As of June 8, 2025, most employers with 11 or more employees must pay workers $72 per day (up from $40) for the first three days of jury service.  The change comes through amendments to Sections 519 and 521 of the New York Judiciary Law, enacted as part of the FY 2025–2026 State Budget signed into law on May 9, 2025.

Key Employer Obligations

• Who’s covered: Employers with 11 or more employees must continue to pay employees for the first three days of jury duty.
• New rate: The required payment has increased from $40 to $72 per day.
• How it works:
  • If an employee’s regular daily wage is equal to or greater than $72, the employer pays their normal wages.
  • If the employee’s daily wage is less than $72, the employer pays the regular wages, and the state covers the difference up to $72.

Beyond the First Three Days

After paying for the initial three days, employers may stop wage payments unless:

• A collective bargaining agreement,
• Company policy, or
• Other applicable law (e.g., FLSA or NY Labor Law) requires continued compensation.

Some employers, especially those with exempt employees, may still have to pay beyond the three-day minimum.

Anti-Retaliation Reminder

New York law strictly prohibits penalizing employees for serving on a jury.

• Employers cannot discharge or discipline employees for missing work due to jury service.
• Violations may result in criminal contempt charges, fines of up to $1,000, and/or 30 days in jail under Sections 750 and 751 of the Judiciary Law.

The Bottom Line

This change underscores the importance of keeping payroll policies aligned with state law updates.  HR and payroll leaders should:

• Confirm jury duty pay practices reflect the $72 daily minimum;
• Review multi-jurisdictional policies if operating outside NY; and
• Ensure all employee communications clearly outline rights and pay entitlements during jury service.

At Forework, we help employers stay compliant and efficient by integrating legal updates—like this one—directly into payroll processes and policy guidance.

New Jersey continues to tighten its pay transparency requirements. On September 15, 2025, the New Jersey Department of Labor (NJDOL) published proposed rules clarifying how employers must disclose salary ranges and notify employees of job opportunities under the New Jersey Pay Transparency Act, which took effect June 1, 2025.  Although these rules are not yet final, they offer a preview of what enforcement may look like—and signal the need for HR teams to start preparing now.

Key Highlights of the Proposed Rules

1. Employer Coverage

The proposed rules define a covered employer as any organization with:

• At least 10 employees over 20 calendar weeks (inside or outside New Jersey), and
• Operations that do business, employ persons, or accept job applications within New Jersey.

To fall under the law, both the job solicitation and physical work location must be in New Jersey.

2. Pay Range and Benefits Disclosure

When advertising for new roles, promotions, or transfer opportunities, employers must include:

• A minimum and maximum pay range; and
• A general description of benefits such as health, life, or disability insurance, paid time off, training, and pension plans.

If you advertise a pay range instead of a single rate, the spread cannot exceed 60% of the minimum salary or hourly rate—unless the range is set by a union contract or statute.

Forework Tip: Audit your job postings and templates to ensure you can quickly integrate transparent pay ranges and benefit summaries.

3. Internal Notification of Promotions

Employers must make “reasonable efforts” to notify employees of promotion opportunities by:

• Posting notices in visible, accessible locations in the relevant departments; and
• Posting on the company intranet or internal website if one exists and is accessible to all employees.

4. Third-Party Job Boards

Employers are only responsible for postings on third-party sites if they control or approve the advertisement content. This means if a vendor posts automatically without your oversight, you likely won’t be cited—though best practice is to verify listings regularly.

Enforcement, Complaints, and Penalties

Violations carry civil penalties similar to those under the state’s Wage and Hour Law.

Employers will receive:

• Written notice of any alleged violation;
• The proposed penalty amount; and
• 15 business days to request a hearing.

Cases may go through an informal conference first; unresolved matters proceed to a formal hearing before a commissioner, with appeal rights to the New Jersey Superior Court.

Next Steps for Employers

Even though these are only proposed rules, proactive preparation is key.

• Review pay structures and job postings for compliance readiness.
• Establish salary ranges for all positions if you haven’t already.
• Ensure third-party recruiters and posting platforms follow the same guidelines.
• Compare requirements across states if you operate in multiple jurisdictions.

Forework Tip: Early alignment avoids disruption to hiring and protects your business from future penalties once the rules become final.

At Forework, we help employers simplify compliance—from wage transparency to payroll logic—by combining legal insight with technology that ensures accuracy and peace of mind.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued guidance clarifying details of President Trump’s September 2025 Presidential Proclamation, which imposes a $100,000 filing fee on certain H-1B nonimmigrant visa petitions.  The new rule significantly impacts employers sponsoring foreign professionals, particularly those filing new petitions for workers outside the U.S.

Who Must Pay the Fee

The $100,000 fee applies to new H-1B petitions filed on or after September 21, 2025, if they are:

• For workers outside the United States who do not currently hold a valid H-1B visa.
• Requesting consular notification, port-of-entry notification, or pre-flight inspection.
• Requesting a change of status, amendment, or extension where USCIS determines the worker is ineligible for the requested change or extension (for example, if the worker’s visa status has lapsed).

Who Is Exempt

The fee does not apply to:

• Petitions filed before September 21, 2025.
• Workers who already have a valid H-1B visa.
• Approved changes or extensions of stay for H-1B holders currently in the U.S.
  • Even if these workers later travel abroad and return on the same visa, the payment requirement will not apply.

How and When to Pay

• The $100,000 payment must be made before filing the petition.
• Employers must use pay.gov to complete the transaction and include proof of payment (or proof of an exception) when submitting the petition.
• Petitions filed without payment documentation will be denied.

Forework Tip: Update internal immigration compliance checklists immediately to include this new payment step and ensure coordination between HR, legal, and finance teams before submission.

Exception Process (Very Limited)

USCIS may grant an exemption only in extraordinarily rare circumstances, such as when:

• The worker’s presence is in the national interest;
• No qualified U.S. worker is available;
• The worker poses no security or welfare threat; and
• Requiring payment would undermine U.S. interests.

Employers can submit requests and supporting evidence to H1BExceptions@hq.dhs.gov, though approvals are expected to be uncommon.

Legal Challenges Already Underway

Two lawsuits have been filed challenging the legality of the Proclamation. These cases are in early stages, and courts could ultimately pause or overturn the rule. Until then, however, employers must treat the $100,000 requirement as binding and enforceable.

What Employers Should Do Now

• Assess upcoming H-1B filings to determine if the fee applies.
• Budget accordingly for the significant cost impact.
• Coordinate with immigration counsel to evaluate whether any employees might qualify for exceptions.
• Stay tuned for court developments that could affect enforcement.

At Forework, we help employers stay ahead of fast-changing labor and immigration compliance rules—so your workforce planning and payroll systems remain secure, compliant, and future-ready.

The Senate just confirmed two key federal labor leaders: Brittany Panuccio to the EEOC and Andrew Rogers to lead the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the U.S. Department of Labor. Both moves will influence how workplace laws are enforced—and how employers should prepare.

EEOC Restores Its Quorum (and Its Power)

After months without enough commissioners to take formal action, the EEOC now has a Republican majority and full authority to move forward on:

• Rulemaking and new guidance
• Litigation approvals
• Policy reviews and reversals

This means we’ll likely see movement on issues such as DEI initiatives, workplace investigations, and evolving interpretations of discrimination law.

Forework Tip: HR teams should keep an eye on EEOC updates and be ready to adjust policies and training programs accordingly.

New Leadership at the Wage & Hour Division

Andrew Rogers, a former senior DOL adviser, is stepping in to lead the WHD. During his confirmation, he emphasized two goals:

1. Helping employers comply through clear guidance; and
2. Holding violators accountable when wage laws are ignored.

He also flagged child labor enforcement and prevailing wage compliance on federal projects as top priorities.

Forework Tip: Expect continued focus on overtime classification, recordkeeping, and pay transparency. Now’s the time to review your time-tracking and payroll systems for accuracy.

The Bottom Line

With the EEOC and DOL both reenergized under new leadership, employers should expect:

• More active enforcement
• New rulemaking and guidance
• Increased scrutiny of wage and hour practices

Stay ahead of the curve—make sure your payroll processes, job classifications, and compliance documentation are airtight.At Forework, we combine legal expertise and technology to help employers stay compliant with evolving labor and wage laws—so you can focus on running your business.

Earlier this month, New York State announced a significant increase to its maximum weekly unemployment insurance (UI) benefit, raising it by nearly 73% — from $504 per week to $869 per week.  According to the New York Department of Labor (NY DOL), the new benefit amounts are effective immediately. Approximately 27% of current beneficiaries will now receive the new maximum benefit, while another 28% will see an increase in their weekly payments.

How the Increase Was Funded

The sharp rise in benefits results from two major policy changes aimed at strengthening the state’s unemployment system.

1. Higher Employer Contributions

New York is increasing employer contributions to the state’s Unemployment Insurance Fund. Previously, employers paid a fixed percentage on the first $12,800 of each employee’s annual earnings.

Beginning in 2026, that taxable wage base will shift to 18% of the state’s average annual wage, rounded up to the nearest $100. This formula means the wage base will automatically adjust over time — potentially increasing by approximately 10% in 2026 and beyond. The official 2026 maximum wage base will be finalized and published by the NY DOL later this year.

2. Elimination of the Interest Assessment Surcharge

New York recently repaid its $7 billion debt to the federal government’s Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund, restoring the solvency of the state fund. As a result, the Interest Assessment Surcharge (IAS) — an annual charge imposed on employers to pay interest on the federal loan — has been eliminated.

This change is expected to save employers about $100 per employee in 2026, allowing more of their contributions to directly fund unemployment benefits.

Expanded Eligibility for Partial Benefits

In addition to the increase in the maximum benefit amount, these changes may make more New Yorkers eligible for unemployment compensation.

• Reduced hours: Full-time employees whose hours drop below 30 per week may now qualify for partial unemployment benefits if their weekly earnings fall below the new $869 cap.
• Part-time work: Individuals who are unemployed but take on part-time work can also remain eligible for partial benefits, provided their weekly income remains under $869.

What Employers Should Do

Employers should proactively ensure that their payroll, HR, and tax teams are aware of the coming changes and ready to adjust for the higher taxable wage base in 2026. Staying compliant with the updated wage base and quarterly reporting requirements will be essential to avoid penalties or reporting errors.

How Forework Can HelpIf you have questions about how this change impacts your payroll or unemployment insurance obligations, contact Forework for guidance and support.

In a joint statement, Chair Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak—both of whom dissented from the prior administration’s sweeping non-compete ban—indicated that the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) will pivot away from broad rulemaking and instead pursue a case-by-case enforcement strategy.

Under this new approach, the FTC plans to bring a “steady stream” of targeted enforcement actions to define the limits of lawful non-competes under the FTC Act and the Sherman Act, rather than imposing a nationwide prohibition through regulation.

Commissioner Meador’s Framework for Assessing Non-Competes

In a separate statement concurring with the withdrawal of the agency’s appeals, Commissioner Mark Meador outlined a framework for evaluating non-compete agreements based on their “competitive character.” He identified several key factors that the FTC may weigh in future enforcement actions:

• Employee wage and skill level: Non-competes may be less defensible for low-wage workers and more justifiable for highly skilled roles.
• Distribution and franchise structures: Non-competes raise greater concern where they restrict competition horizontally within a network.
• Independent contractors: The analysis should consider whether contractors operate exclusively for the company or receive specialized training or resources.
• Free-riding concerns: Whether the employer invested in training or shared proprietary information that the employee could leverage post-employment.
• Less restrictive alternatives: Employers should consider confidentiality, IP protection, or non-solicitation clauses before resorting to non-competes.
• Scope and duration: The agreement must be no broader than necessary in geography, duration, and industry coverage.
• Market power: The FTC is likely to scrutinize non-competes imposed by dominant firms or those widely used across an industry.

Details of the FTC’s Enforcement Action

The FTC’s complaint alleged that Gateway Pet Memorial Services had, since 2019, required nearly all employees—including drivers and facility-level laborers—to sign non-compete agreements prohibiting them from working anywhere in the U.S. pet cremation industry for one year following employment.

The FTC found this approach problematic for several reasons:

• The Company applied the agreements uniformly across all levels of staff, without individualized justification.
• The nationwide geographic scope was considered overly broad, restricting employees from working in areas where the Company had no operations.

Under the proposed consent order (“Proposed Order”), the Company must immediately stop enforcing existing non-competes and is barred for ten years from entering into or maintaining such agreements with most employees.

Exceptions apply for directors, officers, or senior employees in connection with equity grants or the sale of a business involving individuals holding ownership interests.

The Proposed Order also places limits on non-solicitation agreements, permitting them only with respect to customers with whom the employee had direct contact or provided service within the prior 12 months. Additionally, the Company must notify current and former employees that their non-compete agreements are void and inform all new hires that they will not be subject to such restrictions.

What Employers Should Take Away

According to Chair Ferguson, this action and the FTC’s decision to withdraw its appeals reflect a strategic shift from rulemaking to enforcement. The agency plans to use real-world cases to define the line between lawful and unlawful non-compete practices.

Employers should anticipate increased scrutiny and enforcement activity in this area and are strongly advised to review their current non-compete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality agreements. Agreements that are overly broad, indiscriminate, or not tailored to legitimate business interests may invite regulatory attention.

How Forework Can HelpIf you’d like guidance on assessing or revising your company’s restrictive covenant policies in light of the FTC’s latest enforcement posture, contact Forework today.

On October 16, 2025, the New York City Council passed two bills that, if enacted, will require large employers to report detailed pay data by race and gender. These measures aim to enhance pay equity transparency across the city’s workforce. While the reporting obligations would take effect immediately, employers will not be required to submit data until the City establishes the process for doing so.  In this article, we describe the proposed laws.

Overview of the Reporting Framework

Under Bill Int. 982A, the City must designate a responsible agency within one year of the law’s effective date. Once designated, that agency will have another year to develop a standardized, fillable reporting form for covered employers.

Within one year of that form’s publication—and annually thereafter—employers with 200 or more employees (including full-time, part-time, and temporary workers) will be required to submit pay data reports. These reports must include information aligned with the categories used in the EEOC’s EEO-1 Component 2 reporting for 2017–2018, including employee race, ethnicity, and gender.

The designated agency may also update or expand these categories, such as by adding reporting options that reflect different gender identities.

Employer Certification and Compliance

In addition to filing the pay report, each employer must submit a signed certification statement confirming the accuracy and completion of its submission. While employers may choose to file their pay reports anonymously, the certification statement itself must identify the employer.

The designated agency will publish an annual list of noncompliant employers on its website. Before appearing on that list, employers will receive written notice and at least 30 days to cure any deficiencies.

Violations will carry the following penalties:

• First offense: A written warning if corrected within 30 days of notice; otherwise, a $1,000 civil penalty.
• Subsequent offenses: A $5,000 civil penalty per violation.

Citywide Pay Equity Study

Under the companion measure, Bill Int. 984A, the designated agency must conduct an annual pay equity study beginning one year after the first round of employer submissions. The study will analyze pay data in aggregate form and publish results that do not identify specific employers or employees.

The agency will also continue to post a list of employers that fail to comply with the reporting requirements.

Legislative Outlook

Both bills passed with strong support—over 80% of the City Council—enough to override a potential veto by Mayor Eric Adams. If enacted, these measures will establish one of the most comprehensive local pay transparency reporting systems in the country.

What Employers Should Do Now

Employers with 200 or more employees should begin reviewing internal pay data systems and ensuring that demographic and compensation information is accurately maintained. Preparing early will make compliance easier once the reporting process is finalized.

Forework Can HelpIf you have questions about these new pay data reporting bills or how to prepare your organization for compliance, contact Forework for assistance.

New York City Proposes Expanding Sick and Safe Leave Requirements in 2026

On September 25, 2025, the New York City Council approved a bill (the “Bill”) that, if enacted by Mayor Adams, will significantly expand employee entitlements under the City’s Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (“ESSTA”). The Bill – if signed into law – would take effect 120 days thereafter.

Current ESSTA Requirements

Under the existing law, employers with 99 or fewer employees must provide up to 40 hours of sick and safe time annually, while employers with 100 or more employees must provide up to 56 hours per year. Time accrues at a rate of one hour for every 30 hours worked. With the exception of employers with four or fewer employees and a net income under $1 million in the previous year, all ESSTA leave must be paid.

Key Proposed Changes to ESSTA

Expanded Reasons for Leave

Currently, ESSTA allows employees to use leave for illness, preventive care, caring for a family member, closures during a public health emergency, or for “safe time” in situations involving domestic violence, sexual offenses, stalking, or human trafficking.

If enacted, the Bill would require New York City employers to also provide leave in the following additional circumstances:

• Public disaster closures: When a workplace, school, or childcare center is closed by order of a public official due to a public disaster (including fire, terrorist attack, or severe weather).
• Public disaster restrictions: When a public official directs individuals to stay indoors or avoid travel.
• Workplace violence: When an employee or their covered family member has been the victim of workplace violence, defined as any act or threat of violence occurring in a place of employment.
• Caregiving: When an employee is acting as a caregiver to a minor child or another care recipient.
• Legal and subsistence matters: When an employee attends or prepares for legal proceedings related to subsistence benefits or housing, or takes necessary actions to apply for, maintain, or restore such benefits for themselves or their family members.

Additional 32 Hours of Unpaid Leave

The Bill introduces a new entitlement: 32 hours of unpaid sick and safe leave provided at hire and on the first day of each calendar year. Unused unpaid leave does not carry over to the following year, and employees may only use it after exhausting accrued paid leave under ESSTA.

Paid Prenatal Leave

Another notable change is the addition of 20 hours of paid prenatal leave per rolling 52-week period. This leave is in addition to an employee’s regular sick and safe time entitlement. Employers may require a minimum increment of one hour per day for prenatal leave (compared to the four-hour minimum increment for other ESSTA leave types).

Coordination with the Temporary Schedule Change Act

The Bill also seeks to streamline employee rights under the ESSTA with the NYC Temporary Schedule Change Act (“TSCA”). Currently, the TSCA allows employees two temporary schedule changes per year for “personal events.” Because these events will now be covered under the ESSTA, the TSCA would be repealed. Employees will continue to have the right to request ESSTA leave for personal events and remain protected from retaliation for doing so.

Next Steps for Employers

If Mayor Adams signs the Bill, New York City employers should:

1. Review and update leave policies to incorporate the expanded ESSTA provisions and eliminate references to the TSCA.
2. Train managers and HR personnel on the new rules to ensure proper handling of employee leave requests.
3. Update payroll and HRIS systems to account for the changes and automated tracking systems.

How Forework Can Help

Navigating New York City’s evolving employment laws can be challenging. Forework’s compliance experts are available to help your business update policies, train staff, and maintain compliance with ESSTA and other wage and hour requirements.

If you have questions about how these changes may affect your organization, contact Forework today.

In a unanimous decision issued on June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Sixth Circuit ruling that had imposed an elevated burden on majority-group employees—such as heterosexual individuals—who bring discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court made clear that plaintiffs should not face a steeper evidentiary threshold simply because they belong to a majority demographic.

Case Background: Ames v. State of Ohio Department of Youth Services

The case involved a former employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services who alleged she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian woman and subsequently demoted and replaced by a gay man—both of whom, she claimed, were less qualified. She filed suit under Title VII, asserting discrimination based on her heterosexual status.

At the summary judgment stage, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed the claims, relying on a requirement that plaintiffs who are part of a majority group must present additional “background circumstances” to suggest that the employer is unusually inclined to discriminate against the majority. This approach added an extra layer to the traditional McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework used in disparate treatment cases.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed that reasoning, holding that the plaintiff’s status as a heterosexual required her to satisfy this added evidentiary burden as part of her prima facie case.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the “background circumstances” requirement is inconsistent with Title VII. The Court stated unequivocally that the statute “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs [and] minority-group plaintiffs.” It rejected the notion that plaintiffs from majority groups must meet any additional burden to proceed with a discrimination claim.

The Court emphasized that this added requirement improperly altered the well-established McDonnell Douglas framework and unfairly treated plaintiffs differently based on their demographic status. As a result, the matter was remanded to the district court to assess the plaintiff’s claims using the clarified, uniform legal standard.

Impact on Employers and Title VII Litigation

This decision resolves a long-standing circuit split. Previously, courts in the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits had adopted the “background circumstances” test. In contrast, the Third and Eleventh Circuits had rejected it. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures a consistent standard nationwide for assessing Title VII disparate treatment claims, regardless of the plaintiff’s demographic background.

Practical Takeaways for Employers

• Heightened Litigation Risk in Certain Jurisdictions: Employers operating in jurisdictions formerly applying the “background circumstances” test—such as Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and others across the Midwest and Mountain West—should expect more claims from majority-group plaintiffs to proceed past the early stages of litigation.
• DEI Programs Under Scrutiny: The decision arrives amid increased political and legal scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Employers should evaluate whether their policies or practices could be interpreted as treating employees differently based on protected class membership—intentionally or not.
• Policy Review Recommended: Now is a prudent time to revisit anti-discrimination policies, promotion criteria, and internal complaint procedures to ensure they comply with Title VII in both spirit and application.

If you have any questions about the Supreme Court’s Title VII ruling, please contact any member of the Forework team.

The Trump Administration’s proposed Fiscal Year 2026 budget outlines a substantial funding reduction for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). According to the Congressional Budget Justification, the administration is seeking to trim OSHA’s total budget by approximately 8%, decreasing the agency’s funding from $632.3 million in FY 2025 to $582.4 million in FY 2026.

Enforcement Programs Face Largest Cuts

The most notable decrease targets OSHA’s enforcement division, which would see its budget reduced by $23.7 million. This contraction is expected to impact the agency’s ability to conduct workplace inspections and pursue enforcement actions.

Additionally, the proposal includes a workforce reduction from 1,810 to 1,587 full-time equivalent positions, eliminating 223 roles. While the budget does not specify the exact mechanisms for these staffing changes, they may result from attrition, retirements, or voluntary buyouts rather than layoffs.

Implications for Employers and Workers

If enacted, the budget cuts could significantly shift how OSHA operates. With fewer resources and compliance officers available, the agency is likely to:

• Scale back scheduled or “programmed” inspections, particularly those not triggered by imminent danger or formal complaints.
• Rely more heavily on written correspondence—such as hazard alert letters or requests for documentation—instead of sending inspectors onsite in response to complaints or serious incidents.
• Slow the development and release of new safety standards and interpretive guidance, continuing a trend of delayed regulatory updates in recent years.

Employers should remain attentive to OSHA’s evolving enforcement priorities and consider proactive compliance strategies to reduce risk in a potentially less regulated environment.

If you have any questions regarding the FY 2026 Budget, please contact any member of the Forework team.