Employers operating in Chicago face a new round of scheduling compliance requirements beginning June 1, 2026.

The City of Chicago recently adopted significant amendments to its Fair Workweek regulations, expanding employer obligations related to scheduling, employee consent, predictability pay, recordkeeping, and workforce communication.  In this alert, we break down the amendments and implications for covered employers.  

Why This Matters

Fair Workweek laws are designed to provide employees with greater schedule stability and predictability. While these requirements have existed in Chicago since 2020, the new rules provide additional guidance and create more detailed compliance expectations for employers. The biggest takeaway is that employers must now maintain stronger documentation and exercise greater control over scheduling changes.

Covered Employers Should Pay Attention

The ordinance generally applies to employers in industries such as Healthcare, Retail, Restaurants, Hospitality, Manufacturing, Warehouse operations, and Building services.  Coverage is determined using global employee headcount rather than local staffing levels.  For larger employers with hourly workforces, these rules can affect scheduling procedures, payroll calculations, employee communications, and record retention practices.

Scheduling Changes Just Became More Expensive

One of the most important changes involves Predictability Pay. Under the revised rules, employers may owe additional compensation whenever they make certain schedule changes after a schedule has been posted. Even relatively small changes can trigger compliance obligations. 

The city also clarified that employee consent must be written, time-stamped, and specific to the schedule change.  General blanket consent forms will not satisfy the requirement.  For employers, this means informal scheduling practices that once seemed harmless could now create compliance risk.

Documentation Is Becoming Critical

The new rules place significant emphasis on recordkeeping. Employers must be able to demonstrate compliance with requirements involving:

• Schedule postings
• Employee consent
• Predictability Pay
• Right-to-Rest provisions
• Schedule modifications

If documentation does not exist, employers may struggle to prove compliance during an audit or investigation.

Organizations relying on manual scheduling methods, text messages, spreadsheets, or inconsistent manager practices may want to evaluate whether their current processes provide sufficient documentation.

Advance Scheduling Requirements Are More Detailed

Employers must continue providing schedules at least 14 days in advance, but the city has added additional requirements regarding how schedules are prepared and maintained.  Schedules must now contain more detailed information and be properly documented.  The city also clarified expectations regarding on-call shifts, which must be included when providing schedule estimates. For employers that rely heavily on fluctuating staffing levels, these requirements may require more sophisticated workforce planning.

Right-to-Rest Rules Require Additional Attention

Chicago’s Fair Workweek Ordinance continues to provide employees with the right to decline shifts that begin less than ten hours after a prior shift.  Employees may voluntarily agree to work those shifts, but the consent must be properly documented.  When such shifts are worked, employers generally must provide premium compensation.  This is an area where scheduling and payroll systems must work together to ensure compliance.

Payroll Teams May Feel the Impact

Many employers think of Fair Workweek laws as an HR or operations issue.  In reality, payroll departments often bear the burden of ensuring compliance.  The updated rules require employers to:

• Track Predictability Pay
• Apply premium pay when required
• Maintain supporting documentation
• Properly reflect certain payments on wage statements

As scheduling laws become more complex, payroll accuracy becomes increasingly important.

Questions Employers Should Be Asking

Organizations operating in Chicago should evaluate:

• How scheduling changes are currently documented
• Whether employee consent is properly recorded
• How Predictability Pay is calculated
• Whether managers understand scheduling restrictions
• Whether payroll systems can accurately track required premium payments
• Whether scheduling and payroll data are integrated

These questions become especially important for employers with multiple locations or decentralized management structures.

Forework’s Perspective

Covered employers must review these amendments and audit their payroll and HR practices to ensure that they are in compliance with these requirements.  Forework works with Chicago employers to assist them in determining coverage, scope of their obligations, and implementation of the law’s requirements.  

Many employers use employment agreements that attempt to shorten the amount of time employees have to bring legal claims against the company. A recent federal appeals court decision serves as an important reminder that these provisions may not always be enforceable.

In a ruling that could influence employment practices across the country, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that employers cannot use pre-employment agreements to shorten the time employees have to pursue discrimination claims under certain federal employment laws.

While the decision currently applies only within the Fourth Circuit, it highlights an important compliance issue for employers that rely on standardized offer letters, employment agreements, or onboarding documents.

The Issue: Contractual Deadlines vs. Federal Employment Rights

Many employment agreements contain provisions that require employees to bring workplace claims within a shortened period of time—often six months or 180 days.  Employers often include these provisions to create certainty and avoid defending stale claims years after an event occurred.  However, federal anti-discrimination laws operate under a unique process that requires employees to first file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before filing a lawsuit. That administrative process can take months—or even longer—before an employee receives authorization to proceed to court. The Fourth Circuit concluded that employers cannot use private agreements to effectively cut short that statutory process.

Why This Matters

The court’s decision specifically impacts claims brought under:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

These laws govern many of the most common workplace discrimination claims, including allegations involving:

• Race discrimination
• Sex discrimination
• Religious discrimination
• National origin discrimination
• Age discrimination

Because employees must first go through the EEOC process before filing suit, the court found that employers cannot contractually reduce the time available for employees to exercise those rights.

What Employers Should Review

Employers should take this opportunity to review:

Employment Agreements

Examine offer letters, employment contracts, arbitration agreements, and onboarding documents for language that shortens legal filing deadlines.

Multi-State Compliance

Organizations operating in multiple states should be especially cautious. Different courts may interpret these provisions differently, and agreements that were once considered standard may face increasing legal scrutiny.

HR Policies and Onboarding Practices

Employers should ensure HR teams understand which contractual provisions remain enforceable and which may create unnecessary legal risk.

Legal Templates

Many companies continue to use employment agreement templates that were drafted years ago. Those documents should be periodically reviewed to ensure they remain compliant with evolving legal standards.

The Bigger Trend

This decision reflects a broader trend among courts and regulators: increased scrutiny of employment agreements that may limit employee rights under federal workplace laws.

As workplace compliance requirements continue to evolve, employers should view employment agreements as living documents rather than “set it and forget it” paperwork.

Regular reviews of employment policies, onboarding materials, arbitration agreements, and employee handbooks can help organizations reduce risk while maintaining compliance with changing legal requirements.

Forework’s Perspective

Employment compliance doesn’t begin when a claim is filed—it begins with the systems, documents, and processes employers use every day. As regulations and court decisions continue to reshape the workplace landscape, employers should regularly evaluate their onboarding documentation, HR practices, and compliance procedures to ensure they align with current legal requirements. A proactive review today can help prevent costly disputes tomorrow.

Connecticut employers should prepare now for a wave of new workplace regulations that will affect hiring practices, payroll administration, employee communications, workplace accommodations, and the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions.

The Connecticut General Assembly recently passed sweeping legislation that introduces new requirements for wage transparency, payroll disclosures, accommodation notices, employee retention obligations, and AI-driven employment tools. While many of the provisions do not take effect until late 2026 or 2027, employers that begin planning now will be in a much stronger position to avoid compliance challenges later.

At Forework, we believe compliance starts long before a law becomes effective. Employers should use this lead time to evaluate payroll processes, recruiting practices, job posting procedures, employee communications, and HR technology platforms.

Below are the key developments employers should be monitoring.

1. Job Postings Must Include Pay Ranges and Benefits Information

Beginning October 1, 2026, Connecticut employers will be required to include:

• A good-faith wage range
• A general description of benefits

in both internal and external job postings.

This expansion goes beyond Connecticut’s existing wage transparency requirements and will impact recruiting, compensation planning, and internal promotion processes.

For employers with remote workforces, the law may apply even when employees work outside Connecticut if they report to a Connecticut-based supervisor or office.

What Employers Should Do Now

• Review job posting templates
• Establish documented salary ranges for positions
• Coordinate compensation and recruiting teams
• Ensure benefits descriptions are standardized and consistent

2. New Restrictions on Employee Repayment Agreements

Connecticut is expanding its prohibition on employment promissory notes to all employers, regardless of size.

Agreements that require employees to repay training costs or similar expenses as a condition of employment may become unenforceable if they fall within the law’s definition of an employment promissory note.

What Employers Should Do Now

• Review training reimbursement agreements
• Audit onboarding documents
• Evaluate retention and workforce development programs

3. New Disability Accommodation Notice Requirements

Beginning October 1, 2026, employers must provide employees with notice of their rights to workplace accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The notice requirement applies:

• To all new hires
• To current employees
• When an employee informs the employer of a disability

What Employers Should Do Now

• Update onboarding materials
• Review ADA policies and procedures
• Prepare for distribution of required notices

4. Expanded Lactation Accommodation Obligations

The new law reinforces employers’ obligations to provide reasonable break time for nursing employees and to maintain appropriate lactation spaces.

The legislation makes clear that employers must provide break time beyond regularly scheduled breaks when necessary.

What Employers Should Do Now

• Review workplace accommodation policies
• Confirm designated lactation spaces meet legal requirements
• Train managers on accommodation requests

5. New Payroll Transparency Requirements for Larger Employers

One of the most significant operational changes affects employers with 100 or more employees.

Beginning October 1, 2026, covered employers must provide employees with a guide explaining payroll codes used for overtime and common pay differentials.

These pay codes often appear on pay statements as abbreviations that employees may not understand.

Examples include:

• Overtime codes
• Shift differentials
• Holiday pay
• Weekend premiums
• Hazard pay
• On-call compensation

The guide must be maintained and updated as payroll practices evolve.

Why This Matters

Payroll transparency is becoming a growing focus among regulators nationwide. Employers should ensure their payroll systems produce information that employees can easily understand and verify.

For organizations using third-party payroll providers, now is a good time to determine whether your provider can support these requirements.

6. Construction Industry Employers Face New Wage Liability Exposure

Construction contractors will face expanded responsibility for unpaid wages owed by subcontractors.

The law creates joint liability provisions that significantly increase the importance of subcontractor oversight and payroll compliance monitoring.

What Employers Should Do Now

• Review subcontractor agreements
• Strengthen payroll audit procedures
• Evaluate wage compliance monitoring practices

7. Successor Employers May Be Required to Retain Existing Workers

Beginning July 1, 2027, certain businesses taking over service contracts or acquiring covered properties may be required to retain existing employees for a transition period.

The law affects industries that rely heavily on:

• Janitorial services
• Security services
• Building maintenance
• Facilities management
• Property operations

Employers involved in acquisitions, outsourcing arrangements, or service contract transitions should incorporate these obligations into workforce planning efforts.

8. Artificial Intelligence in Employment Decisions Faces New Regulation

Connecticut is also moving toward increased regulation of AI tools used in employment decisions.

Employers using automated technologies for:

• Recruiting
• Applicant screening
• Hiring decisions
• Promotions
• Discipline
• Performance evaluations
• Terminations

may soon face new notice and disclosure requirements.

The legislation requires greater transparency regarding how automated systems are used and what information is analyzed when employment decisions are made.

Why Employers Should Pay Attention

Many organizations are already using AI-enabled recruiting and HR platforms without fully understanding how those systems operate.

Employers should begin:

• Inventorying AI-powered HR tools
• Reviewing vendor agreements
• Assessing potential bias-testing capabilities
• Evaluating compliance documentation

Organizations that wait until the law becomes effective may find themselves scrambling to gather information from software vendors.

Forework’s Perspective

The most important takeaway from Connecticut’s 2026 legislative session is that workforce compliance is becoming increasingly connected to payroll data, compensation practices, employee communications, and HR technology.

Many of these requirements cannot be addressed solely through policies. They require operational systems that support transparency, consistency, and accurate workforce administration.

Employers that take a proactive approach now will be far better positioned when these laws take effect.

Forework will continue monitoring these developments and helping employers align their payroll, workforce management, and compliance processes with the evolving regulatory landscape.

A bill recently passed by the New York Legislature could significantly change how employers manage employee personnel records. If signed by Governor Hochul, the legislation would create new requirements for providing employees access to their personnel files, responding to record requests, documenting disciplinary actions, and retaining employment records after separation.

While many employers already maintain personnel files, most employers do not have a policy of making ALL personnel (or any personnel) information available as a matter of regular course. Instead, most companies decide, on a case by case basis, if and how much of personnel file information to make available to current and former employees.  Thus, this proposal would transform employee access from a per-company policy issue into a legal obligation—with strict deadlines and potential penalties for noncompliance.

What the Proposed Law Would Require

Under the legislation, employers would be required to provide current and former employees with copies of their personnel records within five business days of receiving a written request.

Records would need to be provided: 

• At no cost to the employee
• Within five business days
• For both current and former employees

The proposal also includes anti-retaliation protections for employees who exercise these rights.

What Counts as a Personnel Record?

The bill uses a broad definition of personnel records. Potentially covered documents include: employment applications, performance evaluations, disciplinary records, promotion documentation, compensation-related records and transfer and job history records.  In practical terms, many of the documents HR professionals rely upon when making employment decisions could become accessible to employees upon request.

A Major Change: Notice of Negative Information

Perhaps the most significant operational change is a new requirement that employers notify employees when negative information is added to their personnel file.

Under the proposal:

• Employees must be notified within 10 days
• Employees may submit a written response
• The employer must retain that response alongside the original record
• The response may need to accompany the record when it is later disclosed

This requirement would create a level of transparency that many employers do not currently maintain.

For organizations with decentralized management structures, ensuring timely notification could become a significant administrative challenge.

New Record Retention Requirements

The legislation would also require employers to maintain personnel records for at least three years after employment ends.

While many employers already retain records longer than this for litigation and compliance purposes, organizations without formal retention procedures may need to revisit their recordkeeping practices.

Why HR Leaders Should Pay Attention

If enacted, this law would impact much more than personnel files.

It would affect:

Documentation Practices

Managers and supervisors may need additional training on how performance concerns, coaching conversations, and disciplinary actions are documented.

HR Response Procedures

Organizations will need processes for receiving, tracking, and responding to personnel record requests within a short timeframe.

File Organization

Employers with paper files, decentralized records, or inconsistent documentation practices may face challenges locating records quickly enough to meet statutory deadlines.

Employee Relations

Because employees would gain easier access to personnel records, employers should expect greater scrutiny of evaluations, disciplinary records, and employment decisions.

Questions Employers Should Be Asking Now

Even before the bill becomes law, employers may benefit from evaluating:

• Where personnel records are currently stored
• Whether records are centralized and easily accessible
• How disciplinary information is documented
• Whether managers receive training on documentation standards
• Whether current retention policies are sufficient

Organizations that wait until the law takes effect may find themselves scrambling to create processes that should have been established months earlier.

Forework’s Perspective and Advantage

Workforce compliance increasingly depends on having organized, accessible, and accurate employee data.  Whether it’s payroll records, timekeeping information, personnel files, or performance documentation, employers are facing growing expectations for knowing what records to keep, maintaining such records completely, accurately and consistently, and having that information available for regulator review and inspection on short-notice. Forework provides all clients with an attorney-reviewed and approved record retention checklist, and ensures that all employers are maintaining the records required to be maintained by law, as well as those records where it is best practice to maintain.  The records are maintained digitally, where available, and employees may (depending on employer choice) have access to some or all of their personnel files in digital format. 

In early 2025, New York quietly added a new question to its WARN Act filing system: did AI or automation contribute to these layoffs? More than a year later, not one of the 160-plus companies that filed a notice has said yes.  That’s either genuinely good news — or a sign that the reporting system isn’t working the way it was intended.

How the disclosure works

Governor Hochul directed the state’s Department of Labor to start collecting this data in January 2025, with the change going live in March. When filing a WARN notice, employers now see a checkbox asking whether “technological innovation or automation” played a role in the layoffs. If checked, they’re asked to name the specific technology.

The problem is that New York’s WARN Act statute was never actually amended to require this — it was just added to the form. That leaves employers with real uncertainty: Is this mandatory? What counts as “technological innovation or automation”? Does AI need to be the sole cause of the layoffs, or just a contributing factor? Without answers, most employers are probably leaving the box unchecked regardless.

What might be coming

Two bills in the state legislature would go further:

One would require larger employers — those with 100 or more employees, or any publicly traded company — to submit annual reports to the state on how AI is affecting hiring, workforce reductions, and unfilled positions. It would also require disclosure of how AI is being overseen and how often it’s being used.

The other, called the “Automation Displacement Protection Act,” would require employers with 50 or more full-time employees to give advance notice any time AI or automated technology eliminates positions or cuts workforce hours by 25% or more over a 12-month period. Affected employees would be entitled to a 90-day transition period with either continued pay or access to retraining. Employers who don’t comply could lose eligibility for state grants, loans, and tax incentives for five years — and face civil penalties up to $10,000 per day for willful violations.

Neither bill is law yet, but the direction of travel is clear. New York has been at the front of AI-related workplace regulation, and other states are paying attention.

Employers — especially those operating in multiple states — should be monitoring these developments closely and thinking now about how they would track and report AI’s role in workforce decisions if required to do so.

FOREWORK BENEFIT: Federal and state WARN Act obligations are extremely tricky, even without a AI component.   Employers who are considering shutting down locations, departments, or conducting a mass layoff of employees form multiple branches and divisions should consul their designated Forework human resources representative.

The EEOC recently submitted a plan to the White House to eliminate annual employer reporting requirements — including the EEO-1 Report, which has been required since 1966. If finalized, the change would also scrap similar reports for local unions, state and local governments, and public schools.

Currently, private employers with 100 or more employees must submit race, ethnicity, sex, and job category data annually by location. Federal contractors with 50 or more employees have the same obligation.

The proposal follows pressure from within the administration to align EEOC practices with executive orders ending DEI programs and policies. Efforts in Congress to preserve the reporting requirement through appropriations language did not gain traction.

But none of this means employers should change anything yet. Here are three things to avoid doing right now:

1. Don’t assume EEO-1 reporting is off the table for 2026. The current regulation still requires employers to file by September 30 each year. The administrative process to formally rescind that requirement takes time — and it may not be complete before this fall’s deadline. Treat the obligation as fully in effect until you hear otherwise officially.

2. Don’t stop collecting employee demographic data. Even if the federal reporting requirement goes away, Title VII’s recordkeeping rules remain. Federal guidelines still require employers to maintain data showing whether their hiring and selection practices have a disparate impact based on race, ethnicity, or sex. Keep requesting that information at the time of hire.

3. Don’t overlook your state obligations. California and Illinois already have their own employer reporting requirements. Massachusetts currently ties its requirement directly to the EEO-1, so changes at the federal level could prompt changes there too. And if the federal requirement disappears entirely, more states may step in with their own rules. Employers contracting with state governments may also have separate affirmative action or reporting commitments that depend on demographic data.

We’ll continue to monitor the EEOC’s proposal and update you as the situation develops — particularly as the September 30 deadline gets closer.

FOREWORK BENEFIT:  Clients of Forework who need assistance gathering data and preparing the EEO-1 report can speak with their designated Forework counsel and HR representative about the annual report obligations. 

Federal agencies recently proposed a rule that would make it simpler for employers to offer fertility benefits outside of their main health plan — without running into compliance problems under the Affordable Care Act.

Here’s the quick backstory: Under the ACA, stand-alone benefit plans (ones not integrated with a major medical plan) generally have to meet a number of coverage requirements to be compliant. There’s an exception for what are called “excepted benefits” — a defined category that includes things like dental and vision coverage. The new proposal would add fertility benefits to that list.

What the proposed rule would require

For a fertility benefit to qualify as a new “limited excepted benefit,” it would need to meet four conditions:

1. It must be offered separately from the employer’s main group health plan, and employees must be able to decline the main plan and still enroll in the fertility benefit.
2. The benefit must be primarily for the diagnosis or treatment of infertility or related reproductive health conditions.
3. Lifetime coverage cannot exceed $120,000 per participant (adjusted over time for medical inflation).
4. Participants must receive a written notice describing the benefit — at enrollment, annually, and upon request.

On that last point: a general mention buried in a Summary Plan Description won’t cut it. The agencies specifically want the notice to be short and easy to understand.

A few things to keep in mind

The proposal appears aimed at employers who don’t currently cover fertility treatments under their major medical plan, giving them a new, structured way to do so. That said, elective fertility treatments — like egg freezing for someone without an infertility diagnosis — don’t appear to be covered under this proposal as written.

If finalized, the rule would apply to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2027. Comments on the proposal are due by July 13, 2026.

THE FOREWORK BENEFIT:  Whether you’re thinking about adding fertility benefits for the first time or you already offer them and want to make sure your current structure holds up under the new framework, Forework members can use their monthly attorney hours to work through exactly these questions — plan design, notice requirements, compliance gaps, and more.

The Department of Labor recently proposed a rule that would create a single, consistent standard for determining joint employer status under three federal laws: the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. For employers who use staffing agencies, share workers, or operate in franchise or contractor relationships, this proposal deserves a close read.

Why this matters in practice

Joint employment is one of those issues that catches employers off guard. A company brings on workers through a staffing agency, or a franchisor sets operational standards for its franchisees, and suddenly there’s a question about whether both entities are on the hook for wage-and-hour violations, overtime, or FMLA leave obligations. The consequences of a joint employment finding are real: back pay liability, civil penalties, and litigation costs that can run deep — often shared across entities that never expected to be in the same legal boat.

The DOL says the goal here is to reduce compliance and litigation costs, improve enforcement, and bring more uniformity to how courts analyze these relationships. That last point matters. Right now, the analysis varies significantly depending on the circuit you’re in, which creates real unpredictability for multistate employers.

Two types of joint employment — and they work differently

The proposal distinguishes between two structures, and understanding the difference is important.

Vertical joint employment is the more common scenario: a worker is employed by one business (often a staffing agency or subcontractor) but also performs work that benefits a second employer. Think of a manufacturer that contracts with a staffing firm to supply line workers. The test focuses on whether the second employer — the one that isn’t cutting the paycheck — has real influence over the employment relationship. The key factors are whether that employer can hire or fire, substantially supervises or controls the work schedule or conditions, determines pay rates, and maintains employment records.

The supervision factor tends to be the most contested in practice. Companies often believe that because they’re not formally managing someone, they’re in the clear. But if someone at the host company is the one directing daily work, setting hours, or deciding whether a worker comes back the next day, that functional control matters — regardless of what the contract says.

Horizontal joint employment is less intuitive. This is where a worker splits time between two separate employers that are sufficiently connected to each other — think two commonly owned businesses, or two franchisees that share staff. The question is whether those employers are “sufficiently associated” with respect to the worker. The rule points to three indicators: a formal arrangement to share the worker’s services, one employer acting in the interest of the other regarding the employee, or shared control arising from common ownership or control structures.

What won’t automatically create joint employment

One of the more practically useful parts of the proposal is what it says won’t establish joint employment on its own. Sharing a vendor, being co-franchisees of the same brand, requiring compliance with legal or quality control standards in a contract, offering shared benefit plans, or maintaining brand standards — none of these, standing alone, create a joint employer relationship.

This is significant for franchisors especially, who have spent years navigating the tension between maintaining brand consistency and avoiding joint employer exposure. The proposal doesn’t give franchisors a blank check, but it does acknowledge that routine business relationships aren’t enough.

The control question: reserved vs. actual

The proposal takes a clear position on one of the more nuanced questions in this area: it’s not enough that an employer could exercise control — what matters more is whether they actually did. A contractual right to approve staffing decisions that’s never been used carries less weight than a franchisor that regularly intervenes in day-to-day scheduling.

This distinction between reserved and exercised control is one that matters enormously when structuring these arrangements. Paper distinctions need to be backed up by how things actually operate on the ground — because that’s what investigators and courts look at.

What to do now

The comment period closes June 22, 2026. If you have concerns about how this rule could affect your business arrangements, this is the time to make your voice heard.

More importantly, if this rule is finalized, employers who want to maintain separate employer status should take a hard look at their current arrangements — staffing agency relationships, subcontracting structures, franchise operations, and shared-employee arrangements between affiliated entities. The goal is to understand where actual control is being exercised and, where necessary, restructure so the legal intent matches operational reality.

FOREWORK BENEFIT: If your business supervises, directs, or shares workers through a staffing agency, contractor arrangement, franchise structure, or affiliated entity, you should be thinking carefully about your joint employment exposure — and not just under the FLSA.  A joint employment finding can ripple into workers’ compensation coverage, paid leave obligations, benefits eligibility, and more. Talk to a Forework attorney or your designated HR representative to best understand any exposure your business might have under joint employment, and how to minimize any such legal exposure. 

Part 1 of Series, “Payroll Mistakes that turn into Class Actions”

A recent federal court decision out of Western Pennsylvania serves as a powerful reminder that wage and hour compliance failures—particularly those embedded in payroll practices—can expose employers to significant and expensive litigation. The case arose from a lawsuit filed by employees who claimed that they were not properly compensated for: 

• out-of-town travel time
• time spent in pre-shift safety meetings
• bonuses (because bonuses were not calculated or considered in the regular rate for overtime calculations)

While the decision reflects a careful application of class certification principles, the underlying claims highlight a more fundamental issue: many wage and hour violations are not the result of bad intent—but of flawed payroll and compensation systems design.

The Claims: Where Payroll and Compliance Intersect

On March 31, 2026, in Justin Lawrence, et al. v. Sun Energy Services LLC d/b/a Deep Well Services, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania certified, but significantly narrowed, a Rule 23 class action and Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action.  

The employees in the Lawrence case worked in oilfield operations, performing field-based services such as well servicing, snubbing, and other energy extraction support functions. These roles required workers to travel to remote job sites, often across state lines, stay overnight, and report to centralized locations for assignments. Their work was structured around shifts, with operational requirements that included travel, safety protocols, and coordination across crews—all of which created multiple categories of compensable and potentially compensable time.

Each of their claims in the lawsuit arose directly from how compensation policies are structured, interpreted, and ultimately operationalized in payroll systems.  After much back-and-forth in the lawsuit (and expensive litigation discovery), the federal court certified the class and collective action only as to the travel time and bonus claims.  The off-the clock claim did not proceed in the lawsuit because the court did not find a “uniform” policy or procedure in the employer’s business that would sustain a systemic claim (i.e., the class claim). But the travel and bonus claims were both tied to uniform employer practices, making them suitable for class-wide adjudication.

The Court’s Message: Uniform Practices Create Uniform Risk

The decision reinforces a critical point for employers: When compensation practices are applied uniformly—but incorrectly—they create scalable liability.  The court emphasized that differences in damages calculations do not defeat class certification where liability stems from a common policy.  In other words, once a flawed payroll rule is applied across a workforce, exposure can multiply quickly—regardless of variations in individual circumstances.

What Went Wrong—and What Could Have Been Prevented

From a compliance perspective, the issues in this case were not novel. They reflect recurring problem areas under the FLSA:

• Misclassification or exclusion of compensable travel time from consideration as work time – and if the employer does not consider specific travel time to be compensable worktime, then the employer will not pay for that time (resulting in minimum wage and overtime exposure)
• Failure to properly account for non-discretionary bonuses in overtime calculations  (employers cannot just pay employees a bonus without any consideration of its impact on the overtime calculation but that is exactly what happened in this case)
• Non payment of pre- and post-shift activities – activities mandated or accepted by the employer before or after a shift will often be considered compensable work time and need to be accounted for

The Missed Opportunity: Pre-Payroll Legal Structuring

What this case illustrates most clearly is not just litigation risk—but a missed opportunity.  Had the employer:

• Conducted a legal analysis of compensable time under the FLSA
• Properly structured its bonus programs to align with regular rate requirements
• Designed payroll rules to reflect compliant compensation logic

…it is likely that the certified claims—those based on uniform practices—could have been avoided altogether.

A Shift in Approach: From Reactive Defense to Proactive Design

Traditionally, employers address wage and hour compliance after problems arise—through audits, litigation defense, or reactive policy changes.  That approach is increasingly insufficient. Modern compliance requires a shift toward pre-payroll structuring, where legal analysis is embedded into the design of compensation systems before they are implemented.

How Forework Changes the Equation

Unlike traditional payroll providers, Forework integrates labor and employment law analysis directly into payroll setup, from day one.  This includes:

• Learning an employer’s systems and procedures, how its employees work, so as to ensure that all work time is being captured.  Because if the employer does not know that it must pay for XYZ time, then the employer will not pay a worker for that time, and the employer will be exposed to labor law claims 
• Structuring compensation policies to comply with FLSA requirements and local laws (state and city-specific wage compensation laws) 
• Designing payroll rules that properly capture compensable time, and that ensure this captured time is compensated
• Ensuring bonuses and other incentives are correctly incorporated into overtime calculations
• Identifying and resolving compliance risks before the first payroll is processed

Key Takeaways for Employers

This decision offers several practical lessons:

• Uniform payroll practices create class-wide exposure if they are not legally compliant
• Differences in damages will not shield employers from certification where liability is common
• Courts are closely scrutinizing compensation policies, not just high-level compliance statements
• Prevention—not defense—is the most effective strategy

Conclusion

The Lawrence decision is not just a procedural ruling, nor is it a novel case.  Class action litigation related to compensation practices and wage/hour errors are some of the most expensive lawsuits in the United States to litigate, and they are often not cases where employers win.  

Employers that rely on off-the-shelf payroll setups or operational shortcuts are increasingly vulnerable to wage and hour litigation. The cost of getting payroll wrong is no longer limited to back wages—it includes class certification, litigation expense, and reputational risk.

The better approach is clear: build compliance into payroll from the outset.

In a single day, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed more than 200 bills into law. Among them are over a dozen new or expanded employment-related requirements—many already effective and others rolling out through January 1, 2026. Illinois employers should begin preparing now for significant policy, compliance, and operational changes.

Two Newly Enacted Employment Laws

Workers’ Rights and Safety Act

Illinois has enacted new protections designed to “freeze” certain federal employee safeguards at their early-2025 levels. If future federal wage-and-hour or mining-safety laws are weakened, Illinois agencies must adopt state-level regulations that maintain the earlier, more protective standards. Agencies remain free to adopt even stronger employee protections and must report their actions to the Legislature.

Family Neonatal Intensive Care Leave Act

Beginning June 1, 2026, employers must provide job-protected, unpaid leave to employees who have newborn children receiving treatment in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).
Covered employees may take:

• Up to 10 days of NICU leave if the employer has 16–50 employees
• Up to 20 days of NICU leave if the employer has more than 50 employees

Leave may be taken intermittently in increments as small as two hours. NICU leave includes protections similar to those under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and is in addition to any FMLA leave for eligible employees.

Key Amendments to Existing Employment Laws

Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA)

For claims filed after January 1, 2026, fact-finding conferences will no longer be automatically required. The Illinois Department of Human Rights may hold them at its discretion or upon joint written request of both parties.
The Human Rights Commission also gains expanded authority to impose civil penalties “to vindicate the public interest,” with penalties ranging from $16,000 to over $70,000 per violation depending on employer history.

Workplace Transparency Act

Effective January 1, 2026, confidentiality provisions in employment, severance, and settlement agreements face tighter restrictions. Agreements may not prohibit employees from participating in “concerted activities” related to workplace concerns under the National Labor Relations Act (as it existed in early 2025).
Additional requirements include:

• Separate consideration for any confidentiality terms in separation or settlement agreements
• Prohibitions on non-Illinois choice of law or venue clauses
• Prohibitions on clauses shortening statutes of limitations

Wage Payment and Collection Act (WPCA)

Effective immediately and retroactively, unpaid final wage orders issued by the Illinois Department of Labor now become debts owed to the State if not paid within 35 days after the review period closes. This change streamlines enforcement, allowing the State to collect these amounts like other civil judgments.
Penalties and fees for unpaid wage orders have also increased.

Military Leave Act

The former Family Military Leave Act has been renamed and expanded. Employers with 51 or more employees must now provide up to eight hours of paid leave per month (maximum 40 hours annually) for employees who perform military funeral honors duties.

Nursing Mothers in the Workplace Act

All lactation breaks must now be paid for up to one year after childbirth. Employers may not require employees to use paid leave or experience any pay reduction for reasonable lactation breaks. Employers may still require these breaks to run concurrently with existing break periods.

Equal Pay Act

Coverage under the Illinois Equal Pay Act now extends to all employers with 100 or more employees working in or reporting to Illinois, regardless of federal EEO-1 filing status.

Victims’ Economic Safety and Security Act (VESSA)

Employees (or family members) who record incidents of violence using employer-issued devices must be granted access to the images or documentation. Employers may not take adverse action based solely on the device containing evidence of a domestic, sexual, gender-based, or other violent incident.
Employers may still enforce reasonable device-use policies and comply with investigations or court orders involving device content.

Additional Changes Affecting Employees

Other amendments expand rights for employees in areas such as:

• Eligibility for unemployment if leaving a job due to a mental health disability
• Pre-tax commuter benefit eligibility for part-time employees
• Paid leave rights for part-time organ donors
• Military differential compensation for any missed shift, regardless of length or schedule

Industry-Specific Updates

Industries facing targeted amendments include:

• Public works construction: Expanded Prevailing Wage Act coverage, enforcement tools, and penalties
• Gaming: Updated occupational licensing, background check, and identification badge requirements
• Child care: Enhanced criminal background check rules for child care workers

What’s Ahead

The Illinois Legislature continues to consider additional employment measures, including potential restrictions—or complete bans—on non-compete and non-solicitation agreements. Employers are also awaiting final Department of Labor rules interpreting the amended Day and Temporary Labor Services Act, which will further shape compliance obligations.

What Employers Should Do Now

Illinois employers are encouraged to:

• Review and update policies, handbooks, and employment agreements
• Revise confidentiality, separation, and severance agreement templates
• Prepare for expanded leave rights and paid-break requirements
• Adjust compliance systems, including payroll and timekeeping, to reflect new mandates
• Reassess AI-related employment practices, especially in anticipation of January 1, 2026 changes

Forework will continue monitoring legislative and regulatory developments to help employers stay compliant and minimize risk.