Search Our Site

February 2, 2026 What Do You Think? With states generally allowing individuals to carry guns, including at work, an interesting issue is whether a shooting accident at work can trigger a compensable claim. A case involving a claimant who estimated vehicle damage at an auto body shop and ended up damaging his own body sheds some light on that topic. The estimator always carried a gun. He had done so for several years for personal protection prior to taking the job. The job consisted of estimating the cost of repairs for the damaged vehicles that came in. He didn’t need the gun to do his job, and the company did not require him to carry one. But he said the area was dangerous due to the homeless population. The claimant’s manager knew the claimant had a gun and advised him not to carry it around at work. The manager also brought his own gun to work, but left it in his vehicle during work hours and said he never felt in danger. The estimator was in the area where they parked the damaged cars waiting to be repaired. While carrying out his duties, he decided to move a damaged pick-up truck. As he climbed into the seat, his gun went off and shot him in the leg. He filed a workers’ compensation claim. An ALJ denied the claim on the basis that it did not arise out of employment. The estimator appealed. To obtain workers’ compensation, a claimant must show that his injury arose out of and in the course of employment. To arise out of employment, an injury must result from some risk of the employment or be incidental to carrying out the worker’s duties. Did the claimant’s injuries arise out of his employment at the auto repair shop? A.   Yes . Because the area was so dangerous, he needed to carry a gun; thus, carrying the gun was related to a risk of his employment. B. No.  He didn’t have any work-related duties that required him to carry the gun. If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Goins v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, No. CA-IC 24-0021 (Ariz. Ct. App. 01/21/26), which ruled that the claimant’s injury did not arise out of employment. The court found no causal connection between the claimant’s job and the injury. This was largely because no part of the job required him to have a gun at work. While the claimant argued that he carried the gun to remain safe, the manager’s statements suggested that the area was not especially dangerous. Even if it were dangerous, the fact that he carried the gun for personal protection all the time and in many other places suggested he was not wearing it because his workplace in particular was dangerous. Further, he had no work duties that involved protecting himself or others from dangers. Thus, the risk of injury was not work-related. Rather, it was personal to the claimant. The court considered the claimant's introduction of a gun to the work environment an "imported danger." In Space Steel Corp. v. Jones' Dependents, 248 So. 2d 807, 809 (Miss. 1971), the Mississippi Supreme Court explained that "the doctrine of `imported danger' refers to that class of cases in which the source of the injury was a hazard brought onto the employment premises by the claimant himself. Workers' Comp 101:  Larson's Workers' Compensation Law  notes situations where "the imported-danger idea has been invoked: explosives, automobiles, food and drink, matches, and unsuitable clothing brought by the employee," and that such cases, "on the whole, confirm the basic rule that there must be some employment contribution to the risk when the initial source of harm is a distinctly personal danger." The court also rejected the claimant’s argument that the injury arose out of employment because his employer acquiesced in his carrying the gun at work. While the employer may have known about the gun, this was not enough to establish a causal relationship between the job and injury. “That [the employer] did not directly prohibit him from carrying a gun did not make it necessary for his employment, and there is no evidence [the employer] authorized or allowed [the claimant] to perform security duties as part of his job,” the court said. The court affirmed the ALJ’s denial of the claim.

January 29, 2026 Washington — OSHA is reminding employers of their Form 300A  posting requirement  that begins Feb. 1. Form 300A , a summary of work-related injuries and illnesses, must be displayed “in a conspicuous place or places where notices to employees are customarily posted” until April 30.  Employers who have 10 or fewer employees, including temporary or part-time workers, or those in  certain low-hazard industries  are exempt from the requirement.  Employers also must maintain injury and illness records for five years at their worksites, and provide copies, if requested, to current or former employees or their representatives.

January 29, 2026 Slip and fall accidents  remain one of the most common causes of workplace injuries, particularly during winter months when ice, snow, and wet conditions are present. While many people assume these incidents are handled exclusively through  workers’ compensation , the legal analysis is often more nuanced. In some cases, an injured worker may have both a workers’ compensation claim and a separate third-party personal injury claim, depending on how and where the fall occurred.   Understanding the distinction can affect the benefits available and the long-term financial impact of an injury. When a Slip and Fall Is Covered by Workers’ Compensation In Delaware , workers’ compensation generally applies when an employee is injured in the course and scope of employment. This includes many slip and fall scenarios, such as falls caused by icy walkways, wet floors, or poorly maintained surfaces at a job site. Workers’ compensation benefits  may include: Payment of reasonable and necessary medical expenses Partial wage replacement during periods of disability Compensation for permanent impairment, if applicable Fault is not a factor in determining eligibility. An injured worker does not need to prove that the employer acted negligently to receive benefits. However, workers’ compensation is typically the  exclusive remedy  against an employer, meaning employees generally cannot sue their employer directly for negligence related to the injury. When a Third-Party Claim May Exist A separate legal question arises when a slip and fall is caused by the actions, or inaction, of someone other than the employer. In those situations, an injured worker may have a third-party personal injury claim in addition to a workers’ compensation case. Examples may include: Slipping on ice or a hazardous surface at a property owned or maintained by a third party Falls caused by negligent snow or ice removal performed by an outside contractor Dangerous conditions at a shared worksite not controlled by the employer Unlike workers’ compensation claims, third-party claims are based on  negligence . The injured person must show that the responsible party owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused the injury. If successful, damages may extend beyond medical bills and lost wages to include pain and suffering. Delaware courts have long recognized the right of injured employees to pursue third-party claims when liability rests outside the employment relationship.  Why Documenting the Hazard Matters One issue that frequently complicates slip and fall claims — especially those involving ice or snow — is the temporary nature of the hazard. Conditions can change quickly as ice melts, snow is removed, or surfaces dry. Documenting the scene as soon as possible can be critical. When it is safe to do so, injured individuals should consider: Taking photographs or video of the hazardous condition Capturing wide-angle views that show location and context Noting the date, time, and weather conditions This type of evidence can play an important role in determining whether a property owner or third party had notice of the condition and a reasonable opportunity to address it. Overlapping Claims and Subrogation Issues When both workers’ compensation benefits and a third-party claim are involved, additional legal considerations arise.  Under Delaware law , an employer or its workers’ compensation carrier may have a right of subrogation, allowing them to recover certain benefits paid if the injured worker later obtains a third-party settlement or verdict. These issues require careful coordination to ensure compliance with statutory requirements while preserving the injured person’s rights under both systems. Related Information on Slip and Fall Injuries For a broader discussion of immediate steps to consider after a slip and fall, including medical and reporting considerations, see our related article:  Five Things to Do After a Slip and Fall Accident Final Thoughts Slip and fall accidents at work can raise complex legal questions that go beyond a single benefits system. Determining whether an injury is limited to workers’ compensation or may also involve third-party liability depends on the facts surrounding the hazard, property control, and the parties involved. Understanding these distinctions early — and preserving evidence while conditions still exist — can be an important step in evaluating potential legal options. Fault is not a factor in determining eligibility. An injured worker does not need to prove that the employer acted negligently to receive benefits. However, workers’ compensation is typically the exclusive remedy against an employer, meaning employees generally cannot sue their employer directly for negligence related to the injury.

January 29, 2026 Spending $7,500 on home repairs may not seem like much in 2026. But a bill approved by a Florida House of Representatives panel on Wednesday would allow construction work below that threshold without a building permit, a change that could have an unexpected impact on inspections and some insurance claims. House  Bill 1049 , by state Rep. Tiffany Esposito, R-Fort Myers, would bar local governments from requiring permits for work that is projected to cost less than $7,500 on a single-family home. Permits would still be allowed for structural, electrical and plumbing work below that level, and contractors would need to keep records of their work, the bill notes. Current permit requirements vary across Florida by county and city, with many jurisdictions mandating permits if the work would cover more than 120 square feet, even for fencing and outdoor sheds. Some counties require a permit when heating and air conditioning work will cost $5,000 or more, according to local governments. Miami-Dade County ordinances allow exemptions for most minor work under $500. “This bill is aimed at things like decks, fencing, home improvements – not major construction projects,” Esposito said at the House Industries and Professional Activities Subcommittee Wednesday. She said she arrived at the $7,500 level after meeting with stakeholders. Concerns have been raised about the bill and its impact on the quality of work. Roofing work, always an issue for Florida property insurers, may or may not be considered structural under the wording of the bill. Courtney Mooney, associate director of public policy for the Florida Association of Counties, told the subcommittee that the bill as drafted would not allow local governments to inspect work, even if requested by a homeowner. “You can’t do an inspection without a permit,” Mooney said. The group hopes to work with Esposito to answer those concerns as the bill progresses through the House. One panel member asked if the bill would preempt local governments’ authority, a trend seen in Florida and other states across the country on a number of fronts. Esposito said it would. Subcommittee members did not examine how the bill, if signed into law, might affect the insurance industry. Insurers are unlikely to seek subrogation action against contractors for claims as small as $7,500 if the work is deemed to be poor quality or is responsible for damage claims. And many homeowners’ insurance deductibles these days are greater than that amount. But it’s possible that shoddy work on an unpermitted and uninspected minor project could exacerbate significant wind or water damage–and insurance claims–years later. House Bill 1049 does not address homeowners’ associations, suggesting that HOAs would be able to require municipal permits on work projects of less than $7,500 in value, lawmakers said. The bill also would waive permit requirements for backup home power systems, such as generators and whole-house batteries—as long as the work is done by a licensed contractor or utility company. Esposito’s bill was approved by a near-unanimous vote from the subcommittee Wednesday. It was approved last week by the House Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee. It now moves to the full House State Affairs Committee.

By law, U.S. employers are only allowed to employ workers who can prove their identity and qualifications to work in the United States. This includes U. S. citizens, noncitizen nationals, lawful permanent residents, and resident aliens who are authorized to work. Learn how E-Verify and Form I-9 protect employers from unintentionally hiring undocumented workers. Webinar Topics include: E-Verify for Existing Users E-Verify for Web Services Users E-Verify in 30 E-Verify Overview Employee Rights Employer Responsibilities Federal Contractor E-Verify Form I-9 my E-Verify E-Verify and Form I-9 free webinars (except for E-Verify in 30 and my E-Verify) are eligible for professional development credits (PDC) through the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the Human Resource Certification Institute (HRCI). The webinars are held on multiple dates and times in November. Register early as space is limited. Event type: Live Webinar Cost: Free Date: January 2026 Time: Multiple Event Host: Everify.gov Duration: 30 min. to 1 hour Click here to register

January 25, 2026 “Small and medium-sized businesses are at an elevated risk for workplace injuries.” That’s why the National Safety Council, through its Work to Zero initiative, published “A Small Business Guide to Safety Technology: Practical Strategies for Beginners, Growing Teams and First-Time Adopters.” Kenna Stanley, a senior research associate at NSC, is the guide’s author. “We know that small employers need support,” Stanley said. “We really wanted to get in there and arm them with the knowledge and the framework so that they can apply technologies in a really scalable, easy-to-understand way.” Here, we’ve pulled together a quick look at the guide. (Want to read it in full? Go to  nsc.org/worktozero  to download it.) Safety innovation journey For its structure, the guide relies on Work to Zero’s “safety innovation journey” – a five-step roadmap designed to help employers identify and successfully adopt safety technologies. The steps: Assess your risk Identify technological solutions Determine your readiness Make the business case Launch a pilot and implement The guide lists the various types of safety technologies, such as wearables and artificial intelligence, along with examples of potential uses. It also includes a trio of appendices (A, B and C). Appendix A is intended to supplement workplace risk assessments by helping employers engage with workers about the potential hazards they see and other topics. It includes these questions: Are there any areas in the workplace where you feel unsafe or uneasy? Do you experience any discomfort, pain or strain during or after work? Have you ever witnessed or been involved in a near miss – a situation that almost caused an injury or incident? Are there any safety rules or procedures that are unclear or difficult to follow in practice? What changes or improvements would you suggest to help make our workplace safer? Appendix B has sample questions for employers to ask potential safety technology vendors. The list is designed to help gauge: Technological fit and effectiveness A vendor’s support services Cost and licensing Implementation and maintenance Data and privacy The final list was developed to help employers get feedback from workers when a new technology is piloted or implemented. An advantage for small employers NSC notes one advantage that small employers may have over larger ones: They’re uniquely positioned to foster regular, personal engagement with their teams. “Employee engagement doesn’t have to mean formal meetings or structured safety huddles – it can also happen during everyday conversations,” the guide states. “Use these moments to ask about the challenges your workers are facing, the types of hazards they encounter, procedures that may not be working or tools that could make their jobs better. “Toolbox talks, quick check-ins or anonymous surveys can all encourage open feedback, especially for concerns that might be hard to voice out loud. Most importantly, engagement should be ongoing.” A culture of innovation Engaging workers is also one part of creating a “culture of innovation,” according to NSC. Others: making transparency a key concern, avoiding punitive use with safety technologies and identifying a “digital champion” – an employee who can support a technological implementation. Again, small employers may have an edge over larger organizations in creating that culture of innovation. “I think small businesses have an advantage in a couple ways,” Stanley said. “First, with fewer decision-makers and bureaucracy, they can pivot and innovate more quickly and with less resistance. Leadership is naturally more visible in small companies, which makes it easier to form relationships, build trust and engage their workers in new initiatives.” Reducing cost The guide details ways that small employers can help reduce their technological expenses: Collaborative purchasing with other employers, trade associations or local networks Tax incentives and credits Insurance rebates Financing from technological vendors Small and medium-sized employers also can look for grant and funding opportunities to help defray costs. Helpful information for all organizations  Although the guide is intended for small employers, Stanley said much of the information can apply to any employer. “A lot of these frameworks and recommendations are really applicable to all organizations, so it’s a great resource,” she said. “I think it’s great for any organization that’s interested in trying a new technology but maybe doesn’t know where to start or how to actually implement it.”

January 23, 2026 Case File When a Florida bus driver made misrepresentations about an injury she experienced in 2021, she lost out on worker's compensation benefits for   it. But when she experienced another injury in 2022, for which the 2021 accident was the major contributing cause, was she left without a compensable injury?  Simply Research  subscribers have access to the full text of the decision. Case Pinellas County Transit Authority v. Jackson, No. 1D2024-1522 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 11/12/25) What Happened? A Florida bus driver reinjured her shoulder while turning the steering wheel at work and required medical treatment. The employer/carrier denied the driver's claims for benefits because doctors identified the driver's prior on-the-job shoulder injury as the major contributing cause of her need for benefits and because the driver had made misrepresentations related to the earlier claim that barred her from entitlement for benefits for that injury. The Judge of Compensation Claims awarded benefits, and the E/C appealed. Rule of Law Workers' Compensation benefits are available in Florida when an injury arises out of and in the course and scope of one's work. "Arises out of" is defined in terms of a "major contributing cause" analysis. Under that analysis, an occupational accident must be more than 50% responsible for the injury.   Workers' Comp 101:  In Florida, "major contributing cause," or "MCC," means the cause that is more than 50% responsible for the injury.   What the Court Said After pointing out that the E/C argued that because the driver lost her right to receive benefits for the earlier injury by making misrepresentations that were forbidden under the law, she was foreclosed from receiving benefits related to the later injury, the court found two problems with the E/C's argument.   Workers' Comp 101:  Under Florida law, claimants may not "knowingly make, or cause to be made, any false, fraudulent, or misleading oral or written statement for the purpose of obtaining or denying any benefit or payment." Florida law also bars benefits for an employee found to have "knowingly or intentionally engaged in any" false, fraudulent, or misleading statements "for the purpose of securing workers' compensation benefits."   First, the court noted that both of the driver's accidents and injuries stemmed from her work on the job. Thus, there was no injury unrelated to the driver's work involved with the case. Also, the driver did not fail to seek benefits after the first accident "as might have rendered that accident non-compensable and required an MCC analysis to be completed." Second, the E/C's misrepresentation defense argument conflated the concepts of "compensability" and "entitlement to benefits." The court explained that "compensability" involves the workplace-related existence and cause of an injury and not benefits-entitlement issues. "It is true that the E/C's successful misrepresentation defense on the 2021 injury claim foreclosed [the driver's]  entitlement to benefits  for that accident," the court wrote. "But that forfeiture of benefits did not render either the 2021 or 2022 accident  non-compensable  because, again, compensability analysis doesn't directly concern benefit-entitlement but whether a work-caused accident and injury occurred." Moreover, the E/C's misrepresentation defense did not foreclose the driver from qualifying for benefits stemming from the second, separate workplace accident because Paulson v. Dixie Cnty. Emergency Med. Servs., 936 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) held that the law's plain language applies the prohibition on benefits when a claimant makes a misrepresentation only "to a specific accident" in which fraud was committed and not a subsequent workplace accident. "Thus, the E/C's successful ... defense didn't affect the compensability status of either the 2021 or 2022 accidents, nor did it prevent [the driver] from qualifying to receive benefits corresponding to the distinct workplace accident and injury in 2022," the court wrote. Verdict : The court affirmed the JCC's decision. Takeaway In Florida, a misrepresentation regarding a workplace accident that forecloses a claimant's entitlement to benefits doesn't render that accident -- or a subsequent accident for which the first accident was the MCC -- non-compensable.

January 21, 2026 A new federal law enacted last year provides a tax benefit to employees who receive overtime pay – but calling it a “No Tax on Overtime” law is a bit of misnomer. For starters, OT pay remains taxable and subject to withholding rules. And while a new income tax deduction may be available to some employees who work overtime, only a limited portion of  federally  required overtime compensation is tax deductible. We’ll clear up some of the biggest misconceptions surrounding these new rules and provide some key employer takeaways – which will become especially important this tax season and beyond as more employees learn the realities of these rules and the IRS cracks down on employers’ new filing and information reporting obligations. Overview of “No Tax on Overtime” The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which President Trump signed into law last year, includes a new federal income tax deduction related to overtime pay. This new deduction: applies for tax years  2025 through 2028 ; allows eligible workers to claim up to  $12,500  (or  $25,000  if married filing jointly) in  “qualified overtime compensation”  they received during the applicable tax year; phases out  for individuals whose modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) for the year exceeds  $150,000 ($300,000  if married filing jointly); and is  not available  if the individual’s MAGI is at or above  $275,000   ($550,000  if married filing jointly). The deduction is allowed for  both itemizers and non-itemizers , so long as the individual includes their  social security number  on their tax return. If an individual is married, they must file a joint return in order to claim this deduction. (The Big Beautiful Bill also contains a number of other workplace-related changes – y ou can read our full summary here .) The Big Question: What Does “Qualified Overtime Compensation” Mean? The law defines “qualified overtime compensation” as “overtime compensation paid to an individual required under section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act” (FLSA) that exceeds the individual’s “regular rate” (as determined by the FLSA), excluding qualified tips. This language expressly conditions an employee’s right to claim the federal tax benefit on federal labor law requirements, specifically excluding overtime compensation mandated solely by state law. Is “No Tax on Overtime” a Misnomer? Top 3 Misconceptions and Employer Challenges There are plenty of misconceptions floating around related to the implications of the Big Beautiful Bill, especially related to the “No Tax on Overtime” provisions. In order to separate myth from reality, here are  three key clarifications  on the top mistaken beliefs. 1. The new tax deduction is only available for overtime pay required by the FLSA. The FLSA generally requires employers to pay covered, nonexempt employees at least 1.5 times their “regular rate” of pay for all hours worked beyond 40 hours in a given workweek. This is very important to keep in mind because some states have overtime laws that overlap with, but also go beyond, the requirements of the FLSA. For example: Some states impose  daily overtime rules  in addition to weekly overtime requirements. California requires  double-time pay  for hours worked beyond certain thresholds (in addition to daily, weekly, and other overtime requirements). Several states make it harder (compared to federal rules) for employers to classify employees as “exempt” from overtime pay requirements.  Exemption rules  can differ at state versus federal levels in terms of salary thresholds and/or industry- or job-specific criteria. Therefore, if an employee receives overtime pay that is required by state, but not federal, law, such amounts are not “qualified overtime compensation” under the OBBBA, and no portion is deductible by the employee for federal income tax purposes. 2. The deductible amount may be less than you think. As explained above, the new deduction related to overtime pay is capped at $12,500 ($25,000 for joint filers) and is reduced or phased out completely based on an individual’s MAGI for the year. In addition, the amount that is deductible is not the full amount of the individual’s FLSA-required overtime compensation – rather, it is the portion that exceeds the individual’s “regular rate” of pay as determined under federal law. Here’s an example: Scenario.  Let’s say an employee’s regular rate of pay under the FLSA is  $20 per hour  and they worked  200 overtime hours  in a given tax year. (Assume they are single and had MAGI of less than $150,000 for that tax year). The employee is a covered, nonexempt employee under the FLSA and therefore required to be paid 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for each hour of overtime worked. The employee therefore received  $6,000  (200 x $30) in FLSA-required overtime compensation during that tax year. Outcome.  Because the employee’s regular rate of pay for 200 hours worked would total $4,000 (200 x $20), the employee’s “qualified overtime compensation” is  $2,000  ($6,000 - $4,000). The employee therefore may only claim $2,000 for the overtime pay deduction that year. (The actual  value  of this tax benefit would depend on the employee’s marginal tax bracket since tax deductions, unlike tax credits, do not give you a dollar-for-dollar tax reduction.) 3. All overtime pay remains subject to payroll taxes and withholding rules. The phrase “No Tax on Overtime” is misleading because it doesn’t actually mean that overtime pay is no longer taxable. To the contrary, all OT pay remains subject to federal income tax (though, as explained above, employees may be eligible to claim a limited income tax deduction for qualified overtime compensation) and therefore subject to income tax withholding rules. However, employees may opt to adjust their Forms W-4 to reflect any expected deductions for qualified overtime compensation. In addition, all overtime compensation remains fully subject to other payroll taxes, such as Social Security and Medicare taxes (both the employer’s share and the employee’s share), because the OBBBA’s new tax deduction applies only for federal income tax purposes. Why Should Employers Care About Any of This? While the OBBBA’s new overtime deduction is a tax benefit for employees filing individual tax returns, it impacts employers in several important ways. New Filing and Information Reporting Requirements.  The OBBBA requires employers to include the total amount of “qualified overtime compensation” on the employee’s Form W-2. For the 2025 taxable year, the IRS is  granting employers penalty relief  related to failures to separately report qualified overtime compensation. However, this relief will not be available in future tax years, so it is essential to understand how to correctly calculate qualified overtime compensation. (You can check out the agency’s  proposed 2026 General Instructions for Forms W-2 and W-3  to get an idea of the applicable reporting requirements you can expect to roll out). Payroll Withholding.  As mentioned above, employers must be aware of their withholding obligations in light of the new tax rules around qualified overtime compensation and look out for any employee updates to Forms W-4. Employee Relations.  Many employees may be attracted to certain roles or motivated to work more overtime hours based on the OBBBA’s new overtime deduction, and employers should be prepared to respond to any employee confusion – and perhaps anger – related to any misconceptions surrounding it. You may consider working with counsel to determine the best approach here. In general, however, you should avoid giving employees any tax planning advice and remind them that the company is following IRS rules. Conclusion Overtime pay remains taxable – though some employees may be allowed to claim a portion of it as a federal income tax deduction. Employers should work with counsel on filing, reporting, and withholding issues, as well as employee communications, related to qualified overtime compensation.

January 16, 2026 A bill that would require all businesses, no matter how many people they employ, to use E-Verify, passed the Florida House on Jan. 15. The Florida House passed a bill to require all businesses, regardless of size, to use the E-Verify system. This bill would remove the current law's requirement that only businesses with 25 or more employees must use E-Verify. Supporters argue the measure creates fair competition, while opponents say the system is unreliable and harms immigrant communities. If you're a business owner in Florida and you have only one employee, you might soon have to use  E-Verify  too. The Florida House of Representatives on Jan. 15 passed a bill that would remove the 25-employee threshold in current law. If the House gets its way, all businesses, no matter how many people they employ, will have to use E-Verify, the federal online system that allows employers to confirm whether new hires are legally authorized to work in the United States. Rep. Berny Jacques, a Seminole Republican and sponsor of the bill, filed a similar bill last year, but it never had a chance in the Senate. Jacques believes his measure's chances of success are better in the 2026 legislative session. "If this bill passes it will expose a lot of lawbreakers that are harming Floridians, harming law-abiding people who want to get into the workforce, harming law-abiding businesses," Jacques said on the House floor. "This system, if it's applied to to all, the competition will be fair to all," he added. Jacques' bill builds off a Florida law (SB 1718) that passed in 2023, dubbed one of the toughest immigration laws at the time. That bill  originally required  E-Verify for all businesses, but the final iteration set the limit at those with more than 25 employees, which is still law. But this year it's different. Now there's a Senate companion bill sponsored by Sen. Jonathan Martin, R-Fort Myers this year, unlike years past when Republicans were hesitant to make a move against business interests. And since President Donald Trump took office for his second term, Florida has positioned itself at the forefront of illegal immigration enforcement, a move that has been pushed by Gov. Ron DeSantis and Republican leaders. Would Florida businesses be punished for not using E-Verify? The bill punishes businesses that fail to use the E-Verify system three times in any 24-month period a fine of $1,000 per day until the employer provides proof of compliance. Noncompliance constitutes grounds for the suspension of all licenses issued by a licensing agency subject. Democrats argued E-Verify is unreliable and that an I-9 form suffices to check if someone is approved to work. "At a time when where these communities are under attack, we don't need to add any more fuel to that fire," said Rep. Dotie Joseph, D-Miami. Stop doing the most, just leave hard working immigrants alone." While the House bill passed with 80 yeas and 30 nays, the Senate version of the E-Verify bill has yet to be heard in committee.

OSHA gives more time to comply with HazCom changes Washington — OSHA is  extending the compliance dates  for its revised Hazard Communication Standard ( 1910.1200 ) published in  May 2024 . Chemical manufacturers, importers and distributors originally had to comply with the new rules by Jan. 19, 2026, and July 19, 2027, depending on whether they’re  evaluating  substances or mixtures, respectively. Those dates are now May 19, 2026, and Nov. 19, 2027. Employers using products covered under the standard originally had to update their hazcom programs, labeling and employee training by July 20, 2026, or Jan. 19, 2028 – again, depending on substances or mixtures, respectively. Those dates are now Nov. 20, 2026, and May 19, 2028. Until those dates, employers, chemical manufacturers, distributors and importers can comply with either the old or new standard – or both. OSHA’s updated standard is now aligned with the  seventh revision  of the  Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals , also known as GHS. OSHA’s previous HazCom update,  published  in 2012, was the first to align with GHS. That final rule was linked to the GHS’ third revision. The GHS is on its  11th revision , which was published Dec. 9.