October Government Affairs Newsletter

MA PFML Figures Updated for 2027! - Overall Contributions Remain Unchanged but Are Now Restructured and Reallocated Differently. Benefits Continue to Rise! Posters and Notices Have Yet to Be Updated - Under the MA PFML law, the Massachusetts Department of Paid Family and Medical Leave (MDPFML) is responsible for setting the contribution rates and benefit amounts no later than October 1st for the following calendar year’s contributions and benefit allocation thresholds. Well, the MDPFML announced the rates for 2027 as follows:  Contributions:  In the wake of Chapter 101 of the Acts of 2026, the contribution framework has been restructured so that employer contributions (specifically for employers with 25 or more employees) are now supporting the family leave (rather than the medical leave) component of the PFML program.  This legislative change was undertaken to lessen the impact of IRS Revenue Ruling 2025-4 ) that is slated to fully go into effect on January 1st which would have otherwise triggered new FITW, FICA, FUTA, and W-2/third-party sick-pay reporting obligations for employers.  Employers with fewer than 25 employees remain exempt from the employer contribution component of the program (though employee contributions will continue to apply and support both family and medical leave components of the program regardless of company size).  Therefore, for 2027, employers with 25 or more employees will still be responsible for .42% of the .88% contribution figure with the employee share accounting for the remaining .46% (though that .42% employer contribution figure – again – will now be allocated to the family leave component instead).  Benefits:  The maximum PFML benefit is adjusted by accounting for the state average weekly wage and based upon their formula, the Department has announced that maximum weekly PFML benefit will be rising from the 2026 benefit amount of $1230.39 per week to $1284.61 per week for benefits paid out on or after January 1st, 2027.  These changes come as the MDPFML paid out $1,409,139,430.93 in PFML benefits during the July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026 period which is an increase of 13.5% from the benefits paid out in the prior fiscal year.  The average duration of a claim lasted approximately 11.63 weeks (with the average medical leave being 12.52 weeks and the average family leave being 9.59 weeks).  13.67% of all submitted claim requests were denied for various reasons (which is a drop from the 15.06% rate of denied claims last year).   Updated Notices Still Pending: The DPFML has yet to update its annual notices and workplace poster to account for these updated figures.  Employer Next Steps: Employers are advised to continue to check Department’s page as we expect those materials to be updated in the coming weeks as employers are to provide those updated notices once they become available.  Source:  EANE, E-Alert, 10/6/2026, by Mark Adams

USCIS Proposes Ending Deference to Prior Visa Approvals - USCIS is proposing to require officers to independently reassess eligibility for temporary work visas, even when the worker, employer, and underlying circumstances remain unchanged, a move that could increase scrutiny, processing delays, and uncertainty for employers sponsoring foreign talent.  USCIS estimates that approximately 208,000 extension applications annually would be affected, with H-1B petitions accounting for about 75% of the total. The proposal would also affect H-2A agricultural workers, H-2B seasonal workers, L-1 intracompany transferees, and TN professionals from Canada and Mexico.  The agency will accept public comments for 30 days. The proposal would not immediately change how USCIS adjudicates pending or future petitions; the agency would need to issue a final rule before implementing the change.  Under the current regulation, USCIS generally defers to previous approvals involving the same employer, worker, and material facts unless there was a significant change in circumstances, a material error in the earlier decision, or new information that adversely affects eligibility.  The Biden administration codified and expanded the policy in late 2024, seeking to provide employers with greater predictability when sponsoring foreign workers. The proposal now seeks to reverse that approach.  The agency stated that eliminating deference would strengthen oversight and ensure that employers continue to demonstrate eligibility for immigration benefits, placing the burden of proof on petitioners and supporting efforts to protect U.S. workers and maintain the integrity of the immigration system.  The issue has a history of shifting policy. The first Trump administration rescinded the deference policy in 2017, broadening officers’ authority to reassess eligibility with each extension request. The Biden administration reinstated the policy in 2021 before codifying it in 2024.  After the 2017 rescission, denial rates for H-1B and L-1 extensions increased significantly. H-1B extension denials reached 24%, while L-1 denials reached 35%. Current rates are approximately 3.5% and 9%, respectively, according to USCIS.  If finalized, the proposal could make retaining foreign employees more difficult, even when their roles and qualifications have not changed. USCIS acknowledges that the policy could increase costs, uncertainty, and operational disruptions for employers and workers.  For employers it would mean more evidence requests, additional preparation costs, and less predictable staffing and project planning.  For sponsored workers the foreseeable consequences would be greater uncertainty about continued employment and the career and family plans built around it.  Until a final rule is issued, the existing deference policy remains in effect. But HR and immigration teams should prepare for the possibility of more requests for evidence, longer adjudication timelines, more extensive documentation requirements, and increased legal and administrative expenses.  Ending Automatic EAD Extensions:  USCIS is also finalizing a policy that eliminates the automatic extension of EADs for certain foreign nationals renewing their work permits, reinforcing the risk of employment gaps for workers whose applications remain pending. The final rule takes effect Oct. 14 but does not introduce any new operational change for most employers.  The final rule codifies without changes an interim final rule issued in October 2025 that eliminated the maximum 540-day automatic extension for eligible EAD renewal applications filed on or after 10/30/25. The policy took effect last year, and the final rule makes the change permanent after USCIS considered public comments.  Under the rule, affected employees generally lose work authorization when their EAD expires and cannot resume employment until USCIS approves their renewal, unless they have another basis for work authorization. The final rule does not affect EADs automatically extended before 10/30/25.  The policy affects several categories of foreign nationals, including adjustment of status applicants, H-4 spouses, and individuals with Temporary Protected Status.  The change does not affect spouses of L-1 workers who are authorized to work incident to their immigration status. Their work authorization can continue beyond the expiration of an EAD as long as their underlying status remains valid. F-1 students applying for a science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) optional practical training extension also remain eligible for a separate 180-day automatic extension when they timely file their applications.  The elimination of the 540-day extension could create challenges for employers seeking to retain employees whose work authorization renewals are delayed.  USCIS reported that, as of June 30, more than 432,000 EAD renewal applications had been pending for at least six months, including more than 91,000 that had been pending for more than 18 months. Because most applicants cannot submit renewal applications more than 180 days before their current EAD expires, lengthy processing times can leave employees unable to work while awaiting approval.  Affected employees, including H-4 EAD holders and adjustment of status applicants, should file renewal applications as early as permitted and monitor their cases closely. HR should also establish processes to track expiration dates, communicate renewal timelines, and assess potential workforce disruptions.  Employers must ensure that employees do not continue working after their authorization expires unless they have another valid basis for employment.  Source:  SHRM HR Daily, by Roy Maurer, 10/14/26

Noncompete agreements may not do what they’re supposed to do - A recent study found that including this restriction in a contract not only makes it difficult to hire workers, it also does not prevent information leaks.  Researchers found no evidence that including a noncompete agreement in an employment contract reduced the leakage of sensitive data beyond what a standard nondisclosure agreement already provides. Notably, removing a noncompete agreement in a worker’s contract increased mobility between competing employers by between 36% and 52% and raised an employee’s total wages by between 12% and 17%. Moreover, workers didn’t negotiate over noncompete terms, and were not any more likely to agree to increased compensation if they were randomly offered a noncompete.  The study found that when companies were transparent about adding a noncompete rather than hiding it in a contract, it became more difficult to attract workers. Those who agreed to accept the terms of the noncompete were also more likely to violate that restriction.  Despite attempts by the Federal Trade Commission to regulate noncompete clauses, employers have argued that noncompetes are needed to guard trade secrets — and that workers would not agree to give up future job options unless they were compensated for it.  Many employees simply don’t read the noncompetes in the contracts, and a substantial share remained unaware of the restriction until firms contacted them after employment. Even when noncompetes end up being unenforceable, such as in California, where the clause was legally voided in 2024, worker mobility was the same as when noncompetes were enforceable.  In other words, the law doesn’t matter. The presence of the clause alone changes behavior.  The study found that by removing noncompetes, worker mobility substantially increased without any increased risk of trade-secret leakage. That finding suggests that NDAs on their own offer comparable protection to nondisclosures. Companies should carefully weigh the perceived benefits of noncompetes against the potential for candidate drop-off and the possibility that workers willing to sign restrictive clauses may also be more likely to violate them.  This offers a potential blueprint for companies that want to evaluate other restrictive contractual terms, such as NDAs, training repayment agreement provisions, no solicitation clauses and no-poach agreements.  Last year, the FTC agreed to dismiss its appeals in two separate legal challenges stemming from its 2024 Biden-era ban on noncompetes. Source:  HRDive, Lara Ewen, 10/13/26