Join us for this FREE lunch and learn event on July 14, 2026 from 11:30a to 12:30p - Building Your Talent Pipeline through the Massachusetts Apprenticeship Program (Webinar), presented by Massachusetts State Council of SHRM and the Employers Association of the NorthEast (EANE).

EANE and the MA SHRM State Council are partnering to bring you a fantastic program on workforce development!

The MA Division of Apprentice Standard provides no cost guidance and hands on support to help employers explore, design, register and launch their own internal apprentice programs. Apprentices are employees who earn wages while they learn, combining paid on-the-job training with structured instruction. This model enables employers to develop talent tailored to their specific needs—whether by training new hires or advancing the skills of current employees—while improving retention, productivity, and long-term workforce stability. More than 1000 occupations are approved for registered apprenticeship by the US Department of Labor. These programs should be a critical component of every workforce development program. Registered apprenticeship occupations | Mass.gov

Join us for an informational webinar with Dennis Collins, Apprenticeship Lead, with the State of Massachusetts where he outlines more information for employers on how the funding process works, creating your own program and success stories from a number of industries who have taken advantage of this employer program.

Cost to attend: FREE

Who should attend: HR, Managers, Business Leaders

EANE will process registration - click here to register:  REGISTER TODAY

Stricter I-9 Audits Raise the Stakes for Employers - All employers in the U.S. are required to verify that employees are authorized to work by completing Form I-9. This form must be filled out correctly by both the employee and the employer, just like any other legal document.  What Has Changed - Previously, small mistakes, such as a missing date or an unchecked box, were typically treated as “technical errors” and could be corrected without penalty if addressed promptly.  That flexibility is shrinking.  Recent guidance from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) expands the definition of a “substantive violation,” meaning more errors can now result in fines. Even routine administrative issues, such as missing information, timing errors, or improper document handling, are more likely to have consequences.  Increased Enforcement - At the same time, enforcement is picking up. ICE is increasing workplace audits and inspections, often with less advance notice, and placing greater scrutiny on incomplete or inconsistent records. There is also a stronger focus on patterns of noncompliance across forms.  A single mistake may not raise concern, but repeated errors, even small ones, can quickly add up and significantly increase an employer’s overall liability.  Examples of Substantive Violations -

According to the fact sheet on ice.gov that was recently updated, (https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/i9-inspection) substantive violations include:  Failure to prepare Form I-9 in a timely way.  Utilizing the Spanish-language version of the Form I-9 outside of Puerto Rico.  Failure to meet the standards for electronic completion and retention.  Section 1 - Missing information such as date of birth, signature dates, USCIS/Alien number, signature/title, expiration dates, and incomplete/incorrect information on employee attestation Section 2 – missing employer name/title, incomplete document information in List A, B and C (i.e., expiration dates, issuing authority, or full title of document).  Alternative Procedure is used when not authorized to use the alternative procedure.  This policy shift comes amid heightened enforcement activity, with ICE increasing worksite inspections and showing less tolerance for incomplete or inconsistent documentation. The agency is also placing greater focus on patterns of noncompliance, meaning repeated minor errors across a workforce can significantly increase overall liability.  What Employers Should Do - This shift makes consistency more important than ever. Employers should take a closer look at their I-9 processes and tighten where needed:  Conduct regular internal I-9 audits.  Train HR staff and managers in proper completion.  Use the most current version of Form I-9.  Standardize onboarding processes across locations.  Carefully document all corrections.  Review electronic I-9 systems for compliance Bottom Line - I-9 compliance is becoming less forgiving. What were once minor oversights are now more likely to carry real risk, making a disciplined and consistent approach essential.  Source:  AIM HR Edge, 05/01/2026, by Rachel Zheliabovskii

DOJ Provides Guide for Avoiding Prosecution Via Self-Disclosure – If your company discovers that it may have committed criminal misconduct, you may be able to avoid prosecution entirely — but only if you act quickly and follow a newly streamlined federal roadmap. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its first-ever agency-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy last week, allowing employers to reduce or even completely eliminate criminal penalties by self-disclosing the wrongdoing and taking other administrative steps.   What Are the DOJ’s Goals in Rolling Out the New CEP? - The CEP, is in line with the May 2025 update to the DOJ’s Criminal Division Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy. DOJ described the CEP rollout as intended to promote “uniformity, predictability, and fairness in how it pursues white-collar cases.” This new policy is intended to supersede previously in-place DOJ component or district-specific corporate enforcement programs.  What Does This Mean for Employers?  The CEP is applicable to potential criminal penalties an employer may face for violating various laws such as safety and health regulations, environmental compliance, immigration, and anti-bribery provisions. Antitrust matters are excepted from the policy. If found guilty of these criminal laws, an employer could face hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties, restitution, and ongoing external compliance monitoring.  But if employers discover misconduct, the new policy means that all hope is not lost. Employers can reduce or even completely eliminate these penalties by self-disclosing and entering into some type of CEP agreement. The agency-wide CEP approach enhances predictability and streamlines corporate decision-making regarding voluntary self-disclosures.  Overview of the New, Comprehensive CEP - Like the former Criminal Division Policy, the CEP includes three paths under which a company may benefit from self-disclosure:  Declination Under the CEP.  “Near Miss” Voluntary Self-Disclosures or Aggravating Factors Warranting Resolutions.”  Resolutions in Other Cases.  However, the hallmark tenants of the new CEP include revisions to the requirements and benefits under the policy.  Path 1: What Makes a Declination?  Mirroring the Criminal Division Policy, if a company voluntarily self-discloses misconduct, DOJ will decline to prosecute so long as the company:  Timely and voluntarily discloses the misconduct to an appropriate DOJ component or agency.  Fully cooperated with DOJ’s investigation.  Timely and appropriately remediated the misconduct where no aggravating circumstances exist.  Importantly, declinations approved under the CEP will be publicly announced. Employers must also meet a number of requirements to qualify for declination of prosecution under the CEP.  Voluntariness of the self-disclosure - To be considered voluntary, the company must report to the appropriate Department with the DOJ prior to an imminent threat of disclosure or government investigation and within a reasonably prompt time after becoming aware of the misconduct.  Factual disclosures of misconduct - Next, full cooperation requires disclosure of all facts and non-privileged information relevant to the misconduct including identification of all individuals (both internal and external to the company) involved in or responsible for the misconduct.  Timeliness of the self-disclosure - Finally, timely and appropriate remediation requires effective root cause analysis of the wrongdoing and prompt remediation of the root causes which allowed the conduct to occur.  Previously, self-disclosure needed to be made within 120 days of the whistleblower’s report.  Now, corporations must self-report “as soon as reasonably practicable but no later than 120 days after receiving the whistleblower’s internal report.” This makes timely disclosure paramount. Companies should also implement an effective compliance program if one did not previously exist.  Path 2: “Near Miss” Voluntary Self-Disclosures of Aggravating Factors Warranting Resolution - The “Near Miss” path applies to companies that do not qualify for routine declination under Part I solely because:  It acted in good faith by self-reporting the misconduct, but that self-report did not qualify as a voluntary disclosure.  It had aggravating factors that warrant a criminal resolution.  Under the “Near Miss” path, companies will receive a non-prosecution agreement with a term of fewer than three years, no independent compliance monitor, and a 50 to 75% reduction off the low end in the fine range due under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The Criminal Division Policy provided for a 75% reduction. This change highlights prosecutorial discretion and the necessity of having a strong advocate when self-disclosing to DOJ.  Path 3: Resolutions in Other Cases - This section remains mostly the same under the new CEP.  If a company is ineligible for the preceding paths, DOJ retains discretion to determine appropriate resolution. This can include reductions in fines and penalties, with only a maximum 50% reduction in the monetary penalty available for companies who are ineligible for Parts 1 or 2.  What the CEP Means for Corporate Self-Disclosure Moving Forward - The CEP’s main benefit to corporations is the uniformity it imposes on the self-disclosure process. Under the CEP, there are no division-specific or jurisdiction-specific requirements to be eligible for declination of prosecution or other benefits associated with self-disclosure. Companies of all sizes will benefit from well-established compliance systems and related internal reporting programs which will support early detection and correction of potential wrongdoing.  Importantly, the CEP applies only to criminal investigations, not civil investigations. Companies should ensure they consider the impact of self-disclosure under the CEP on parallel or subsequent civil investigations or enforcement actions.  Superseded Policies - As previously noted, the new DOJ-wide CEP not only replaces the Criminal Division Policy but also preempts corporate enforcement policies from other United States Attorneys’ Offices. This results in uniformity for corporations and their representation regardless of the jurisdiction or misconduct at issue.  Specific DOJ components and USAOs have the discretion to develop practices that comport with and do not run afoul of the new CEP. However, the release of the new CEP led to component- or district-specific formal policies being preempted as of March 10.  That said, there are still some unanswered questions. One hot-button issue is how the new CEP affects the Southern District of New York’s USAO’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Program for Financial Crimes, issued on Feb. 24 of this year.  4 Key Takeaways for Employers - Now is the time for the companies to review and evaluate their compliance policies to ensure they are educating all employees on the company’s compliance expectations and internal reporting systems when noncompliance is suspected. Speed is key. Although the decision to self-disclose is fact-specific and difficult, the CEP incentivizes swift disclosures and punishes delays.  Take this opportunity to educate senior management on the self-disclosure requirements and the benefits for self-reporting potential criminal wrongdoing. These changes reflect the need for effective internal controls and robust compliance programs. This will support efficient decision making should the organization need to make a rapid decision regarding potential self-reporting.  Internal investigations must be thorough and well documented. The relevant facts and individuals involved may need to be disclosed, if the company wishes to obtain credit for self-disclosing to the DOJ.  There is now uniformity, given the new Department-wide CEP applies to all criminal matters (with the exception of antitrust). Companies considering self-disclosure will need to assess where to self-report based on a DOJ component, USAO’s jurisdiction or professional relationships established.  Source:  SHRM HR Daily, 05/05/2026, by Brandon B. Brown, Christopher Merken, Raymond Perez, and Heidi Woll

ICE Redefines “Substantive “ I-9 Violations –    ICE has made recent changes to policies related to Form I-9 compliance.  While the recent surge in federal worksite enforcement has captured headlines, a much quieter policy update behind the scenes appears to significantly raise the stakes for employers facing a Form I-9 inspection.  ICE reclassified several common administrative Form I-9 errors as ‘substantive’ violations, significantly raising the stakes for employers facing audits. As a result, mistakes that might have been treated as correctable clerical errors could now be subject to immediate monetary penalties following a Form I-9 inspection.  ICE updated its Form I-9 inspection fact sheet online, where the agency’s apparent departure from established practice was revealed: errors that for many years have been classified as technical or procedural violations as now substantive violations.  Since 1996, the federal government split I-9 paperwork violations into two categories:  Substantive violations that could lead to hiring an unauthorized worker or Technical or procedural violations for administrative or clerical mistakes that could be easily corrected.  Critically, immigration law provides employers with a statutory defense for technical failures.  If ICE identifies a technical error during an audit, they must provide the employer with a minimum of 10 business days to correct the oversight before a fine can be issued. It was established that many minor oversights could be treated as correctable technical errors, provided the employer acted in good faith.  The newly revised ICE fact sheet updates these longstanding definitions, reclassifying several common errors as substantive, including:  Missing date of birth, date of hire, Incorrect use of Spanish-language I-9 outside of Puerto Rico, Preparer and/or translator errors. ICE notes that a failure to ensure that the preparer and/or translator’s complete name, address, signature, and date are provided on the Form I-9 at the time of completion in Supplement A is a substantive violation.  Missing title of the employer or authorized representative, Failure to date sections 1 or 2, Failure to enter rehire date. ICE notes that failure to provide the date of rehire in Supplement B would now be substantive.  Under the new ICE guidance, procedural failures related to the 2023 remote verification procedure are now to be classified as substantive violations, including failing to check the alternative procedure box in Section 2 or Supplement B indicating that remote inspection was used; and failing to be an active E-Verify participant at the time the alternative procedure was used.  Many organizations have transitioned to electronic I-9 software to help streamline the onboarding process, but while using the right software can help reduce mistakes, ICE’s updated guidelines reflect that simply digitizing the form is not enough.  If an electronic I-9 system’s audit trails, electronic signature protocols, or security documentation fall short of specific standards, the procedural failures of the software may be treated as substantive violations for the employer.  The key takeaway for employers is that the margin for administrative error during an I-9 audit has narrowed.  Practices that were previously correctable may now result in immediate fines.  It is recommended employers continue to conduct routine I-9 assessments, review virtual I-9 procedures, evaluate electronic I-9 systems, and enhance I-9 training.  Ensure that HR professionals, managers, or recruiters involved in I-9 completion understand the rules for completing I-9s and the importance of ensuring accurate dates and entries.  Source:  SHRM HR Daily, 04/10/2026, by Roy Maurer

EEOC Reports Record Recoveries, Signals Continue Enforcement  -  The EEOC is touting a strong year for enforcement, reporting $660 million recovered for victims of workplace discrimination in fiscal year 2025. This is its third-highest total to date and a signal to employers that enforcement activity remains robust.  According to the agency’s latest performance report, the bulk of that recovery — $528 million — came through pre-litigation efforts such as mediation, conciliation, and settlements before a formal cause finding. That figure represents the highest pre-litigation recovery in the EEOC’s 60-year history and a 12% increase over fiscal year 2024. Litigation also contributed $27 million for more than 2,500 individuals, while federal sector resolutions accounted for $104.6 million for over 1,800 employees and applicants.  The agency highlighted notable gains in conciliation and systemic enforcement. Conciliation alone delivered $52.5 million for workers, a 24% increase year over year. Meanwhile, systemic investigations generated $55 million in recoveries, alongside a 20% increase in resolutions and a 115% jump in monetary benefits compared to the prior year.  These record-breaking recoveries are the result of an Administration committed to upholding our nation’s civil rights laws through colorblind, merit-based, and evenhanded enforcement. The EEOC is proud to deliver on that commitment and will continue to fight discrimination wherever it occurs.  Operationally, the EEOC reported increased demand for its services alongside modest efficiency gains. The agency handled nearly 270,000 public inquiries in fiscal year 2025, up almost 9% from the previous year. It processed 88,201 new discrimination charges and resolved more than 90,700 charges — a 4% increase — while reducing its private sector charge inventory by 4%.  The federal sector also saw notable improvements. The EEOC reported a 67% increase in appellate resolutions for federal employees, driven by efforts to streamline processes and improve timeliness under current leadership.  What Employers Should Do Now - Employers should be aware that enforcement risk remains high, particularly at the pre-litigation stage. It is therefore important to prioritize early resolution strategies, including effective internal complaint procedures and well-trained managers who can identify and escalate issues before they reach the EEOC.  Organizations should also revisit their conciliation and mediation approaches. With the EEOC securing record recoveries through these channels, employers that engage proactively and in good faith may be better positioned to manage both financial and reputational risk.  The uptick in systemic investigations underscores the importance of auditing workplace policies and practices for patterns that could trigger broader scrutiny. Pay equity reviews, promotion analyses, and consistent documentation practices can help mitigate exposure as the agency continues to emphasize large-scale impact cases.  Source:  SHRM HR Daily, 04/08/2026, by Rachel Zheliabovskii

AI governance really matters amid evolving compliance landscape – There’s a famous saying you’ve probably heard about building the plane while flying it, but for AI governance pros, there’s no hangar in sight. It seems like building AI (rplane) governance systems will continue to occur on the fly.  As AI tools inside the workplace evolve from experimentation and beta testing to a core part of everyday infrastructure, an ongoing challenge faces the pros charged with guiding deployment and use, and managing the technology’s risk. While organizations push forward with AI tools and new processes, the legal and regulatory environment remains laggard, fragmented, and often fluid, making governance a complicated task. “What our clients are dealing with is—in some ways—very similar to what they’ve been dealing with for the past three years, which is uncertainty,” said Proceptual founder and CEO John Rood, who helps companies with AI governance and compliance efforts. “Not only do we not know what government, at what level, will pass what legislation with any reasonable certainty, we also don’t know if legislation is passed, it will actually be put into effect.”  Lagging. AI legislation and regulation lags significantly behind development and deployment, according to Rood.  State-level efforts in places like Illinois and Texas are continuing to evolve. Colorado’s marquee AI governance law has been undergoing changes and revisions since its adoption. The European Union AI Act has also faced delays and revisions ahead of enforcement.  The resulting persistent uncertainty means companies and their compliance and legal teams lack clarity on what rules will exist and how compliance and enforcement will be pursued.  Enforcement. Even where rules do exist, enforcement is far from settled. Rood pointed to a recent Cornell University study indicating abysmally low participation in New York City’s Local Law 144, which requires employers using Automated Employment Decision Tools for hiring or promotions in NYC undergo bias audits, share results publicly, and notify candidates of their use. Only 5% of NYC companies that were hiring listed audit results, and another 4% complied with transparency notice requirements.  Rood suggested that even those results may be skewed towards compliance, noting that there’s been little enforcement momentum on the part of the city.  Vendors. Deployers are asking vendors to carry more weight as uncertainty persists, HR and enterprise customers are increasingly asking their vendors to help them both understand compliance and provide them with stronger governance, transparency and risk controls in order to play fairly.  “There’s an evolving expectation in the vendor and in the vendor-implementer relationship, where the implementers or deployers of AI systems are pushing a little bit harder on vendors than they have in past years,” Rood said.  Lawsuits against vendors like Workday and Eightfold AI have also raised questions about accountability when AI systems potentially (and allegedly) produce biased or discriminatory outcomes.  What’s HR to do? Rood pointed to established frameworks from both the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as a good place to get a compliance and governance strategy that can mitigate risk.  “What we advise clients on now…is to really think about a broad compliance program companies need to be implementing—either the NIST AI Risk Management Framework or ISO 42001 or both—because ultimately that’s going to capture 95% plus of any foreseeable regulation,” he said.  ISO 42001 is a certifiable international standard focusing on formal management systems governing AI use. The NIST AI RMF is a voluntary US-based framework that offers guidance, but no formal certification. Both are aligned with where Rood suggests the eventual compliance landscape may land.  “The actual mechanisms of both the frameworks are like 90% the same,” he said. “ISO tends to be a little bit more process driven. Whereas NIST is more values driven. But functionally…there’s not a lot of meaningful distinctions that really change the way that an organization would implement their governance frameworks based on those differences.”  Governance aligned with either (or both) the NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001 is a good first step, but Rood also recommended layering good governance standards and controls based on prominent frameworks for specific industries and incorporating company-specific risks and corporate and employer values as well.
Source:  HRBrew.com, 04/07/2026, by Adam DeRose

DOL Proposes Overhaul to Worker Classification Rules – The DOL Wage & Hour Division (WHD) unveiled a proposed rule that would rescind the 2024 independent contractor classification rule under the FLSA and replace it with a framework more closely aligned with earlier economic reality tests and long-standing legal principles used in federal courts across the country.  The move marks a shift in federal policymaking on worker classification that could reshape compliance obligations for employers across industries. The change reflects the 2024 rule which had set forth a structured six-factor plus an additional catchall provision test intended to clarify when a worker is an employee versus an independent contractor was flawed and resulted in uncertainty for both employers and workers.  The DOL would essentially reinstate an economic reality test similar to that used in the 2021 rule while also eliminating the current 2024 framework codified in 29 CFR part 795. The core inquiry in this test focuses on whether a worker is economically dependent on an employer and thus an employee or truly in business for themselves as a contractor.   To aid in that analysis, the rule identifies two primary factors that will carry the most weight: the nature and degree of control over the work and the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss based on initiative or investment. Additional considerations include skill level, permanence of the relationship, and whether the work is integrated into the employer’s business. This proposed reversion to an economic reality framework could have important practical implications. The WHD emphasizes that actual work practices not just contractual language will be central to classification assessments, signaling to employers that compliance hinges on day-to-day labor arrangements rather than formal agreements alone. This mirrors how courts have historically evaluated misclassification under the FLSA, which governs minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping requirements but does not apply to true independent contractors.  The proposed rule would apply the same classification analysis to the FMLA and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) both of which incorporate the FLSA’s definition of employ. By aligning classification criteria across these statutes, the DOL seeks to simplify compliance for employers while promoting consistency in enforcement.  What HR Should Know Now - With regard to litigation, the effect of this proposed rule may be limited.  In the aftermath of Loper Bright, federal courts are to give less deference to ‘guidance’ from federal agencies.  Plus, the ping-ponging of the USDOL on this issue could give courts a second reason to be unimpressed.  That said, employers would be wise to comply with the rule, regardless of how much weight courts give it. An employer will be able to argue that reliance on it is a show of good faith sufficient to defeat a claim that any FLSA violations were willful.  Going forward, HR professionals should take the following steps to ensure compliance:  Strategic Risk Assessments Matter More Than Ever - HR teams should scrutinize the actual working relationship, including decision-making authority, how assignments are managed, the degree of autonomy, and economic dependency. This is especially crucial for businesses that rely heavily on contingent labor, such as IT consultants, gig-economy partners, and freelance professionals. Documentation Still Counts - But Isn’t Everything - While written contracts remain important, they no longer provide a safe harbor if actual practices contradict their terms. HR must coordinate closely with legal counsel to ensure that workforce documentation contracts, invoices, performance reviews, and engagement records reflects how work is performed in practice.  Understand Risks Across Laws - Because the DOL would extend this classification standard to FMLA and MSPA, HR practitioners must consider how worker status affects not just wage/hour protections but also leave entitlements and protections for migrant or seasonal workers. A misstep in classification could expose employers to compliance violations under multiple federal laws.  Comments Period Offers Engagement Opportunity - The DOL is accepting public comments on the proposal through April 28, 2026. HR professionals and employer associations may want to weigh in during the 60-day comment period if they believe aspects of the rule need clarification or adjustment to better reflect workforce realities.  Source:  SHRM HR Daily, 03/02/2026, by Rachel Zheliabovskii

Do Employees Have Constitutional Rights at Work?  - Many employees believe the U.S. Constitution protects their speech and actions at work. However, constitutional rights usually protect people from the government, not from private employers.  This means that, in most private workplaces, employees do not have the same constitutional protections as they do in public spaces. The right to free speech limits what the government can control, but it does not stop a private employer from setting workplace rules about behavior or communication.  When employees believe their “rights” are being violated, it can lead to confusion or conflict. HR should help employees understand that, while they still have legal protections under certain labor and employment laws, constitutional rights generally apply only to government employers.  Clear communication about workplace policies can help prevent misunderstandings and reduce disciplinary issues.  Why Constitutional Rights Don’t Apply the Same Way at Work - The U.S. Constitution is designed to limit government power, not private organizations. Rights such as free speech, freedom of expression, and privacy protect individuals from government action, but they generally do not prevent a private employer from setting rules inside its business.  When employees walk into a private workplace, they enter a contractual relationship in which they agree to follow company policies, codes of conduct, safety rules, and performance standards in exchange for pay and benefits.  What Rights Do Employees Have at Work? - This does not mean employees lose all rights at work. Instead, their rights come from a different legal framework. Employees are protected by federal and state labor laws, workplace safety regulations, anti-discrimination statutes, employment contracts, and collective bargaining agreements, where applicable.  Certain activities, such as discussing wages or working conditions, are protected by law even in non-union workplaces.  Why Employers Need Workplace Rules - Employers rely on rules to operate effectively. They must manage productivity, protect customers and employees, safeguard confidential information, and limit legal and safety risks. Without the authority to set and enforce standards, a business cannot function.  Problems arise, however, when rules are unclear, inconsistently enforced, or communicated in a way that feels arbitrary or disrespectful.  Balancing Authority with Effective Leadership - Strong organizations manage this balance by clearly defining expectations, applying rules consistently, training supervisors to explain not just what the rules are but why they exist, and addressing issues professionally rather than punitively whenever possible. While employers may have broad authority, effective leadership goes beyond simply exercising power.  Helping Employees Navigate Workplace Expectations -

Employees can navigate this reality by understanding that the workplace is not a public forum. Managing personal expression, learning company policies, asking questions when expectations are unclear, and using proper internal channels to raise concerns all help prevent unnecessary conflict.  Creating a Healthier Workplace - The healthiest workplaces recognize the boundary between constitutional freedoms and workplace authority. When employers lead with clarity and fairness, and employees understand the rules of the environment in which they work, both sides are better positioned for mutual respect, accountability, and long-term success.  Source:  AIM HR Edge, 3/3/2026

Trump agencies return to business-friendly standards for gig worker, joint-employer status – Federal labor agencies recently overturned two Biden-era policies concerning gig worker and joint employer status.  The decisions could have implications for organizations that employ large shares of independent contractors, or those that work for franchisors or staffing firms.  DOL moves to rescind 2024 independent contractor rule.  The DOL announced a proposed rule for determining whether an employee is an independent contractor under the FLSA.  The rule would rescind a 2024 regulation issued by President Biden’s administration that directed businesses to take into account a number of factors when determining independent contractor status, including the degree and permanence of the work relationship, and investments by the worker and employer. Under this multifactor economic reality model, no one consideration should take precedence over another. Federal courts have long deferred to this model when hearing cases regarding FLSA classification.  Trump’s second administration is seeking to rescind this rule and replace it with a regulation similar to one issued in 2021 that never took effect. The proposed rule would retain the economic reality test, but direct employers to consider two core factors when determining if an employee is an independent contractor: The nature and degree of control over the work, and the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss based on initiative and/or investment. Under this model, employers could take other factors into account, but they would be given less weight than the two main considerations.  The Trump administration’s proposed model is considered more business-friendly, as it’s expected to make it easier for employers to classify workers as independent contractors. These workers typically lack benefits extended to their full-time counterparts, such as a full minimum wage, overtime pay, and workers’ compensation.  The policy was intended to protect workers entrepreneurial spirit and simplify compliance for American job creators navigating a modern workplace.  NLRB withdraws Biden-era joint-employer rule - The NLRB said it’s withdrawing a rule for determining joint-employer status.  The Biden-era rule, would have made it easier for two businesses to qualify as a joint-employer of a group of employees. It was expected to have an impact on businesses that hire workers through staffing firms, potentially putting large firms on the hook for unfair labor practices that occur at the workplaces in their purview.  The final rule issued by the Trump administration officially reinstates a 2020 rule for determining joint-employer status, under the rule that the NLRB reinstated, joint employer status depends on whether a business exercises substantial direct and immediate control” over at least one essential term and condition of another company’s employees.  Source:  HR-Brew.com 03/04/2026, by Courtney Vinopal