Search Our Site

January 15, 2026 The chamber has passed an E-Verify bill for the second year in a row. For the second year in a row, the Florida House has greenlit a measure requiring all businesses to use a federal verification tool to determine whether new hires can legally work in the country. HB 197 , sponsored by Rep. Berny Jacques, would mandate that all employers use the online database called E-Verify. This expands a 2023 law championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, which demanded E-Verify for public businesses and private ones with more than 25 employees. This is the second year the E-Verify bill has cleared the House. Last year, the measure never gained traction in the Senate. It remains to be seen whether its identical companion bill, filed by Sen. Jonathan Martin, will be scheduled for a committee hearing. “If this bill passes, it would expose a lot of law breakers that are harming Floridians, that are harming law abiding people who want to get into the workforce, and harming law abiding businesses,” Jaques, a Republican from Seminole, said Thursday from the House floor. “It’s time for us to finally get this done.” The bill passed in an 80 to 30 vote, with four Democrats voting with the Republican majority and two Republicans voting with the Democrats. Of note, more than 475,000 small businesses in Florida have fewer than 20 employees, according to a 2025 report by the  Small Business Administration.  Not counting businesses without employees — of which there are more than 2 million — there are fewer than 518,000  small businesses  in Florida. Jacques’ bill is emblematic of a nationwide push to tighten immigration laws, spearheaded by President Donald Trump and most clearly mirrored in Florida. Trump has mobilized Border Patrol within the country to supplant and aid ICE while the Sunshine State exists as the first (and only) in the nation to require all of its counties to partner with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Under DeSantis, Florida also constructed the first state-run migrant detention center, nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz.” States including Indiana, Nebraska, and Louisiana quickly followed suit. ‘Fake fix’? Not all were in support of Jacques’ bills. Democrats cited fears of undue costs on small business owners and past reports of unreliability within the  E-Verify  system. “We don’t need this fake fix forcing private employers to use a broken and unreliable federal database in the form of a big government mandate,” said Rep. Dotie Joseph, a North Miami Democrat. “It’s bad for business and bad for Florida.” Others pointed to alleged burdens on small businesses, with Rep. Yvette Hinson pointing to a  2010 Bloomberg study  estimating that E-Verify implementation cost small businesses $81 million. Although E-Verify requires documents like an I-9 to prove work authorization, cases of identity theft have permeated the platform. E-Verify can determine whether documents are valid, but it can’t always determine whether they are the valid documents of a person besides the potential new hire, according to the  Center for Immigration Studies . But Jacques pushed back. He argued that E-Verify has been in use since 1996, and that some small businesses contracting with public agencies are also required to use the database. “This is nothing new,” he said. In 2023, then-Sen. Blaise Ingoglia sponsored the law to require private businesses with at least 25 employees to use E-Verify. It was part of a large immigration package that also required Medicaid-accepting hospitals to  annually report  how many undocumented immigrants they treat. Despite this, Florida Republicans criticized the DeSantis administration for failing to penalize businesses that hadn’t been using E-Verify. The statute requires businesses that ignore E-Verify laws three times within two years to face a $1,000 fine per day. DeSantis, in turn, sent out warning letters to 40 companies either ignoring or refusing to implement E-Verify.

January 15, 2026 As the new year gets underway, one workplace risk is already clear: the current flu season is shaping up to be one of the more intense in recent years. Public health data shows high and rising flu activity across much of the country, which increases pressure on employers to manage absenteeism, protect employee health, keep operations running, and consider the question of vaccinations (among other things). This Insight outlines what’s different about this flu season and why it should matter to employers, and gives you five practical steps to take now. What’s Different About This Year Several indicators suggest this is not a “routine” flu year. Staggering numbers The sheer number of estimated illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths from flu (as compiled by the CDC) is daunting for any year, but especially so early in the season. Increasing rate of illness The number of positive flu tests has spiked in the past few weeks. Holiday travel and gatherings appear to have accelerated community transmission just as many employees returned to in‑person work. Widespread and sustained activity Flu levels are classified as high or very high in 44 states, with no clear peak yet in sight. Rising severity Flu hospitalization rates are at the highest seen at this point in the season for at least the past decade. Why Should Employers Care? There are few practical reasons employers should care about this development (beyond, of course, just showing compassion for your sick employees and their families). Absenteeism and Presenteeism Will Rise Past CDC analyses show that workplace absenteeism reliably spikes alongside flu activity. Just as importantly, employees who work while sick (“presenteeism”) often experience reduced productivity for one to two weeks and increase the likelihood of workplace transmission . Operations and Staffing May Be Strained Flu-related absences often cluster rather than occur evenly. That can create sudden staffing gaps, especially in roles that require on-site presence, are customer-facing, or involve safety-sensitive duties. Employers Still Have Legal Obligations And of course, employers have a legal responsibility when it comes to sick employees and their family members. You’ll need to comply with federal and state sick and family leave laws, state and local paid sick leave laws, state and local paid sick leave laws, and discrimination laws related to the application of health-related policies. In some extreme instances, the flu could trigger OSHA’s General Duty Clause requirement to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards. Industries Facing Elevated Risk While all employers should be paying attention, flu season hits some sectors harder than others: Healthcare and long-term care:  Patient safety and regulatory compliance can easily be comprised due to absenteeism or sickness. Manufacturing and warehousing:  Close quarters, shift work, and limited remote-work options. Education and childcare:  High exposure to children, who are considered to be “efficient flu spreaders.” Retail, hospitality, and travel:  Heavy public interaction and often close quarters between staff.   5-Step Employer Action Plan This flu season’s elevated activity and higher hospitalization rates make proactive planning more important than ever. Here are five steps to guide you through this year’s season.   Read More

January 15, 2026 Washington — Nearly 95% of respirator components purchased from two online marketplaces have proved to be fraudulent, according to the results of a recent  case study  conducted by NIOSH. Working with the National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, NIOSH researchers purchased 372 respirator components (240 P100 filters, 124 combination cartridges and eight chemical cartridges) and performance tested them.   Every combination cartridge and chemical cartridge was found to be fraudulent, while 220 of the 240 P100 filters were determined to be fake.   The researchers prioritized purchasing filters and cartridges displaying “NIOSH” or “P100” markings that weren’t manufactured by NIOSH approval holders and products. The online photos had evidence of concealing, blurring or deleting part of the certification mark. One example was a product with a “100” marking rather than “P100.”   For each fraudulent product purchased, the researchers also bought genuine NIOSH-approved components to serve as controls for testing and evaluation.   Two genuine elastomeric half-mask respirators of each part number – 6100(S), 6200(M) and 6300(L) – were purchased, as they’re the facepieces for respirator configuration and were referenced in the online marketplace listings. They were used to perform resistance testing and generate test figures for all P100 and gas/vapor testing.   All 100 fraudulent combination cartridges tested failed because they exhibited values above the maximum limit. All four pairs of fake chemical cartridges failed for exhibiting values below the NIOSH minimum service life requirement. Each of the fraudulent cartridges had chemical breakthroughs in less than five minutes.   All six pairs of P100 filters tested for fraudulent products F-1-1 and F-1-2 and one pair for fraudulent F-2-1 product failed.   To avoid purchasing fraudulent products, end users should: Check  NIOSH’s Certified Equipment List  to verify NIOSH approval of respirator components. Review the agency’s  Counterfeit/Misrepresented Respirators webpage  or its  Informing Workers of Counterfeit and Misrepresented Respirators fact sheet . Sign up for the  NPPTL’s Listserv  to receive email updates on the latest research on personal protective equipment.   Suspected fraudulent respirators can be reported to NIOSH via email at  ppeconcerns@cdc.gov . Correspondence should include the company name on the respirator, the model or part number, photos of the respirator and packaging, the NIOSH approval number (if present, such as SC-84A-XXXX or TC-21C-XXXX), and the web URL where the item was purchased or found.

January 14, 2026 Employers generally view workplace safety enforcement as a civil problem, with criminal prosecution seen as a rare exception reserved only for the most egregious conduct.   In practice, that assumption is becoming increasingly misplaced. Although criminal safety prosecutions remain relatively uncommon, precedent shows that they tend to arise from predictable fact patterns. This article examines two such scenarios in which employers and their supervisory personnel face an increased risk of criminal prosecution for safety-related violations, even where they may have written safety rules in place.   OSHA Enforcement and the Risk of Criminal Prosecution Generally The enforcement mechanism under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) is primarily civil in nature. Inspectors from OSHA (or one of its approved state plans) conduct inspections of work sites to determine whether violations of applicable safety and health standards or regulations exist.   Those inspections may occur as a result of a complaint, an accident, a drive-by by an inspector, or the agency's inspection protocols and priorities. Apparent violations discovered during such inspections typically result in the issuance of citations with proposed penalties and accompanying abatement expectations. Although the penalties proposed in connection with such apparent violations can be very substantial, they are civil in nature.   Indeed, civil citations and penalties are the overwhelmingly predominant result of inspections by OSHA compliance officers. However, in appropriate circumstances, employers, including officers and directors, can find themselves in the crosshairs of a criminal indictment. This can happen because the OSH Act and its state counterparts in approved state plans allow for criminal prosecution under limited circumstances, including when the violation of a safety standard is willful and results in the death of an employee.   Willful violations, very generally, relate to those violations that reflect a conscious or deliberate disregard of or indifference to the requirements imposed by a standard. Such disregard need not to be malicious or calculated to lead to injury; it is sufficient that the employer knew what was required of it, but consciously ignored or deliberately did not adhere to those requirements.   Of greater concern is the risk of prosecution for workplace events under state criminal statutes for charges such as reckless endangerment, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. The prospect of criminal liability under state laws presents a much broader basis for potential liability of employers and supervisors because there is no requirement that a death occur or that the violation be willful.   Criminal Liability Related to Trenches and Overhead Powerlines The criminal prosecution of safety-related violations is comparatively rare. Nevertheless, there are at least two scenarios in which employers may reasonably expect potential criminal prosecution.   These two scenarios are instructing or permitting employees to work within an unprotected trench or excavation that collapses and causes the death of or serious injury to an employee.   The second is an electrocution that occurs as the result of instructing or tolerating employees to work around energized overhead power lines without appropriate protection from contacting the lines, either with their hands or the tools and equipment with which the employees are working.   Many employers may be thinking that neither scenario is worrisome because they have rules that prohibit such work. Regrettably, this reliance on the existence of written rules is often not a safe haven for employers.   Such rules do not provide a safe harbor unless the rules are found to be clear, communicated to employees, and enforced scrupulously by the company.   A weak link is often the employer's own supervisors. Having placed individuals in a supervisory positions, employers are typically considered to be responsible for the decisions made by their supervisors.   Approximately four years ago we published an article,  Fifth Circuit to Employers: "Your Past May Haunt You ," about a case in which a U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a willful citation against a Texas highway construction business, finding that the employer was liable for the foreman's intentional disregard of safety measures and instructions from its safety manager.  Angel Bros. Enterprises v. Walsh,  18 F.4th 827 (5th Cir .  2021).   In that case, the court found the employer was aware of the violation and could not assert a valid misconduct defense because the foreman told employees to enter the trench in violation of OSHA standards and the employer's own rules. The court rejected the employer's assertion that it should not be held responsible for the supervisor's malfeasance in ordering the workers into the trench. In the court's view, the company was legally aware of the foreman's malfeasance: because of his supervisory authority, the foreman's direction to employees was fairly imputed to be a direction from the employer.   The court in that case also held that a supervisor's willful actions may be imputed to an employer. In our discussion, we observed that imputing the supervisor's knowledge to the company was troubling, since if a supervisor's knowledge can be imputed to an employer for purposes of proving willfulness, then all violations arguably are willful because supervisory knowledge is a required element of every alleged OSHA violation.   Most courts and the OSH Review Commission may have not gone so far as the court in  Angel  in imputing a supervisor's intent to the company or its officers, but the case remains persuasive on an employer's ability to assert the defense of employee misconduct against citations resulting from a supervisor's acting against instructions.  See, e.g.,   Comtran Group, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Lab. , 722 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2013) (declining to impute a supervisor's willful misconduct to the employer absent proof of employer knowledge).   Thus, the decision is in line with the majority of decisions stating that employers have "heightened duty to ensure the proper conduct of [supervisory] personnel," and finding that instructions by supervisors, foremen, or lead men to do work in violation of company rules or their tolerance of such work is not misconduct from which the company will be excused.  See Angel Bros. , 18 F. 4th at 831 (quotation marks and citation omitted).   Rather, in those instances the supervisor's knowledge of his or her failure to enforce compliance with the company's rules—whether the supervisor actually directed or merely acquiesced to those actions—will likely be imputed to the employer and will constitute the employer's knowledge of the violations.   Employee misconduct defenses will be limited to instances in which an employee (and in some cases more than one employee) violates the rule without supervisory knowledge or in which the supervisor is the one who engages in the activity, usually without participation by other employees. This limit is imposed because participation in the violative conduct by several employees "is strong evidence that implementation of the [safety] policy was lax."  See Floyd S. Pike Elec. Contractor, Inc. v. OSHRC , 576 F.2d 72, 77 (5th Cir. 1978) (quotation marks and citation omitted).   The implications for employers are profound. Settled caselaw imposes a duty on employers to ensure that their supervisors know and enforce the company's safety rules: tolerating noncompliance will be construed as evidence of employer knowledge of alleged violations or lax enforcement of rules such that claims of misconduct will likely fail.   More importantly, if workers are injured or killed because of such laxity, the company and its supervisors could find themselves confronting criminal allegations.   Many employers, particularly those in construction, have employees who regularly work in excavations or around overhead power lines. Most of those employers have clear rules on how such work should be performed safely.   If workers are not adequately trained on those rules or if foremen or competent persons do not enforce the rules, reliance on employee misconduct as a defense against citations will be compromised.  Mar-Jac Poultry MS, LLC v. Secretary of Labor , No. 24-60026 (5th Cir. July 10, 2025) ("Mar-Jac did not prove that the company adequately communicated its work rule to relevant employees, took reasonable steps to discover violations of the rule, and effectively enforced the rule. Rather, … substantial evidence supports that … floor personnel and supervisors regularly and openly violated this rule").   Likewise, the reluctance to meaningfully discipline employees and supervisors when serious infractions of the employer's rules occur may undermine an employee misconduct defense against citations.   Lax enforcement of safety rules should also raise concerns about possible criminal prosecution, particularly if employees are seriously injured or killed as a result. While concerns about prosecution may exist for any violation that could or does result in the death or serious injury of a worker, the risk is greatly magnified when the underlying violation involves employees working unprotected in excavations and trenches or around energized overhead powerlines.   The risk is increased because serious injury or death from a trench collapse or from contacting overhead powerlines is seen as not merely possible, but probable. Not surprisingly, so is the risk of criminal prosecution of employers and their supervisors who allow employees to do such work without appropriate protection.

January 13, 2026 Washington — Employers can help prevent cases of welder’s anthrax – an often-fatal respiratory illness – by using safe work practices that limit exposure to “harmful metal fumes that might predispose welders” to the condition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says.   Welder’s anthrax is caused by infection with anthrax toxin-producing  Bacillus cereus  group bacteria. In the  January issue  of CDC’s  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report , the agency says the illness has recently been detected in a handful of workers in the South.   In September 2024, the illness was diagnosed in a “young, previously healthy welding apprentice in Louisiana.” Doctors treated the worker with the medication  obiltoxaximab , provided additional medicine to combat bacteria and drained fluid from his chest.   The worker eventually recovered from the illness.   Six welders or metalworkers – all from Texas or Louisiana – have died after contracting the disease and two more survived. Risk factors for the bacterial infection aren’t well understood, CDC says.   The agency’s advice: “Welder’s anthrax should be considered in the differential diagnosis of pneumonia among welders or metalworkers in the southern United States. Obiltoxaximab may be used as an adjunct to antimicrobial therapy for patients with suspected welder’s anthrax.   “To help prevent infections, employers of welders and metalworkers can follow best practices to minimize workplace exposure to welding fumes and gases, as well as soil and dust exposure in worksite areas where the bacteria might be present.”

January 9, 2026 The legal landscape for workplace drug testing is likely to see some significant changes in 2026. This article summarizes the shifts in federal and state policy, continuing and emerging challenges for employers, and what employers can do to be prepared in 2026. Quick Hits President Donald Trump has instructed the U.S. Department of Justice to reclassify marijuana, which could happen in 2026. In recent years, a growing number of states have legalized medical and recreational marijuana, provided job protections for medical and/or recreational marijuana use, and passed new restrictions on workplace marijuana testing. Aside from marijuana issues, employers continue to struggle with managing opioid abuse in their workforce and have begun to experience new challenges in dealing with substances such as fentanyl and ketamine. A new saliva drug test may make it easier for employers to conduct drug tests at the workplace. Disability accommodation questions continue to create difficult issues for employers to manage.   Reclassifying Marijuana Forty states and Washington, D.C., have legalized marijuana for medical purposes. Twenty-four states and Washington, D.C., allow marijuana for recreational purposes. However, marijuana use and possession remain illegal at the federal level.   On December 18, 2025, President Trump signed an  executive order  directing the attorney general to  reschedule marijuana  from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act. If that happens, marijuana use and possession would continue to be illegal at the federal level, but the federal penalties for certain offenses may be reduced.   In addition, employees who have a disability may be able to obtain a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for consuming cannabis because Schedule III drugs are recognized as having a currently accepted medical use. While medical marijuana cardholders have regularly had success in recent years asserting claims for disability discrimination under state anti-discrimination laws, individuals have had less success asserting claims under the federal ADA due to marijuana’s status as a Schedule I drug. This could change with federal rescheduling of marijuana.   Importantly, the illegality of marijuana under federal law does not provide a defense to state law claims for non-federally-regulated workers, regardless of what class marijuana is scheduled in. These state claims include lawsuits for violating employment protection provisions contained within state medical or recreational marijuana legalization laws, state disability discrimination laws, or state lawful off-duty conduct laws.   Opioids, Fentanyl, Ketamine Employers are still dealing with opioid abuse issues, including the question of whether to utilize Narcan to prevent overdoses at the workplace. There are new challenges emerging, including the rise in employee use of fentanyl, ketamine, and other substances. The emergence of these new challenges is indicative of the reality that workplace drug and alcohol testing and related issues are never-ending.   DOT and Testing Standards The standard workplace drug test checks for amphetamines, cocaine, marijuana, opioids, and PCP. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revised its drug testing guidelines to include fentanyl and norfentanyl with enforcement beginning on July 7, 2025. That rule applies to federal employees in safety-sensitive, security-sensitive, and national security jobs. Likewise, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)  proposed  adding fentanyl and norfentanyl to its drug testing panels, and a final rule is expected to take effect in early 2026. That rule would apply to private transportation employees in the trucking, aviation, rail, transit, pipeline, and maritime industries.   The DOT’s proposed rule seeks to align with an HHS regulation that established a protocol for drug testing with saliva, rather than urine. However, DOT-regulated employers cannot implement saliva testing until HHS certifies two laboratories to complete those tests. In the meantime, those employers will continue to rely on urine testing. Saliva testing can be easier for employers because it can happen quicky in the workplace under direct supervision without the need for a bathroom and privacy.   Multistate Testing Restrictions State rules on drug and alcohol testing vary widely, making the situation complex for multistate employers. In some states, employers are prohibited from conducting a drug test before extending a conditional job offer. Some states ban or restrict random drug or alcohol testing but allow drug or alcohol testing for safety-sensitive jobs, when there’s reasonable suspicion of impairment, or after a workplace accident. Some states limit the circumstances under which employers can conduct post-accident or post-injury testing. Finally, some jurisdictions and states impose specific restrictions on marijuana testing.   Many states prohibit employers from disciplining or firing an employee for off-duty, legal medical and/or recreational marijuana use. While no state prohibits an employer from enacting policies curbing the use or possession of marijuana while on duty or when someone is impaired at work, drug tests are unable to measure impairment.   Disability Accommodations An employee might ask for a reasonable accommodation to consume marijuana for a medical condition, such as chronic pain, nausea, muscle spasms, epilepsy, insomnia, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorder. Currently, the ADA does not require employers to accommodate “current illegal drug use,” which has lessened the burden on employers to provide a reasonable accommodation for medical marijuana use. However, this could change if marijuana is rescheduled. In addition, state disability discrimination laws may still come into play and create accommodation obligations. State disability discrimination laws may prohibit employers from discriminating against an employee who has a disability and a valid, state-issued medical marijuana card permitting the employee to use medical marijuana while off duty.   The differences in employment protections across states are vast and must be strictly followed, particularly as this area has become more litigious. Employers generally can discipline or fire an employee for being impaired by marijuana while on the job, although testing positive for marijuana on a drug test is not a proxy for impairment.   Next Steps Employers may wish to take these steps to be prepared to properly handle drug and alcohol testing and related issues in 2026: Reviewing written drug and alcohol testing policies and any other process or procedure documents and consider whether updates are needed to comply with applicable state laws. Becoming familiar with the relevant state drug and alcohol testing laws, and the relevant state drug and alcohol testing laws. Considering whether the rescheduling of marijuana warrants an internal change to employer policies or practices with regards to marijuana testing. Considering whether to begin testing for substances, such as fentanyl or ketamine, that may not be included within standard panel drug tests. If using a third-party drug testing vendor, coordinating with the vendor to ensure compliance with any changes to state and federal laws and regulations. Employers may also want to evaluate whether the existing vendor is meeting expectations and performing well, or whether a change in vendors might be necessary. Avoiding asking questions about marijuana or prescription medication use during job interviews, as it could lead to a discrimination lawsuit or accommodation obligations. Carefully documenting the reasons for disciplining or firing an employee, such as violating the drug policy, violating the safety policy, or evidence of impairment at work, including slurred speech, poor motor coordination, or the odor of drugs. Considering engaging in an interactive process for disability accommodation if an employee is a medical marijuana cardholder. Also consider the nature of the employee’s job duties, the work environment, safety concerns, and any information provided by the employee’s doctor. Training supervisors to spot signs of intoxication in the workplace through effective reasonable suspicion training

January 8, 2026 Wide-ranging legislation addresses E-Verify, car accidents, and overseas remittances. Florida businesses that purposely ignore whether employees are legally in the United States could face hefty fines or even criminal charges if they hire more than 50 undocumented immigrants, according to a sweeping new immigration package. Filed Wednesday by Republican Sen. Jonathan Martin, the 34-page bill would presume certain non-citizens are at fault in car accidents, severely restrict their employment, and prevent state banks from loaning them money. It’s the most wide-ranging immigration bundle proposed so far ahead of the 2026 session, and would extend a 2025 crackdown that removed in-state tuition for undocumented students, imposed state-level penalties for illegally entering Florida, and required all counties to partner with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The nationwide push to quash all avenues for undocumented immigration has been exemplified in Florida, the first state to create a state-run migrant detention center. Since President Donald Trump’s inauguration last January, Sunshine State officials have mirrored his anti-illegal immigration agenda. This includes deputizing hundreds of state and local officials to act as immigration officers; Florida is the only state to have all of its (67) counties entering into 287(g) agreements, which are partnerships with ICE. Martin didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.   E-Verify penalties SB 1380  would create civil penalties for employers who fail to properly use E-Verify, a federal database that checks whether new hires are legally authorized to work in the country. This builds off of another Martin bill, which would  require  all businesses to use E-Verify. Employers who fail to check workers’ immigration status through E-Verify before submitting workers’ compensation claims would be personally liable for any costs, expenses, or benefits for undocumented employees. Purposely not checking their status, however, would result in suspension of business licenses for one year and fines up to $10,000. Doing it again would result in a five-year license suspension alongside a $100,000 fine, and a third violation would mean permanent license revocation and a $250,000 fine. If the employer purposely flouts this section and the undocumented worker then ends up injuring another person, the employer’s license would be suspended for five years with a $100,000 fine. If the worker kills another person, the licenses would be permanently revoked with a $500,000 fine. In a similar vein, the bill would impose a third-degree felony charge for an employer who knowingly hires more than 50 undocumented workers. The business would permanently lose its license. The bill would create a cause of action against the employer for any person injured or the next of kin of a person killed by the actions of an undocumented worker. These provisions evoke a recently closed, two-year federal investigation into Archer Western, a road-building company hired by the state that employed undocumented immigrants for years, as the Tampa Bay Times  has reported . Officials opened the investigation after an undocumented Archer Western employee driving heavy machinery in 2022 hit and killed a Pinellas   County deputy. At least 18 of his coworkers on that state-funded construction site were also undocumented.   Car accidents, foreign remittances, and licensing SB 1380 would create a rebuttable presumption of fault in car accidents involving undocumented immigrants from other states. This means if an out-of-state driver who is undocumented is involved in a car accident in Florida, authorities could presume he or she was at fault — as long as the other motorist wasn’t driving recklessly, under the influence, or clearly at fault. Insurers could not pay benefits or settle claims with an unauthorized out-of-state driver, the bill says. Additionally, the bill requires law enforcement officers investigating car accidents to verify whether the parties are legally in the country. Other provisions would ban the state Division of Risk Management from approving a claim submitted by an adult undocumented immigrant. Unauthorized immigrants would be barred from sending money to other countries and state banks could not accept IDs traditionally used by undocumented immigrants or those illegally in the state with down payments or loans. All licensing procedures, relicensing instruction, and licensing testing must be conducted in English, the bill says. Interpreters, translators, or alternate language accommodations would be banned. The 2026 session begins on Jan. 13.

January 8, 2026 There’s an old saw in the safety world that says the rules are written in blood. It’s a grim reminder that most workplace safety regulations exist because someone, somewhere, was hurt or killed doing something that now has a rule against it. Sometimes, though, we get a reminder that the blood continues to flow even when the rules already exist. We just have to follow them. In  March of last year , 45-year-old Sunbok You, the CEO of Hyundai subcontractor SBY America, was killed at the HL-GA Battery Company construction site in Bryan County, Georgia – part of the massive Hyundai Motor Group Metaplant America complex. He was speaking with some of his workers when he walked across a road on the site. A forklift struck him. The details of what happened next are graphic enough that I’ll spare you the worst of them, but suffice it to say that Mr. You was divided on the issue and did not survive. The OSHA investigation that followed revealed the circumstances. The forklift operator was talking on his phone while driving. He wasn’t using a spotter, as required by site safety rules. He wasn’t following the traffic regulations that existed specifically to prevent this kind of tragedy. And after the incident? According to witness statements, he got off the forklift and ran away without checking on the man he’d just struck. I’ll pause here to acknowledge what you may be thinking: Yes, Mr. You himself was apparently not wearing the required high-visibility green vest – he was wearing a black vest instead. He also had an eye patch on his right eye, which may have affected his peripheral vision. These are contributing factors worth noting. As someone who recently underwent eye surgery for a macular pucker and spent time with compromised vision in one eye, I can tell you firsthand that depth perception and peripheral awareness take a genuine hit. I was acutely aware during that process of how much I relied on full binocular vision to navigate the world safely. I was extra cautious. I stayed out of situations where my impaired vision could put me – or anyone else – at risk. So yes, Mr. You may have borne some responsibility for his own safety that day. Perhaps the eye patch should have made him even more vigilant. Perhaps the black vest was a lapse in judgment. But here’s the thing – and it’s the thing that matters most: Even if Sunbok You had been dressed head to toe in fluorescent orange, with flashing lights and a marching band announcing his presence, the forklift driver may not have seen him. Because the forklift driver was looking at his phone. This wasn’t an equipment failure. This wasn’t an unforeseeable accident. This wasn’t even a complicated scenario requiring sophisticated hazard analysis. This was a man on a phone operating heavy machinery in an area where other humans were present. It’s as preventable as tragedies get. The fines that resulted are almost insulting in their inadequacy. Beyond Iron Construction, the forklift operator’s employer, was fined $16,550 for exposing employees to “struck-by and crushing hazards” and failing to ensure forklift operators followed traffic regulations. SBY America – Mr. You’s own company – was fined approximately $9,268. HL-GA Battery Company got a $1,800 fine for failing to submit required injury forms to OSHA. For those keeping score at home, the total regulatory consequence for a man’s life was roughly $27,600. That’s less than the cost of the forklift that cut him in half. People know I am a conservative, generally pro-employer person who eschews excessive regulation, but that bias has its limits. And the safety record of this particular jobsite, which I will review in a moment, calls the fine adequacy into question. But I digress… this article isn’t really about the inadequacy of OSHA penalties in this case, though that’s certainly a topic worthy of its own discussion. It’s about something more fundamental. When we talk about workplace safety, we often frame it in terms of self-protection. Wear your hard hat so  you  don’t get hurt. Follow lockout/tagout procedures so  you  don’t get electrocuted. Use proper lifting technique so  you  don’t blow out your back. The messaging is almost entirely focused on the individual worker protecting themselves from harm. And that’s important. It is. But it misses something crucial. Workplace safety isn’t just about protecting yourself. It’s about protecting everyone around you. The forklift operator in Georgia wasn’t protecting himself by scrolling through his phone – he was endangering everyone in his vicinity. His momentary distraction became someone else’s permanent tragedy. This is the part of safety culture that doesn’t get enough attention. Every worker on a job site is a potential hazard to every other worker on that job site. The scaffolding you didn’t secure properly could fall on someone else. The load you didn’t strap down correctly could shift and crush a coworker. The forklift you’re driving while checking your text messages could kill someone’s father, someone’s husband, someone’s friend. The Hyundai megasite where Mr. You died has a troubling history. According to reports, there were 53 EMS calls to the site over a 16-month period, including over a dozen for traumatic injuries. There was another forklift accident. A worker caught in a conveyor belt. A pipe explosion. And Mr. You wasn’t even the only fatality – Victor Gamboa died in a 60-foot fall in 2023, and 27-year-old Allen Kowalski was killed when a metal frame fell on him in May 2025. OSHA has opened at least 15 investigations into incidents at this single site. At some point, you have to ask: What is going on here? Is this a site where safety is genuinely prioritized, or is it a site where safety is treated as an inconvenient obstacle to production schedules? I spend a lot of time in this space talking about workers’ compensation – how to improve the system, how to better serve injured workers, how to transform claims management into recovery management. But here’s a truth that should be obvious but apparently needs repeating: The best workers’ compensation claim is the one that never gets filed. Workers’ compensation exists because we accept that workplaces will never be perfectly safe, that injuries will occur, and that we need a system to address them when they do. That’s the grand bargain. But accepting that injuries will occur is not the same as accepting that they must occur at any particular rate, or that any particular injury was inevitable. Sunbok You’s death was not inevitable. It was the predictable result of a worker ignoring basic safety protocols while operating dangerous equipment. It was preventable. It should have been prevented. So the next time you’re tempted to skip a safety step because it’s inconvenient, or to check your phone while operating equipment, or to take a shortcut because you’re running behind schedule, remember this: You’re not just risking your own neck. You’re risking everyone else’s too. The rules exist for a reason. They’re written in blood. Let’s stop adding to the ink supply.

January 7, 2026 January 07, 2026 - The federal government has been focused on immigration issues and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been conducting "sweeps" in cities across the United States to identify, detain and deport persons illegally in the country. On Dec. 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced that Operation Catahoula Crunch, a sweep conducted in New Orleans, has resulted in the arrest of more than 250 illegal or undocumented workers.   Employers may be wondering how this affects employment issues regarding those workers, especially when it comes to the obligation to pay workers' compensation benefits. Anticipating continued immigration sweeps, an understanding of workers' compensation claims involving undocumented workers is important for employers to understand.   Arguments for and against denying workers' compensation claims Proponents of denying workers' compensation benefits to undocumented workers argue that because of the undocumented or illegal immigration status, there is no valid employment contract that is enforceable between the undocumented worker and the employer. They contend that in the absence of a valid employer/employee relationship, there can be no obligation to pay workers' compensation benefits. They suggest that detention and deportation from the U.S. is equal to incarceration and many states deny workers' compensation benefits during any period of incarceration.   Opponents of the denial of workers' compensation benefits to undocumented workers argue that workers' compensation laws serve the purpose of placing the financial burden of employee injuries on the employers who benefit from the workers' labor, rather than on society or the workers themselves.   How states are currently handling claims for undocumented workers In many states, undocumented workers who are injured on the job are entitled to workers' compensation benefits despite it being illegal for the employers to hire undocumented workers, although there are some caveats. In Alabama in 2005, Jefferson County Circuit Judge G. William Noble signed an order holding that an illegal worker was entitled to workers' compensation benefits. The precedential importance of this case is uncertain because the decision was not appealed. In Champion Autobody v. Gallegos, a case in Colorado (Colo. App. Ct. 1997), the court held that illegal workers may collect benefits for work-related injuries as long as the work is related to the injury.   Florida law prohibits the payment of workers' compensation benefits to an injured worker if the employment was entered into under false information or pretenses. This means that if the undocumented worker provided a false Social Security number or otherwise misrepresented their status, the employer and carrier have the right to contest benefits. In Sanchez v. Eagle Alloy, a 2003 case in the Michigan Court of Appeals, the court held that illegal workers are entitled to workers' compensation medical benefits but are not entitled to disability or indemnity benefits because they committed a crime in violating the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.   Changes are already on the horizon With the current administration continuing its efforts to detain and deport illegal workers, this could mean there will be a shift in the way states handle workers' compensation benefits for undocumented workers. Changes are already on the horizon in Michigan and Florida.   As reported by MLive.com on Dec. 12, 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a state policy that denies workers' compensation to undocumented workers who are injured in the course of employment. In 2021, the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center sued Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, seeking to challenge a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling that found that workers' compensation benefits were not owed to workers whenever "commission of a crime" prevented the person from obtaining or performing work. The trial court held that using false documents to obtain a job constituted a crime. The Court of Appeals ultimately held that the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center did not file suit timely. After a hearing in October 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center should not be allowed to appeal the decision. As reported in a Dec. 3, 2025, post on the Florida Politics website, Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia is backing legislation to deny workers' compensation benefits to undocumented workers. The legislation seeks to remove illegal immigrants as "covered employees" under Florida's workers' compensation statute. If the legislation is enacted, companies that hire undocumented workers could be required to pay out of pocket for work related injuries to those workers, rather than relying on workers' compensation insurance coverage. As proposed, employers would be required to use an E-Verify system when submitting workers' compensation claims after an injury to establish that the worker was legally hired.   What the future holds It is generally considered that there are currently 32 "red" states and 18 "blue" states. If the "red" states follow the lead of Michigan and Florida, this could significantly impact the administration of claims and provide an additional defense to employers and carriers. With the current focus on the detention and deportation of undocumented workers, it would not be a surprise to see the federal government and more states revising their workers' compensation statutes to deny workers' compensation benefits to undocumented workers in this country.

January 7, 20206 Workers' compensation is a system designed to protect employers and employees from "unexpected events happening suddenly." That phrase, or one like it, is featured in various statutes across the country. The Florida version is: “Accident" means only an unexpected or unusual event or result that happens suddenly. But what if the event is neither unexpected nor particularly unusual? What if the event is even intentional? I had thoughts on this recently as a news story evolved around workplace hazing. The event resulted in criminal charges of kidnapping, robbery and battery against multiple workers. The victim is reportedly back at work, and the alleged perpetrators are seeking opportunities for remuneration elsewhere (fired). As with too much today, the alleged incident is said to have started with social media. The victim apparently had a dance video on his phone, and his co-workers "began taunting ... about the video." As a rhythm-challenged person, I can identify with this. This taunting allegedly led to violence perpetrated against the victim. This, according to WFTV . Further details are in an earlier WFTV report . I spare the details, but if the allegations are true, the battery portion may be readily perceived. Hitting people is not a great idea in any circumstance. My students often struggle with battery and accepting that merely touching someone could lead to arrest. A recent People story about a flight attendant supports that. Admittedly, there is nothing in the reporting on the recent hazing that suggests this is an instance of work injury or even that medical care was required. Some battery is worse than others. Nonetheless, the situation described reminded me of several cases I litigated eons ago in a galaxy far, far, away (Jacksonville). One of those was a severe enough beating to require significant medical care. Does the workers' compensation law consider the potential that a co-worker might be responsible for, or contribute to, an injury? The right place to begin such an analysis is Section 440.11, the "exclusivity" provision.  This exclusivity is seen by many as the main benefit that employers enjoy from workers' compensation. What is less discussed is that this section provides "the same immunities from liability (for injury) enjoyed by an employer" to "each employee of the employer" in many or even most instances. Thus, co-workers who contribute to an "accident" enjoy some protection from civil (tort) liability, just as the employer itself does. But, there is an important exception that follows in that same statute section: Such fellow-employee immunities shall not be applicable to an employee who acts, with respect to a fellow employee, with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence when such acts result in injury or death or such acts proximately cause such injury or death. So, if an employee beats a co-worker, there is at least some chance that the workers' compensation law will not protect the beater from a lawsuit by the beatee. There is also a broad provision that might preclude the payment of workers' compensation in such a beating. Section 440.09(3) might preclude the beatee from receiving compensation if the injury arose in an instance where the beatee began as the beater (the "aggressor"). Thus, the analysis can be complex at times. Nonetheless, there is the potential for violence in the workplace to create workers' compensation liability for the employer and potentially tort liability for co-workers. It is all worthy of review and consideration.