Alerts
-
29 minutes, 10 seconds
Employment laws have traditionally set limits on employer decisions. They define what information employers may consider, prohibit discrimination, and specify when particular employment actions are allowed. Increasingly, lawmakers are also prescribing the procedures employers must follow to reach those decisions.
San Francisco’s recent amendments to its Fair Chance Ordinance illustrate this shift. For certain categories of criminal history, employers no longer decide for themselves whether a conviction is sufficiently related to a position. The ordinance makes that determination.
Other jurisdictions are addressing decisions influenced by technology. California is requiring independent human review of certain disciplinary and termination decisions involving automated systems. Colorado is establishing rights to information, correction, and human reconsideration when automated technology influences consequential decisions.
States are also adding detailed procedural requirements to long-standing employer activities, including criminal-history evaluations and employment eligibility verification. Together, these developments point to a broader change in employment regulation: legislatures are defining not only the boundaries of employer discretion, but also the processes employers must use when exercising it.
The third quarter of 2026 offers a useful view of this change across several areas: criminal history, compensation, cannabis, artificial intelligence, and employment eligibility verification.
Fair chance hiring laws have moved well beyond their original focus on delaying criminal-history inquiries. Employers may now face restrictions on which records they can consider, requirements to document individualized assessments, mandatory notices to applicants, and waiting periods before taking adverse action.
Some jurisdictions are also beginning to limit the conclusions employers can reach about criminal records. San Francisco provides a particularly clear example of this development.
Amendments to San Francisco’s Fair Chance Ordinance took effect on August 10, 2026. The ordinance generally applies to employers with five or more employees worldwide when the position falls within the ordinance’s geographic scope.
For employers covered by the law, the amendments affect how criminal-history information may be evaluated. In the categories addressed by the ordinance, an employer cannot simply make its own judgment about whether a conviction relates sufficiently to the position. The law determines that question, narrowing the discretion employers have traditionally exercised when reviewing criminal records.
This approach differs from rules that primarily establish a process for evaluating an applicant’s history. Requirements such as documenting an individualized assessment, notifying an applicant, or waiting before taking adverse action govern how an employer reaches and communicates a decision. San Francisco’s amendments go further for certain categories by restricting the substantive conclusion available to the employer.
The ordinance is therefore relevant to employers with at least five employees worldwide whose positions are within its geographic scope, as well as to those responsible for hiring and background-check procedures. Employers should review whether covered positions and criminal-history categories are affected, then align their evaluation practices with the amended requirements. The ordinance took effect August 10, 2026.
More broadly, San Francisco’s changes show how fair chance laws are evolving. Compliance may require employers to do more than delay inquiries or document a case-by-case review; in some situations, it may also mean accepting a legal determination about the relationship between a conviction and a job.
The amendments to San Francisco’s Fair Chance Ordinance added four categories of protected criminal history: convictions involving abortion-related healthcare, gender-affirming healthcare, drag performances, and spontaneous abortion. The changes affect more than the list of records employers may not consider. They also alter how employers must assess whether criminal history is related to a job.
Previously, employers generally had to conduct an individualized assessment to determine whether a conviction was directly related to the position. For most types of criminal history, that job-relatedness decision remained with the employer. Under the amendments, however, convictions in the four newly protected categories cannot be treated as directly related convictions. The city has therefore settled that question in advance, leaving employers no discretion to decide otherwise for these categories.
The amendments also strengthen the process applicants can use to respond to a proposed adverse decision. Applicants generally have seven days to provide a response. When an applicant submits qualifying information, the employer must acknowledge it within 14 days and reconsider the proposed action.
An employer must withdraw the proposed action when the applicant makes the required showing: that the decision rests solely on criminal history the ordinance prohibits the employer from treating as job-related. Employers should account for these steps when setting timelines and assigning responsibility for reviewing applicant responses.
The Office of Labor Standards Enforcement later updated its required Fair Chance notice to reflect the amended requirements, including provisions governing final adverse action. Employers that revised their policies when the amendments first took effect should check that their notices and procedures also reflect the city’s subsequent changes.
The broader change is a shift in regulatory emphasis. San Francisco is not only requiring employers to assess criminal history fairly. For specified categories, the city is determining the permissible result of that assessment.
Washington’s revised Fair Chance Act took effect July 1, 2026, for employers with 15 or more employees. Its expanded requirements apply to smaller employers beginning January 1, 2027. The law generally bars employers from asking about criminal history until after making a conditional offer. Before disqualifying an applicant based on a conviction, an employer must also conduct an individualized assessment.
Before taking adverse action, employers must give the applicant information about the proposed decision and an opportunity to respond. The law requires a minimum waiting period of two business days. This period gives applicants time to address the proposed decision before the employer proceeds.
Employers that use consumer reports must also meet the separate pre-adverse-action requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s. Meeting Washington’s waiting-period rule does not replace those federal obligations; employers need to account for both sets of requirements when a consumer report is involved.
Washington also requires employers to provide the Attorney General’s Fair Chance Guide in specified circumstances. These include certain communications about criminal background checks made after a conditional offer. Employers should ensure that the required guide reaches applicants at the appropriate stage, rather than relying only on the screening process itself.
This requirement creates a practical coordination issue. A background screening provider may follow a compliant process, yet the employer can still encounter problems if recruiters do not give applicants the required information at the right point in hiring. The duty can arise before the screening provider becomes involved, so employers should review the hiring sequence and make sure staff know when to provide notices and guidance.
Washington’s changes require coordination among recruiting, human resources, and background screening teams. Compliance depends on more than the final hiring assessment: employers also need to consider when information is communicated and which team is responsible for providing it.
Meanwhile, Clean Slate legislation is changing which criminal records may be available for employers to review. These laws vary by state, including their eligibility rules, exclusions, waiting periods, and processes for sealing or expunging records.
Virginia expanded record-sealing relief effective July 1, 2026. It includes automatic and petition-based relief for certain eligible nonconvictions and convictions. Automatic relief and petition-based relief are different routes: some eligible records may be addressed automatically, while others require a petition.
Georgia’s House Bill 162 also changed how qualifying First Offender records are treated. It allows certain records to be restricted and sealed earlier in the process.
Other states are preparing systems to carry out their laws. New York’s Clean Slate Act took effect in November 2024. The state has until November 16, 2027, to complete the systems required to automatically seal eligible convictions. In general, the law sets different waiting periods for qualifying misdemeanor and felony convictions, subject to statutory exclusions.
In Oklahoma, Senate Bill 2030 requires the state to establish an online expungement request portal by November 1, 2026. It also requires implementation of an automatic process by November 1, 2027. The portal and automatic process are separate implementation steps, each with its own deadline.
Missouri’s Senate Bill 1421 establishes automatic expungement for specified eligible offenses. The relevant provisions become operational when technically feasible, but no later than January 1, 2027. The legislation also addresses reporting expunged records and gives consumer reporting agencies a mechanism to obtain information needed to identify and remove affected records.
Employers should distinguish between a law taking effect and the systems needed to carry it out being ready. A record may qualify for future sealing without having been sealed yet, and court-system implementation may lag behind a statute’s effective date. As records are sealed or expunged, the information available through criminal background checks can change. Employers must also make sure their applications and decision-making practices comply with restrictions on sealed or expunged records.
The California Court of Appeal’s decision in Saberin v. Alation illustrates a jurisdictional challenge for employers with workers in multiple states. The case concerned a remote employee who worked in Utah for an employer headquartered in California. After the employee was arrested in Florida, with no resulting conviction, the employer terminated his employment.
The employee argued that California employment protections restricted the employer’s reliance on the arrest. He cited Labor Code Section 432.7 and Government Code Section 12952. The court concluded that, on the facts presented, the employee’s connections to California were insufficient for those statutes to apply.
The decision underscores the importance of considering where an employee works and the relevant connections to a state when assessing which employment laws govern a hiring or termination decision. For multistate employers, a company’s headquarters alone may not determine whether a particular state’s protections apply; the specific circumstances of the case matter.
The employee worked in Utah, the challenged employment decision was made in Illinois, and California-based involvement was limited. The decision does not create a categorical rule that remote employees are excluded from California’s protections. Instead, it underscores that the location and circumstances of the conduct being challenged matter.
For employers operating across state lines, deciding which law applies may require looking beyond the company’s headquarters or the employee’s home address. The location of the decisionmakers and the nature of their involvement may also be relevant.
Pay transparency continued to expand during the third quarter. Several states implemented new requirements, while others set future effective dates.
Although these laws share the goal of making compensation information more transparent, their coverage and requirements differ. Some reach internal job opportunities as well as external postings. Other provisions address benefits disclosures, salary-history inquiries, or the geographic scope of job advertisements. Remote positions can raise additional questions when an employee may work in more than one jurisdiction.
For employers, compliance involves more than adding a figure to a job posting. Hiring managers may establish compensation ranges, compensation teams may approve them, recruiters may communicate them, and third-party platforms may publish them. If a range changes, every stage of that process may need to be updated so that the information remains consistent and accurate.
Salary-history restrictions and pay-transparency requirements regulate different information at different stages of hiring. Salary-history rules govern what an employer may ask an applicant about previous compensation or consider when making an employment decision. Transparency requirements, by contrast, require employers to provide information about the compensation associated with a position.
As more jurisdictions regulate compensation disclosures, employers should set consistent procedures for developing and approving ranges, communicating benefits information, and checking job postings for accuracy. They should also have a process for updating disclosures when a position or compensation structure changes. These practices help employers manage requirements that may vary by jurisdiction and apply differently to internal opportunities, external advertisements, and remote roles.
As pay-transparency laws continue to expand, compensation decisions are becoming more visible. The process used to make those decisions is becoming just as important.
Cannabis policy is changing on several fronts, including legalization, employee protections, and employers’ authority to conduct drug testing. At the same time, the federal government is pursuing marijuana rescheduling, which raises separate questions for employers subject to federal testing requirements. Because state laws and federal rules do not move in lockstep, employers must assess the specific requirements that apply to them.
Oklahoma’s House Bill 3127 takes effect on November 1, 2026, and revises the state’s employment protections for medical-marijuana users.
The law expands the circumstances in which employers may take action under a written drug and alcohol testing policy. To qualify, a policy must be adopted and enforced in accordance with Oklahoma’s Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act. The legislation also creates a separate zero-tolerance standard for employees and applicants in safety-sensitive positions.
The changes are not limited to employers that identify safety-sensitive positions. They also affect how a compliant written testing policy interacts with protections that may otherwise apply to medical-marijuana licensees. As a result, employers should review their policies in light of the amended statute, particularly provisions addressing positive test results, marijuana use at work, and safety-sensitive duties.
The law illustrates that medical-marijuana authorization and workplace protections can exist alongside substantial employer testing authority. The balance depends on the applicable statutory framework and how an employer’s policy meets its requirements. Employers should consider whether their written policies and enforcement practices align with the law before the effective date.
November’s elections will give voters in Massachusetts and Idaho an opportunity to consider changes to cannabis policy. The proposed measures differ in purpose and scope, but each could influence the direction of state policy.
Massachusetts Question 8 proposes ending the state’s regulated recreational marijuana retail market while retaining limited adult possession and the medical-marijuana program. If voters approve the measure, its proposed changes would take effect on January 1, 2028. The measure would therefore alter the state’s recreational sales framework without eliminating all forms of adult possession or the medical program.
Idaho’s HJR 4 addresses which state institutions may authorize the legalization of certain psychoactive substances. In particular, it concerns granting the legislature exclusive authority and prohibiting citizen-initiated measures related to marijuana, narcotics, and psychoactive substances.
Neither proposal should be mistaken for an immediate change to workplace drug-testing requirements. Their significance is broader: the debate now includes whether existing legalization systems should continue and who should have the authority to change state policy. For employers, election outcomes may eventually affect workplace rules. However, any employment-policy review should start with the specific legal changes adopted and the employment provisions that apply, rather than assuming that a ballot result automatically changes testing obligations.
Federal marijuana policy took an unusual turn in 2026. In April, the federal government placed FDA-approved products containing marijuana and certain marijuana products covered by qualifying state medical-marijuana licenses into Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act.
This limited action is separate from the broader federal proceeding to consider moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. The limited action for certain medical-marijuana products has taken effect; the broader proceeding remains unresolved.
The Drug Enforcement Administration moved forward with a separate proceeding to consider whether marijuana more broadly should be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III.
On September 29, DEA’s chief administrative law judge stayed the broader proceeding while considering whether a Government Accountability Office report concerning federal drug scheduling should be included in the hearing record. Federal agencies were directed to respond by October 13.
DEA later opposed additional briefing based on the report, but left the question of admitting it to the judge. On October 14, the judge directed DEA to respond by October 21 to a separate request to reopen the hearing for limited discovery and testimony. The proceeding remains stayed, and the judge has not yet decided either request.
These procedural steps do not determine whether marijuana will ultimately be transferred to Schedule III. The stay concerns how the proceeding will move forward; it does not resolve the underlying rescheduling question.
For employers, rescheduling is not the same as legalization. Schedule III substances remain controlled under federal law. A change in classification would not automatically make state-authorized marijuana use permissible under federal workplace requirements, nor would it eliminate marijuana testing for employees in federally regulated safety-sensitive positions.
The Department of Transportation has maintained that employers must continue to follow existing marijuana drug-testing requirements. DOT has also explained that a state medical-marijuana card, a physician recommendation, or a dispensary receipt does not give a Medical Review Officer a legitimate medical explanation to verify a marijuana-positive DOT test as negative.
The broader rescheduling proposal raises implementation questions, even though the proceeding has not been resolved. DOT’s statutory authority to require testing is not expressly limited to Schedule I and II substances. However, parts of the federal drug-testing framework, including HHS laboratory requirements, are tied to those classifications. Any broader change in marijuana’s scheduling could therefore raise questions about how affected requirements should be applied.
Commercial-driver medical qualifications present a related but distinct issue.
Existing Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) guidance relies in part on marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I substance. However, the underlying medical-qualification regulation treats certain substances in Schedules II through V differently. If marijuana is rescheduled more broadly, additional regulatory guidance may be needed to explain how that change affects FMCSA requirements.
Employers should distinguish decisions made by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) about drug scheduling from the rules and requirements administered by the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and individual transportation agencies. A change in marijuana’s legal classification does not, by itself, establish how workplace rules will apply.
Marijuana’s legal classification is changing, but the workplace consequences will depend on more than its classification alone. Employers will need to consider the relevant regulatory guidance and requirements from the agencies responsible for their transportation operations.
State AI regulation is expanding beyond whether employers may use automated tools in hiring. Newer laws address how these systems affect employment decisions, what employers must disclose, whether people can obtain meaningful human review, and how AI-related changes affect workers. Developments in Colorado and Connecticut show how regulation is broadening.
Colorado’s Senate Bill 26-189 substantially revises the state’s earlier high-risk AI legislation. The new framework takes effect January 1, 2027, and sets requirements for developers and employers that use covered automated decision-making technology to materially influence consequential decisions, including certain employment decisions.
The obligations depend on the party’s role and how the technology is used. Developers must provide technical documentation that describes matters such as the system’s intended uses, categories of training data, known limitations, and appropriate human review. Employers using covered technology face requirements related to notices, information about adverse decisions, and opportunities for people to request correction of inaccurate personal data. In specified circumstances, the law also provides for meaningful human review and reconsideration.
On August 11, the Colorado Attorney General published proposed implementing rules. These proposals remain part of the rulemaking process and are not final requirements. Employers and developers should therefore distinguish the proposed rules from obligations established by the legislation.
Colorado’s framework reflects the fact that automated decision-making involves more than an employer receiving a recommendation from a software provider. Employers may need to understand the system’s intended purpose and the limitations identified by its developer. They may also need to know how the system contributed to a particular decision and what process is available if a person challenges the result.
By setting responsibilities for both developers and employers, the legislation addresses the relationship between the parties involved in creating and using automated decision-making technology. For employers, this makes it important to understand the technology in use, the information supplied by its developer, and the applicable procedures for notices, review, reconsideration, and data correction.
Connecticut’s Public Act 26-15 takes a different approach to automated employment decisions. Its provisions address employer accountability for discrimination, disclosures about AI-related layoffs, and responsibilities for technology developers and employers.
Effective October 1, 2026, the law reinforces employers’ responsibility for discriminatory decisions involving automated employment-related technology. An employer cannot use reliance on that technology as a defense to a discrimination claim. However, evidence of anti-bias testing and other proactive measures may be considered when determining whether discrimination occurred. These measures may be relevant to the assessment, but the law does not describe them as an automatic defense.
The legislation also requires certain employers that submit federal WARN notices to disclose whether layoffs are related to artificial intelligence or another technological change. This connects workforce reporting with the reason for a layoff, requiring covered employers to identify whether AI or other technology played a part.
Separate provisions establish responsibilities for developers and employers concerning automated employment-related decision technology deployed beginning October 1, 2027. These provisions include requirements to provide information about covered systems and to give advance notice when the technology is used in specified employment decisions.
The timing and scope of Connecticut’s provisions are important: the employer-accountability and WARN-related requirements take effect October 1, 2026, while the separate developer and employer duties apply to covered technology deployed beginning October 1, 2027. Employers should assess which requirements apply to their use of automated employment technology and the relevant effective date.
Connecticut has already expanded accountability for AI-related employment discrimination. Its more detailed requirements for automated decision technology, however, apply to qualifying deployments in the future.
California enacted two significant AI-related employment laws on September 30. Senate Bill 947 takes effect July 1, 2027. It restricts employers from relying solely on automated decision systems for certain disciplinary and termination decisions, and requires independent human review.
The law highlights an important distinction in automated decision-making: a manager’s formal approval of an automated recommendation may not amount to an independent assessment of the circumstances. Simply involving a person does not necessarily demonstrate meaningful human judgment. Employers will need to consider whether their review processes provide a genuinely independent basis for the employment decision.
Senate Bill 951 takes effect January 1, 2027. It adds disclosure requirements to covered California WARN notices when artificial intelligence or automation contributes to certain workforce actions.
The two laws address different effects of AI use. Senate Bill 947 concerns individual disciplinary and termination decisions, while Senate Bill 951 focuses on transparency when technology contributes to broader workforce changes. Employers should account for both when assessing how they use automated systems and communicate about resulting employment actions.
California’s existing regulations governing automated decision systems also remain relevant. Effective October 2025, those regulations clarify how the state’s anti-discrimination requirements apply to automated tools used in employment.
Together, these developments call for employers to consider both the legal consequences of individual decisions made with AI and the wider organizational effects of deploying the technology.
New York has taken a different approach by proposing workforce reporting requirements. Assembly Bill A9581B passed both legislative chambers in June 2026 but, as of this review, had not been presented to Governor Hochul for consideration.
If enacted, the proposal would require certain businesses to report annually on AI’s effects on their workforces. The reporting would cover more than layoffs. It would also include employees whose hours changed, positions created, and previously filled jobs left vacant because of AI. This broader scope is intended to capture workforce changes that may not appear in traditional layoff figures.
Determining whether AI contributed to a staffing change could be challenging. For example, an employee might leave voluntarily, after which an employer decides that AI allows the remaining team to absorb that person’s work. If the position is not filled, no employee has been laid off, but AI may still have contributed to a job disappearing.
Attributing that outcome to AI may be difficult when other factors also affect staffing. Economic conditions, restructuring, and ordinary employee attrition can influence decisions about whether to retain or refill a position. The proposal’s broader reporting categories would therefore require businesses to consider how AI relates to workforce changes even when the technology is not the only factor.
New York’s proposal seeks to measure workforce effects caused in whole or in part by artificial intelligence, including changes that may not show up in traditional layoff statistics. If enacted, the legislation would require employers to develop methods for identifying and estimating those effects.
The proposal highlights an emerging dimension of AI regulation. Governments are looking not only at how automated systems make decisions about workers, but also at how putting those systems into use changes employment itself.
Employment eligibility verification remains a federal obligation, but the procedures surrounding it continue to change. Recent developments address immigration inspections, identification-document handling, employment authorization records, and how expiration dates are interpreted. Two state laws in particular affect steps employers may need to take alongside completing Form I-9.
In August 2026, Massachusetts enacted its PROTECT Act. Massachusetts joined California, Washington, Illinois, and Oregon in requiring employee notices connected with certain federal employment eligibility inspections.
In general, the Massachusetts law requires employers to give employees individual written notice within 48 hours after receiving an ICE Notice of Inspection, except where federal law requires otherwise. The notice obligation is specific: state guidance clarifies that posting a general notice in the workplace does not meet the requirement. The law contemplates communicating directly with each affected employee, including in the employee’s primary language.
State requirements do not all use the same procedures or deadlines. As a result, an ICE inspection can create obligations for a multistate employer beyond responding to the federal agency’s request for records. Employers need to determine which state rules apply and which employees must be notified, then make sure the notices are prepared and delivered on time.
A practical inspection-response process should assign responsibility for each of these steps before an inspection occurs. Employers should identify who reviews an ICE Notice of Inspection, who determines the relevant state requirements, who prepares employee communications, and who ensures those communications reach the required employees. Planning these responsibilities can help keep state notice duties from being overlooked while the employer responds to the federal records request.
Colorado’s House Bill 26-1283 regulates how employers handle government-issued identification documents. The law generally prohibits employers from requiring applicants or employees to surrender identification. It allows temporary retention when needed to complete employment eligibility verification, but limits that retention to a maximum of ten hours.
The statute also requires employers to provide written notice of employee rights when verifying employment eligibility. Employers must retain an acknowledgment as well. These state requirements do not replace or change the federal obligation to complete Form I-9. Instead, they regulate procedures that employers use while carrying out that federal obligation.
That distinction matters when designing verification practices. An employer may briefly inspect an employee’s identification document without ordinarily treating the interaction as document retention. However, Colorado’s notice requirement is connected to employment eligibility verification itself, not only to situations where an employer keeps an original document for an extended period. Employers therefore need to consider the notice and acknowledgment requirements even when they do not retain an original identification document.
Remote verification raises a separate issue. Under the federal optional alternative procedure, an employer may examine copies of documents during a live video interaction without physically possessing the originals. Colorado has not expressly resolved every question about how its requirements apply to those arrangements.
Employers should account for Colorado’s notice and document-handling rules when establishing or reviewing Form I-9 procedures. That includes processes involving remote representatives, who may conduct verification on the employer’s behalf. A sound procedure should address when employees receive the required written notice, how acknowledgment is retained, and how identification documents are handled within the law’s limits.
On August 11, DHS expanded the E-Verify Status Change Report to include additional categories of invalidated Employment Authorization Documents (EADs). The change can affect employers whose employees previously received an Employment Authorized result through E-Verify.
Before the expansion, the report included category C11 documents associated with certain parolees. It now also identifies categories A12 and C19, which are associated with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and categories C08 and C09, associated with pending asylum and adjustment-of-status applications.
The report highlights an important distinction: an E-Verify case may have been properly completed when an employee was hired, while the document used in that process may later be invalidated by DHS. An earlier Employment Authorized result does not, by itself, establish that the employee’s authorization remains unchanged. Employers should use the report to identify cases that may require attention, then follow the applicable Form I-9 procedures.
If an employee is listed in the E-Verify Status Change Report, the employer must follow applicable Form I-9 reverification procedures. Reverification is the process for confirming continuing employment authorization when required. Employers should not treat a listing as automatic proof that the employee is no longer authorized to work.
An invalidated EAD does not necessarily mean that the employee has no other acceptable basis for employment authorization. The employee must be allowed to present any acceptable document demonstrating continuing authorization. Employers should not insist on a particular replacement document, and they should not create a new E-Verify case solely to complete reverification.
In practice, the report serves as a signal to review the employee’s Form I-9 and determine what steps are required under the relevant rules. It is not, on its own, a basis for termination. Employers should avoid premature employment decisions and ensure that reverification is handled consistently with the applicable requirements.
Temporary Protected Status can make employment authorization dates difficult to assess. TPS designations, decisions to terminate a designation, automatic extensions, and litigation may all affect how long an individual remains authorized to work. As a result, an EAD’s printed expiration date may not always show the full period of authorization recognized under current USCIS guidance.
Employers should consult the applicable country-specific TPS information and current Form I-9 instructions rather than relying only on the date printed on an EAD. The rules may depend on the relevant country and the current status of a designation or extension. Court orders and agency announcements can also change the analysis, so information that was accurate earlier may not reflect the current requirements.
Employers must balance accurate reverification with the obligation to avoid unnecessary documentation requests or premature action. When a report listing or a TPS-related date raises a question, employers should check the applicable Form I-9 requirements and current agency guidance. They should allow employees to present any acceptable evidence of continuing authorization instead of directing them to provide one specific document.
This approach helps employers respond to changes in E-Verify and TPS information while respecting the employee’s opportunity to demonstrate ongoing work authorization. The key is to treat a report entry as a prompt to review the applicable requirements, not as a final determination about an employee’s eligibility to continue working.
The third quarter of 2026 shows that employment compliance continues to change. Some laws limit the information employers may consider when making decisions. Others prescribe procedures, require more transparency, or give people the right to challenge decisions influenced by technology.
For employers, the central challenge is applying these requirements consistently across an organization. Employment decisions often involve multiple people, teams, and systems rather than a single decision-maker.
Recruiters communicate with applicants, while hiring managers assess qualifications. Compensation teams set salary ranges, and screening providers prepare reports. Automated systems may offer recommendations, while human resources teams administer employment eligibility verification.
These functions may use different procedures and technologies, and they may report through separate lines of responsibility. As a result, the steps leading to one employment decision can be distributed across an organization.
That division of work makes consistent compliance more challenging. A process that appears compliant within one team may depend on information, procedures, or technology handled elsewhere. Employers therefore need to understand how the different functions interact when a decision is made.
As legal requirements become more specific, employers need to assess whether their complete decision-making process meets applicable law. This means looking beyond written policies to examine how decisions are actually made, communicated, reviewed, and documented.
For example, employers need to understand how applicant communications connect with hiring evaluations, how screening reports are used, and what role automated recommendations play. They also need to consider how compensation decisions and employment eligibility verification fit into the broader process. The relevant question is not only whether each function has a procedure, but whether the steps work together in a way that meets legal requirements.
Updating policies remains important, but it is not enough by itself. Employers must examine the practices, systems, and handoffs that put those policies into effect. They also need to consider who is responsible at each stage and how decisions are reviewed and recorded.
Employment laws may set boundaries on how employers make decisions, what information they may consider, and what procedures they must follow. Employers remain responsible for ensuring that their decision-making processes stay within those boundaries.
As compliance requirements continue to evolve, organizations need a clear view of how employment decisions move from one function to another. Reviewing the full process can help employers identify whether the people, providers, and systems involved are applying the relevant requirements consistently.
Comment