Search Our Site

December 30, 2025 Workers compensation has been one of the few lines of commercial insurance coverage where buyers haven’t been hit with significant increases over the past seven years, a trend set to continue in some states. In November, Florida Insurance Commissioner Mike Yaworsky approved a 6.9% rate cut for policies incepting after Jan. 1, 2026. That followed a 1% decrease the state approved  last year. The story about the approval of the 2026 decrease was the second-most-read workers comp-related story on  Business Insurance’s  website this year. he decision followed a September  recommendation  for the cut by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, a data and rating organization. According to the NCCI, the rate reduction was warranted because of continued decreases in claims frequency in the state from 2022 to 2024. The NCCI noted that medical and indemnity claim severity increased in 2024, and although some of that was attributable to inflation, the primary driver was injured workers’ increased use of medical services.

December 29, 2025 Washington — OSHA issued seven  letters of interpretation  in 2025 to help “ensure the consistent and transparent application of federal workplace safety and health standards.” The first of the letters addresses  permit-required confined spaces . The others  cover situations including: Powered industrial truck training programs Software for OSHA  recordkeeping Engineering controls for benzene and 1,3 butadiene Stair angle and tread depth requirements “From construction to engineering, OSHA is providing decisive guidance after gathering feedback from employers, demonstrating our opinion letter program has already been effective,” Deputy Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling said in a Dec. 10 press release. “This effort is a key component of the Trump administration’s comprehensive strategy to educate the public and empower employers to keep their workers safe.” Selected letters of interpretation, or their excerpts, appear in the monthly  OSHA Up to Date  newsletter.

December 23, 2025 A baking company's worker classification strategy backfired when a federal court saw through it Federal court shuts down employer strategy of forcing workers to form corporations as workaround to employment law protections.   In a decision handed down December 22, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that employers cannot dodge employment protections simply by requiring workers to create corporations and sign contracts through those shell companies. The case, involving two truck drivers and a baking company, offers a clear warning to HR departments everywhere: courts will look past corporate paperwork to see what is really happening on the ground.   Nathaniel Silva and Phil Rothkugel started working for Schmidt Baking Distribution in 2020 as regular delivery drivers, classified as W-2 employees through a staffing agency. Their jobs were straightforward. They drove trucks to Schmidt's warehouse, picked up fresh baked goods, delivered them to stores, and stocked shelves.   Several months in, Schmidt gave them an ultimatum. To keep working, they would need to form their own corporations and sign new agreements as business entities. Neither driver had ever run a company before, but Schmidt walked them through the process. Silva created Silva's Baked Goods. Rothkugel formed Trout Slayers Baked Breads Inc.   The new contracts called the arrangement an independent contractor relationship and included mandatory arbitration clauses that would prevent the drivers from joining together in a class action lawsuit. But here's what didn't change: the actual work. Silva and Rothkugel still drove the same trucks, delivered the same products to the same stores, and had no say in pricing or sales strategies. When the drivers sued in Connecticut court claiming wage and overtime violations, Schmidt tried to force them into individual arbitration based on those contracts. A district court agreed, reasoning that agreements between two businesses fall outside the employment protections of the Federal Arbitration Act. Schmidt appeared to have won. The appeals court saw things differently. Circuit Judge Maria Araújo Kahn pointed to a telling detail in the fine print: personal guarantee provisions that made Silva and Rothkugel personally liable not just for money, but for actually doing the work. That provision, the court noted, "blurs the line between a supposedly business-to-business contract and an agreement for personal services." The court zeroed in on how these corporations came to exist. Silva and Rothkugel were not entrepreneurs who built companies and then sought contracts with Schmidt. They were workers who were told to incorporate or lose their jobs. The court described their corporations as "mere instrumentalities" created to disguise employment contracts as commercial transactions. This matters because Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act exempts transportation workers from mandatory arbitration. The Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that this exemption covers not just traditional employees but also independent contractors. Schmidt's strategy was essentially trying to add another layer: if workers contract through corporations they control, maybe the exemption vanishes. The Second Circuit rejected that logic. The court emphasized that Congress wrote the law to cover "contracts of employment of workers," not "contracts of employment with workers." That small preposition carries weight. The focus is on whether a contract involves work performed by workers, regardless of what entity signs the paperwork. Schmidt argued the relationships looked more like franchise or distributor arrangements. The contracts even included language about purchasing distribution rights for specific sales territories. The court was unpersuaded. Adding business-sounding terms to a work agreement does not transform its fundamental nature. The decision carefully distinguished cases from other circuits involving actual business entities. The Ninth Circuit, for instance, ruled that corporations employing tens or hundreds of drivers to manage multiple delivery routes are genuinely different from individual transportation workers. The Fourth Circuit reached a similar conclusion about a company that hired 450 drivers. Silva and Rothkugel, by contrast, were solo operators performing manual labor themselves. The corporate structure added nothing but paperwork. For HR professionals, the message is unambiguous. Requiring incorporation as a condition of employment will not protect companies from employment law obligations when the underlying relationship remains one of worker and workplace. Courts will examine who initiated the corporate formation, whether duties changed after incorporation, whether the worker had prior business experience, and whether the entity employs additional staff. The case now returns to district court, where the drivers can proceed with their class action rather than being forced into individual arbitration. The court made clear it would not allow employers to circumvent employment law protections for transportation workers by requiring those workers to take corporate form. The record, the court found, unequivocally demonstrated that the companies Silva and Rothkugel were required to create served as instrumentalities to dress individual employment contracts in the garb of commercial transactions.

December 19, 2025 Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules require employers to report qualifying employee deaths or hospitalizations to OSHA, and to record such incidents on their OSHA 300 logs. Recently, we had a client with an employee who apparently suffered a non-work-related cardiac event at work and fell from a slightly elevated platform. The employee died at the accident scene, but the employer could not readily determine whether the death was a result of the heart attack, the fall, or a combination of the two. Should the employer have reported this incident to OSHA and included it on their 300 log? OSHA rules do not require reporting or recording of injuries or deaths that are not related to a work-related injury or illness. Even when an employee has a personal medical event, the impact of the work environment on the condition may be unclear. For example, could heat in the workplace or the presence of an air contaminant have triggered or exacerbated the employee’s medical condition? Using my example, could the employee have survived the cardiac event had they not been working at heights at the time it occurred? In many circumstances, employees err on the side of caution and report borderline events even when they suspect that the medical issues were unrelated to work. OSHA is unlikely to cite companies over employee deaths or injuries that were precipitated by a personal medical event. However, some companies' workers' compensation insurance rates, internal safety incentives, or contractual or bidding criteria are tied to their OSHA 300 reportable incidents. In those situations, if the employer decides not to report or list the incident, this conclusion should only be reached after a careful and documented review of the matter, and the final decision not to record the injury should be based on an established regulatory exception.

December 18, 2025 Resource helps employers identify safety gaps before serious incidents occur. WASHINGTON, D.C.  – The National Safety Council and NCCCO Foundation have launched a free tool to help employers eliminate serious incidents and fatalities (SIF). The  Organizational Safety Gap Analysis Tool  identifies weaknesses in safety systems before incidents occur. The need is clear. After decades of progress, U.S. workplace fatality rates have plateaued at more than 5,000 annually, across all workplaces. Each is preventable with the right systems in place. Developed through the NSC  Work to Zero  initiative, the tool is built on the Council’s evidence-based  SIF Prevention Model . It is designed for owners, executive leaders and safety professionals. It evaluates seven key areas that shape an organization’s safety health. These include operating environment, leadership, worker engagement, hazard identification and prioritization, hazard abatement and control, implementation and operation, and continuous improvement.  The tool transforms the existing NSC Gap Analysis checklist into an interactive, tailored experience. No specialized training is required. Users receive a personalized report that highlights strengths, identifies opportunities and provides clear next steps to help reduce SIFs. Organizations of all sizes and industries can benefit. “At the heart of Work to Zero is the belief that every worker deserves to go home safely,” said Matt Law, director of Work to Zero at NSC. “This tool gives leaders a practical starting point to strengthen the systems that protect lives.” “The new Organization Safety Gap Analysis Tool is another great example of the safety resources and research we have been able to provide to the crane industry in collaboration with the NSC,” stated T.J. Cantwell, executive director of the NCCCO Foundation. “We hope companies will use it as a valuable resource to analyze existing programs and enhance safety.” Funded by the McElhattan Foundation, Work to Zero aims to eliminate workplace fatalities by helping employers adopt technology and practices that make the biggest impact. Access the Organizational Safety Gap Analysis Tool  here .  About the National Safety Council The National Safety Council is America’s leading nonprofit safety advocate – and has been for over 110 years. As a mission-based organization, we work to eliminate the leading causes of preventable death and injury, focusing our efforts on the workplace and roadways. We create a culture of safety to not only keep people safer at work, but also beyond the workplace so they can live their fullest lives. About the NCCCO Foundation The  NCCCO Foundation  is a 501(c)3 charitable organization formed in 2018 to promote industry safety through three major pathways: education, research and workforce development.

December 17, 2025 What Do You Think? The exclusivity rule protects employers from injured workers’ negligence lawsuits and from potentially large money judgments. But what if an employer assigns an employee to temporarily work for another company? Can the employee sue the second company if he’s injured? A recent case involving a laborer answers that question. He tripped and fell on a piece of asphalt while excavating and sued the company supervising the work for negligence. Posillico was the company supervising his work. At the time, the laborer’s actual employer was Morley Mechanical so he figured he could sue Posillico and not be barred by the exclusivity rule. Prior to the injury, Posillico had entered into an agreement with Morley Mechanical, to use its laborers on the project. Under that agreement. Morley surrendered control over its workers and Posillico assumed supervision and control over the work of those laborers. Posillico argued that the lawsuit was barred by the exclusivity rule. The laborer argued that the rule did not apply because Morley paid his wages and Worker’s Compensation insurance. A worker may be deemed a special employee where he is transferred for a limited time to serve another entity. A court is most likely to find special employe status where the company the employee is transferred to controls and directs the employee's work. A special employee is subject to the exclusivity rule. The exclusivity rule provides that an injured worker’s only remedy is workers compensation benefits. Was the laborer limited to workers' compensation as his exclusive remedy? A. Yes. Posillico took over the duty from Morley to supervise the laborer’s work. B. No. Morley was his employer and paid his wages. If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Ceja v. Posillico Civil, Inc., No. 2024-07053 (N.Y. App. Div. 12/11/25), which ruled that the worker’s only remedy was workers’ compensation. The laborer was a special employee based on the contract between the two companies. It was particularly telling that Posillico took over supervision and control of the laborer’s work. Further, the injury was clearly work-related, as the laborer tripped over a piece of debris in his work area. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case.

December 18, 2025 In an increasingly complex regulatory environment, employers may face unannounced visits from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These visits can take the form of Form I-9 inspections, worksite enforcement actions or inquiries involving individual employees. While such events may be disruptive, having a well-developed workplace response supports legal compliance, protects business operations and promotes employee confidence. Why a response plan matters A workplace response plan is a legal safeguard that will help ensure that an organization responds appropriately to ICE actions. By preparing in advance, businesses can minimize disruption to operations and maintain continuity even during unexpected events. Additionally, it serves as a risk management tool, helping to avoid missteps that could lead to reputational damage or legal exposure. A clear plan also demonstrates a commitment to employee rights and workplace stability, which can foster trust and improve morale. Key elements of an effective response plan One of the most important components of a response plan is the designation of a company representative who is trained and authorized to interact with ICE agents. This individual should be well-versed in the company’s legal obligations and internal protocols and be prepared to manage interactions with ICE professionally and calmly. Employee preparedness is equally critical. Staff should be trained to respond appropriately if ICE agents arrive at the workplace. It is important for employees to remain calm and immediately refer agents to the designated company representative. Employees should avoid answering questions or providing documents themselves; those are the responsibilities of the designated company representative. Employees should also understand that they must not obstruct or interfere with ICE activities. A simple and effective response might be: “I’m not authorized to speak on behalf of the company. Please speak with our designated representative.” Responding to ICE actions When ICE arrives at a worksite, they may present either an Form I-9 administrative warrant or a judicial warrant. An administrative warrant, issued directly by an immigration official such as an ICE agent or immigration judge, does not authorize broad searches. Administrative warrants are typically used for I-9 audits or to arrest individuals suspected of violating immigration laws. A judicial warrant includes a case number and is signed by a judge, granting ICE the authority to enter and inspect private areas of the business. ICE agents are not permitted to enter non-public areas of a business without a judicial warrant or explicit permission. However, ICE may access public areas — such as parking lots, lobbies or waiting areas — without a warrant or permission. Being in a public area does not grant ICE the authority to stop, question or arrest individuals indiscriminately. When ICE initiates a Form I-9 audit, a response plan ensures that the employer can quickly and efficiently gather the required documentation. This may include I-9 forms, payroll records, E-Verify confirmations, ownership information and staffing agreements. Having these materials organized and accessible helps meet the typical three-business-day deadline and demonstrates good-faith compliance. In the event of a worksite enforcement action involving a judicial warrant, a trained company representative can verify the warrant’s validity and scope, confirm that the correct business entity and location is named and accompany ICE agents during the search. This oversight helps ensure that ICE activities remain within legal boundaries and that any concerns are properly documented. If ICE attempts to detain or question an employee, a response plan supports the employee’s rights and ensures the company responds appropriately. Employees should be informed that they have the right to remain silent and may request legal counsel. They are not required to provide documentation unless legally obligated. Employers should avoid providing inaccurate information or facilitating evasion. If an employee is detained, the company can request details regarding the location of detention and, if appropriate, notify the employee’s emergency contact. Documentation and review Thorough documentation of ICE visits provides long-term benefits for the organization. It creates a record for legal review or future audits, supports internal process improvements and enhances transparency and accountability. Employers should record the date, time and nature of the visit, along with the names and badge numbers of ICE agents and any items seized. If legally permissible, photographs or video recordings may be taken to supplement written records. Copies of all documents provided to ICE should be retained, and an internal summary report should be prepared to capture key details and observations. A response plan also enables employers to communicate clearly and effectively with staff after an ICE visit. Providing access to legal resources or employee assistance programs can help affected employees navigate the situation. Employers may also allow reasonable time for employees to gather documentation or seek legal advice. To protect the integrity of any ongoing legal matters, employees should be reminded to avoid sharing details of the incident on social media. Planning as a strategic advantage ICE visits can be unpredictable, but a workplace response plan transforms uncertainty into preparedness. By investing in training, documentation and employee support, employers can protect their operations, comply with legal requirements and foster a resilient workplace culture.