if the Government decides to limit the types of detriments or will prohibit them to the fullest extent. Regardless, these changes could have material impacts on employers' industrial relations strategies and dispute management during industrial action. Therefore, now would be a good time to consider whether any improvements can be made to existing employee relations, ahead of this and other reforms to trade union duties and rights taking effect in October 2026.
The consultation acknowledges that employers should still be able to address misconduct that occurs during industrial action, provided that any actions are not taken for the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring a worker from taking industrial action. However, care will need to be taken if detriments are defined widely to mitigate the risk of claims where decisions or processes coincide with or relate to periods of industrial action.
For further information on the latest developments, see our Reform Hub.
The consultation is open until April 23, 2026, and responses can be submitted online here (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/make-work-pay-protection-from-detriments-for-taking-industrial-action?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications-topic&utm_source=c0422a1c-96d5-44d2-aaf7-aeae24fd0ce5&utm_content=immediately).
* * *
Authors
Emily Bodger
Knowledge Lawyer
London
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/uk-consultation-launched-protection-detriments-taking-industrial-action
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Federal Administration Makes Legislative Recommendations for U.S. AI Policy, Leaving Questions Unanswered
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 28 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 27, 2026, by shareholder Niloy Ray, senior counsel Britney N.D. Torres, associate Min Song and counsels Rachel Simone Frey and Michael Whitbread:
* * *
The Federal Administration Makes Legislative Recommendations for U.S. AI Policy, Leaving Questions Unanswered
The Trump administration has proposed "A National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence" ("the Proposal"). The Proposal, a non-binding set of legislative recommendations, encourages Congress to adopt legislation that emphasizes
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 28 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 27, 2026, by shareholder Niloy Ray, senior counsel Britney N.D. Torres, associate Min Song and counsels Rachel Simone Frey and Michael Whitbread:
* * *
The Federal Administration Makes Legislative Recommendations for U.S. AI Policy, Leaving Questions Unanswered
The Trump administration has proposed "A National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence" ("the Proposal"). The Proposal, a non-binding set of legislative recommendations, encourages Congress to adopt legislation that emphasizesreliance on existing legal frameworks together with targeted interventions to protect existing rights while removing barriers to innovation.
As the accompanying press release lays out, the Proposal addresses the Trump White House's six "most pressing" AI policy considerations:
1. Protecting children by empowering parents to control their children's digital environment;
2. Safeguarding and strengthening American communities and small businesses;
3. Respecting intellectual property rights by protecting American creators and publishers from AI outputs that infringe on their protected content while also supporting fair use;
4. Preventing censorship and defending free speech and First Amendment protections by preventing AI systems from silencing or altering lawful political expression or dissent;
5. Removing barriers to AI innovation and accelerating AI development and deployment; and
6. Creating new jobs and expanding opportunities for American workers through AI training and education programs and workforce realignment studies.
The administration calls on Congress to adopt a federal policy preempting "cumbersome" state AI laws, stating that the Proposal can succeed only if there isn't a state-level patchwork of regulations.
Is the Proposal consistent with prior AI-related efforts by the Trump administration?
The Proposal results from Section 8 of Executive Order 14365 issued in December 2025, in which the Trump administration directed the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto (David Sacks) and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (Michael Kratsios) to draft a legislative framework preempting "State AI laws that conflict with" the administration's goal of "minimally burdensome" AI regulation. The EO was issued on the heels of a 99-1 Senate vote, in July 2025, to strike the 10-year "moratorium" on state-level AI regulations contained in the 2025 budget reconciliation bill (aka, the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act").
When will there be federal AI laws aligned with the Proposal?
Although congressional action consistent with the Proposal is theoretically possible and attempts are expected, the 99-1 Senate vote indicates the overwhelming bipartisan disagreement with a state-preempting approach to AI regulation. The current political climate, the otherwise partisan divide in Congress, and upcoming midterm elections make it still more unlikely Congress will soon adopt AI laws consistent with the Proposal.
What does the Proposal imply about the Trump administration's anti-discrimination policy?
The conspicuous absence of anti-discrimination protections in the Proposal is consistent with the Trump administration's perspective on the validity of state-level efforts to combat bias in AI-based decisionmaking, and the implication that AI-based activity should not face scrutiny for bias.
EO 14365 declared that state AI laws "requir[e] entities to embed ideological bias within [AI] models." The EO stated that banning algorithmic discrimination "may even force AI models to produce false results" simply to avoid disparate impact on protected groups, and therefore tasked a group of Cabinet members to "identify laws that require AI models to alter their truthful outputs."
The Proposal takes this perspective one step further by detailing the steps needed to protect the six "American rights" enumerated above, and shielding other states' rights--certain traditional police powers, zoning laws, heightened protections for minors and consumers and against fraud, and regulation of AI use in education, policing and other public-sector activity--from preemption. AI anti-discrimination laws, however, get neither a preemption pass nor a federal replacement. In contrast to the Tenth Amendment-based doctrine of concurrent authority, the Proposal calls for preemption of any "undue burdens" beyond the minimal regulations envisioned by the Proposal.
Significantly for employers, the Proposal simultaneously pushes back against state-level proposals of liability allocation between developers and deployers, requiring that states be prevented from "penaliz[ing] AI developers for a third party's unlawful conduct involving their models." In the discrimination context (and beyond), this could place a greater burden on employers using AI as part of their sourcing, hiring, and downstream employment operations, including the burden of explaining or justifying more-inscrutable AI outputs.
How should U.S. compliance strategies change based on the Proposal?
It is too early to determine how U.S. compliance strategies should be adapted based on the recommendations in the Proposal. However, U.S. employers can continue to develop compliance strategies based on the existing patchwork of state and local AI laws, study and comment on proposed AI legislation and regulation, and interpret generally applicable legal doctrines for AI use in the near term.
How will enforcement efforts change based on the Proposal?
The Proposal does not indicate whether or how enforcement efforts will change. While there has not yet been considerable enforcement activity from state agency officials or prosecutors, if immediate enforcement efforts were to be undertaken, they would likely be based on existing legal theories, such as anti-discrimination and data privacy.
What can U.S. employers do now?
In the absence of federal AI laws, U.S. employers can:
* Craft compliance strategies based on general principles (such as transparency in AI use, reasonable efforts to assess AI tools for legal compliance, training of AI users, and regular monitoring of AI-based outcomes) as well as requirements specific to the use of AI based on jurisdiction (such as reporting of impact assessments);
* Consider strategies to minimize the burden of compliance with a patchwork of laws, including through sandbox environments, pilots, and geo-gating; and
* Monitor proposed laws to prepare for significant changes and identify opportunities to submit comments when warranted.
These strategies can help balance the urgency for adoption with the risks associated with an uncertain legal landscape.
* * *
Authors
Niloy Ray
Shareholder
Minneapolis
* * *
Michael Whitbread
Of Counsel
New York
* * *
Rachel Simone Frey
Of Counsel
Newark
* * *
Britney N.D. Torres
Senior Counsel
San Diego
* * *
Min Song
Associate
Philadelphia
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/federal-administration-makes-legislative-recommendations-us-ai-policy-leaving
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: DOL Proposed Rule Seeks Higher Prevailing Wages Levels for Foreign Workers
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 28 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 27, 2026, by senior counsel Tasneem Zaman:
* * *
DOL Proposed Rule Seeks Higher Prevailing Wages Levels for Foreign Workers
The U.S. Department of Labor is scheduled to issue a proposed rule that would increase and re-adjust the "prevailing wage" levels for key employment-based immigration sponsorship programs. The prevailing wage rate refers to the average salary paid to workers in similar positions within a designated occupation in the area of intended employment. Employers must adhere to this
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 28 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 27, 2026, by senior counsel Tasneem Zaman:
* * *
DOL Proposed Rule Seeks Higher Prevailing Wages Levels for Foreign Workers
The U.S. Department of Labor is scheduled to issue a proposed rule that would increase and re-adjust the "prevailing wage" levels for key employment-based immigration sponsorship programs. The prevailing wage rate refers to the average salary paid to workers in similar positions within a designated occupation in the area of intended employment. Employers must adhere to thisprevailing wage as a minimum requirement for specific employment-based visa programs, including the H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 programs.
The proposed rule seeks to recalibrate the wage levels to ensure that foreign workers are compensated at levels comparable to similarly employed U.S. workers and to reduce incentives for employers to substitute domestic labor with lower-paid foreign workers. The proposal applies consistently across both employment visa programs (such as H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3) and permanent immigration pathways such as PERM labor certification for EB-2 and EB-3 visas. The proposal maintains a unified four-tier wage structure to prevent employers from selecting visa categories based on lower-wage requirements.
The main element of the proposal reflects a notable increase in wage-level percentiles derived from the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) survey,/1 where entry-level wages would increase from approximately the 17th percentile to the 34th percentile, while the highest wage tier would rise from the 67th to the 88th percentile. The intermediate levels are adjusted accordingly based on statutory formulas. According to the DOL (as cited in the proposed rule), the current wage levels in the OEWS are too low, particularly for H-1B workers, whose average wages are significantly lower as compared to similarly situated U.S. workers. Aside from the wage levels, the rule also highlights other topics including wage suppression, the concentration of visa usage among outsourcing firms, etc.
The implementation of the rule would be prospective, affecting only new or pending wage determinations and labor condition applications that are pending with the Department of Labor's Office of Foreign Labor Certifications' National Processing Centers as of the rule's effective date and to new Labor Condition Applications and Prevailing wage Requests submitted on or after that date without retroactive adjustments to those previously approved. It is expected that it will increase labor cost for many U.S. employers.
The DOL will accept public comments on this proposal for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register, which is scheduled for March 27, 2025. The comment submission deadline will therefore likely be late May. It is anticipated the effective date will be addressed in the final rule.
Littler will keep track of the progress of this proposed rule and provide additional updates as they become available.
* * *
See Footnotes
1/ The OEWS survey is the data produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) OES Home : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics on employment and wage rates for over 800 occupations across the United States.
* * *
Authors
Tasneem Zaman
Senior Counsel
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/dol-proposed-rule-seeks-higher-prevailing-wages-levels-foreign-workers
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Jeremy Paner Discusses Continued US Restrictions on Cuba as Country Moves to Open Its Economy
NEW YORK, March 28 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Jeremy Paner Discusses Continued US Restrictions on Cuba as Country Moves to Open its Economy
New Cuban investment policy highlights limits of U.S. law and ongoing sanctions.
Highlights
* Cuba announces that nationals living abroad may invest in and own private businesses, however the U.S. trade embargo continues to restrict investment by Cuban Americans.
* Former OFAC official Paner says Cuba's move is aimed at signaling Washington, not attracting U.S. investors.
* Congressional action or a declared
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, March 28 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Jeremy Paner Discusses Continued US Restrictions on Cuba as Country Moves to Open its Economy
New Cuban investment policy highlights limits of U.S. law and ongoing sanctions.
Highlights
* Cuba announces that nationals living abroad may invest in and own private businesses, however the U.S. trade embargo continues to restrict investment by Cuban Americans.
* Former OFAC official Paner says Cuba's move is aimed at signaling Washington, not attracting U.S. investors.
* Congressional action or a declaredtransitional government would be required to ease sanctions.
*
Jeremy Paner discussed Cuba's move to open its economy to Cuban nationals living abroad - and the U.S. restrictions that remain in place - in an interview with South Florida NPR station WLRN.
The Cuban government announced this week that Cuban nationals living abroad will be permitted to invest in and own private businesses on the island, marking a significant policy shift. However, for much of the Cuban diaspora - particularly in Florida - the longstanding U.S. trade embargo creates substantial legal barriers to participation.
"U.S. law is nowhere near authorizing those investments. I mean, it's just not even - it's not a close call," Paner said.
Paner added that Cuba's announcement was in reality meant to signal to the U.S. government that it is willing to play ball and negotiate a solution to the countries' ongoing geopolitical standoff. But in order to get anywhere meaningful on the economic front, those negotiations could require U.S. actions as well.
"It's kabuki theater," said Paner. "They're signaling to the U.S. government. They're not signaling to potential investors in Miami because they know - I know that they know - that those investments are not allowed under U.S. law."
The U.S. restrictions on doing business in Cuba pertain to any currency transactions that involve the U.S. dollar, leaving room for investment by those using other currencies. This includes the Euro, which is being used by a growing population of expatriate Cubans in Spain.
"If Cubans living in Spain want to invest in Cuba, then there is no [Office of Foreign Assets Control] jurisdictional hook, then they could do that," said Paner. "OFAC can kind of play in the margins of the existing dollar prohibitions, but they cannot get rid of the prohibitions."
A potential way to get around the U.S. side of the economic sanctions would be for President Trump to declare that a "transitional" government is in place on the island to ease the restrictions.
"The word 'transition government' is an important thing. It's not that the government is suddenly pro-democracy or whatever. It's a new government," said Paner. "If the [Cuban] government puts in the grand nephew as the new leader, or someone that has a familiar relation to Castro, that's the same government. It's not a transitional government."
Another way around the restrictions would be for Congress to repeal the U.S. Embargo on Cuba to open business relations, as the sanctions on Cuba uniquely cannot be quickly changed at the discretion of the President.
"The executive branch is very limited as to what it can do," said Paner. "Cuba remains the strictest comprehensive sanctions program that the United States has ever had. You'd think, you know, North Korea, Iran. No. It's still Cuba."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hugheshubbard.com/news/jeremy-paner-discusses-continued-us-restrictions-on-cuba-as-country-moves-to-open-its-economy
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
