Workplace Compliance News & Resources
Get the latest safety and workplace compliance news and resources from the federal, state, and local government levels. Below you’ll find late-breaking news, an interactive state map, the latest federal news, and minimum wage changes.
We try to keep it easy to understand and give you some general considerations on what to do, but we always recommend that businesses seek legal counsel for further advice and guidance on your particular situation.
Wherever available, KPA products are updated with the latest government notices and posters for employers.
Who: All employers
When: Effective immediately
On May 28, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division released four opinion letters interpreting federal wage and hour requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Opinion letters are formal responses to specific factual scenarios submitted to the agency. While they are not legally binding, they can be useful to employers when defending an employee-challenged practice in court. The guidance in these letters interprets the FLSA and does not affect any state or local wage and hour laws that impose stricter requirements.
Opinion letter FLSA2026-5 addresses whether an employee who works in both an exempt position and a separate non-exempt hourly role can retain exempt status. The DOL found that the employee is exempt as long as the employee’s primary duty remains in the exempt position, even if the employee occasionally works substantial hours in a non-exempt role. Employers may pay such employees hourly for the supplemental non-exempt work without violating the salary-basis requirement.
Opinion letter FLSA2026-6 addresses whether calculating each employee’s bonus based on the group’s total straight-time and overtime pay count as a “percentage of total earnings” bonus? And if so, does the employer still have to go back and recalculate the regular rate and pay extra overtime on top of the bonus? The DOL said yes to the first question and no to the second question. Because the bonus formula is already tied to actual hours-based pay (including OT), it already reflects the overtime math, so there’s nothing left to recalculate. Caveat: This is true as long as the bonus formula excludes amounts such as gifts, discretionary bonuses, and benefit contributions.
Opinion letter FLSA2026-7 addresses whether time an employee spends traveling off-premises during an unpaid meal break is compensable. The DOL concluded that it is not, provided the employer fully relieves the employee of their duties during the break. An employee’s voluntary decision to leave the premises during the break does not convert travel time into compensable work. Employers may require employees to remain on the premises for a 30-minute or longer unpaid meal period.
Opinion letter FLSA2026-8 discusses a hospital’s timekeeping practices, including unpaid pre-shift activities, time-clock rounding, and the treatment of short periods as de minimis. The DOL noted that pre-shift work ,such as receiving patient handoffs, is integral and indispensable to the job and is therefore compensable, while time spent waiting in line to clock in or out generally is not. Rounding practices are lawful only if , in the aggregate, they do not favor the employer over the employee. The DOL cautioned that timekeeping systems capable of recording exact times make it more difficult to treat work that an employee performs regularly as de minimis.
How:
- Review the opinion letters and update your wage and hour policies as needed.
- Audit your pre-shift timekeeping and rounding practices for accuracy.
- Confirm that you are in compliance with applicable state and local wage and hour laws.
Additional Resources
U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division
U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Opinion Letters
Who: All employers
When: Effective immediately
On January 5, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released six new opinion letters that address various Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) topics, including using FMLA leave in conjunction with partial-week school closures, FMLA time travel for medical appointments, overtime exemptions, which bonuses to include in regular rate of pay calculations, and classifying employees as exempt. DOL opinion letters are not legally binding; they provide guidance for interpreting the law and how to apply it in the workplace.
Opinion Letter FMLA2026-1 states that a school closure counts against FMLA leave only if the employee is scheduled to work that day. There is an exception to that rule: If the employee is taking a full week of FMLA leave, they must count the full week against their leave even if the school closes for part of that week.
Opinion Letter FMLA2026-2 states that an employee may use FMLA leave for travel time to and from medical appointments related to the employee’s serious health condition or to care for a covered family member. Time spent on unrelated activities is not covered under FMLA.
Opinion Letter FLSA2026-1 states that the FLSA does not require employers to classify an employee as exempt even if that employee meets exemption criteria. Employers may choose to classify exempt employees as non-exempt as long as they comply with minimum wage and overtime requirements.
Opinion Letter FLSA2026-2 states that employers must include incentive bonuses for safety, attendance, compliance, and performance in the regular rate of pay for the purpose of calculating overtime pay. Employers may exclude only discretionary bonuses from the regular rate of pay calculations, and the bonuses in question do not meet the criteria since they fall under a plan that sets eligibility criteria and bonus amounts in advance.
Opinion Letter FLSA2026-3 states that a mandatory 15-minute pre-shift “roll call” required by a collective bargaining agreement is compensable time, and overtime rules apply. The FLSA has two partial exemptions under sections 7(b)(1) and 7(b)(2) of the FLSA that may apply depending on how the collective bargaining agreement is structured.
Opinion Letter FMLA2026-4 clarified the overtime exemption for certain commissioned employees of service and retail establishments. To be exempt from overtime pay:
- The regular rate of pay must exceed 1.5 times the federal minimum wage, regardless of a higher state minimum wage; and
- Commissions must exceed 50% of the compensation for a representative period of at least one month.
How:
- Familiarize yourself with the opinion letters.
- Seek legal counsel as needed.
Additional Resources:
Who: All employers
When: Effective immediately
On June 4, 2026, the EEOC voted to replace the Biden administration’s Fiscal Year 2024–2028 Strategic Enforcement Plan with the National Enforcement Plan (NEP) for Fiscal Years 2025–2029. The NEP sets the agency’s subject-matter priorities across outreach, technical assistance, enforcement, and litigation.
The NEP prioritizes disparate treatment claims over disparate-impact claims. Disparate-impact liability remains codified in Title VII and continues to be available to private plaintiffs, but the EEOC states it will eliminate disparate impact from its own investigations “to the maximum degree possible” and will not pursue disparate-impact litigation, consistent with a 2025 executive order on the subject.
The plan singles out programs framed as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or similar terms for scrutiny. Cited examples include:
- Race- or sex-based quotas or “aspirational goals;”
- Diverse hiring panel policies;
- Mandatory diversity statements;
- Employee demographic data shared with non-HR personnel; and
- Executive compensation tied to diversity metrics.
The NEP also prioritizes cases that could clarify the application of several recent Supreme Court decisions, including Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services; Muldrow v. St. Louis; Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard; Groff v. DeJoy on religious accommodations; Bostock v. Clayton County on single-sex spaces, the right to express the binary nature of sex, and religious accommodation; and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
Additional stated priorities include hiring practices that give preference to foreign national workers, protections for vulnerable workers such as low-wage earners and workers with disabilities, and retaliation against employees who participate in EEOC proceedings.
The plan does not change existing anti-discrimination law, but it indicates the enforcement priorities the EEOC intends to pursue for the remainder of the current administration. A related June 9, 2026, DOJ opinion questioning the constitutionality of disparate-impact liability reinforces the same enforcement direction.
How:
- Audit DEI programs, policies, and job postings for quotas or diversity-linked practices.
- Review your hiring procedures, job postings, recruitment info, and immigration policies for language that could function as a race, sex, or national origin proxy.
- Train HR staff and managers on unbiased decision-making.
- Confirm compliance with state and local anti-discrimination laws.
- Monitor for new guidance from the EEOC and other federal agencies.
Additional Resources
National Enforcement Plan (NEP) Fiscal years 2025-2029
Constitutionality of Disparate-Impact Liability Under Title VII
Who: All employers
When: Effective immediately
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal opinion that concluded that key aspects of the EEOC’s longstanding approach to disparate-impact liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are unconstitutional. The opinion aligns with Executive Order 14281, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” which rejected disparate-impact liability as creating a nearly insurmountable presumption of discrimination based solely on differences in outcomes among groups.
Disparate-impact liability, first recognized by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and later codified in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, differs from intentional discrimination claims because it focuses on the effects of a policy that is neutral on the surface rather than an employer’s motive. For decades, employers have relied on the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures to validate hiring and promotion practices against disparate-impact challenges.
The opinion does not change Title VII, eliminate disparate-impact claims, or alter existing Supreme Court precedent or state laws. Private plaintiffs may still bring such claims, and courts remain bound by current law. Instead, the opinion signals how the DOJ believes governing agencies should interpret the law going forward.
The opinion recommends three changes to the current framework. First, it argues that an employer should need to show only that a practice is rational or serves a legitimate business purpose rather than having to complete a formal validation study. Governing bodies should generally consider common tools such as background checks, aptitude tests, and standardized assessments as job-related unless the plaintiff proves otherwise.
Second, it states that a plaintiff must identify the specific practice that caused the disparity rather than relying on general workforce imbalances. Third, it requires a plaintiff to identify an alternative practice that would be less discriminatory and equally effective in terms of the employer’s business needs.
The opinion also questioned the EEOC’s validation-study requirements for selection procedures as overly burdensome and characterized the agency’s voluntary Affirmative Action Guidelines as likely unconstitutional.
While the opinion reflects a significant shift in the federal government’s posture, it has not been tested in court. Any formal change to the EEOC’s own regulations or guidance still requires a separate administrative process. Civil rights advocates argue that disparate-impact claims remain an important tool for addressing discriminatory barriers to employment and that the opinion does not alter the text or purpose of Title VII.
How:
- Review your existing equal employment opportunity policies and practices.
- Review your hiring practices to check for possible discriminatory impact.
- Review your DEI programs and policies to ensure there is no imposition of illegal requirements related to protected characteristics.
- Monitor for formal guidance changes from the EEOC.
- Confirm your compliance with applicable state and municipal anti-discrimination laws.
Additional Resources
Executive Order 14281 Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy
2026 Minimum Wage Updates
KPA tracks state and local minimum wage changes for our Vera HR customers, providing them with updated labor posters and more.
Check out the latest minimum wage changes for 2026, typically updated in December and June to ensure you know about the majority of increases before taking effect on January 1 and July 1.
Resources for Success
OSHA Reporting Resource Hub
If regulatory paperwork makes your head spin, have no fear—the workforce safety and compliance professionals at KPA are here to help.
We’ve created this resource hub chock full of OSHA recordkeeping and reporting best practices to help keep your head on straight.
