Summer 2026 Checklist for Employers

As companies nationwide get ready for summer, we’ve already seen a high volume of employment law activity at both the federal and state levels. The summary below highlights key employment law developments that employers should be preparing to address as we move into the second half of 2026.

Review your independent contractor classifications and anti-harassment programs in light of recent federal agency actions

• EEOC Harassment Enforcement Guidance Withdrawn. The EEOC has withdrawn its 2024 Harassment Enforcement Guidance. The move does not alter the underlying legal obligations under Title VII or other federal anti-discrimination laws; harassment based on a protected characteristic remains unlawful and actionable in both agency proceedings and private litigation. Employers should ensure that anti-harassment policies, reporting channels, and investigation protocols remain current and are actively followed.
• Independent Contractor Classification. On February 26, 2026, the Department of Labor proposed rescinding the 2024 independent contractor rule under the FLSA. The proposed replacement returns to a traditional “economic reality” analysis centered on the degree of employer control and the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss. The rule remains pending, but employers should use this period to review existing contractor relationships and confirm that written agreements accurately reflect how the work is actually performed. State classification rules are unaffected by the federal proposal, remain in place, and should be evaluated separately.

Update leave policies and administration for new and expanded programs now in effect in Illinois, Maine, and Virginia

• Illinois NICU Leave (Effective June 1, 2026). Illinois employers with 16 or more employees must provide unpaid, job-protected leave for employees with a child in neonatal intensive care. The leave entitlement is up to 20 days for employers with 51 or more employees and up to 10 days for those with 16 to 50 employees, in each case not to exceed the duration of the child’s NICU stay. Employees are eligible from their first day of employment—there is no minimum tenure or hours—worked requirement. Employers should update leave policies and handbooks and brief HR staff on the new requirements.
• Maine Paid Family and Medical Leave (Benefits Phase Now Active). Maine’s Paid Family and Medical Leave program is now paying benefits. Eligible employees may take up to 12 weeks of paid leave per benefit year for a qualifying reason, including the employee’s own serious health condition, bonding with a new child, care for a family member, military family needs, or safe leave. All employers with at least one Maine employee are covered. Employers should confirm that their internal leave administration process is set up to handle incoming claims and that PTO, disability, and other leave programs are properly coordinated with the state benefit program.
• Virginia Paid Family and Medical Leave (Contributions Begin April 1, 2028). Virginia has enacted a statewide paid family and medical leave insurance program. Employer and employee contributions begin April 1, 2028, with benefits available starting December 1, 2028. Employers with more than 10 employees will have contribution obligations, and the law permits private plans as an alternative to the state program. While the start date is still some time away, employers should begin evaluating whether an approved private plan would be preferable and start modeling how the program will interact with existing short-term disability and leave policies.

Review noncompetition agreements in Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington in light of new statutory restrictions

• Tennessee (Effective July 1, 2026). Tennessee will prohibit noncompetition agreements with employees earning less than $70,000 per year, effective July 1, 2026. The restriction applies to new, renewed, and materially revised agreements entered on or after that date. For agreements that remain permissible, the law creates a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness for restrictions of two years or less. Employers should review which employees in Tennessee are currently subject to noncompetes, confirm that those employees meet the compensation threshold, update agreement templates, and strengthen other protective provisions such as confidentiality and non-solicitation restrictions for employees who fall below the threshold.
• Virginia (Effective July 1, 2026). Virginia employers will be prohibited from enforcing a noncompetition agreement against an employee who is terminated without cause unless the employer paid severance or another monetary benefit tied to the restriction, and disclosed that arrangement at the time the agreement was signed. Employers should review their noncompete templates and separation practices before July 1, 2026 and assess whether agreements with employees who could be terminated without cause are structured in a way that will remain enforceable under the new rule.
• Washington (Effective June 30, 2027). Washington has passed legislation that will ban virtually all noncompetition agreements with employees and independent contractors, effective June 30, 2027. The ban extends to forfeiture-for-competition provisions and is written to apply retroactively to existing agreements. Employers must notify affected workers in writing by October 1, 2027, that any noncompete covering them is void. Agreements that are not treated as noncompetes under the law include employee and customer non-solicitation restrictions (subject to duration and scope limits), trade secret and confidentiality protections, and certain other arrangements. Violations carry penalties of at least $5,000 per instance plus attorney fees. Employers with Washington employees should begin identifying affected agreements and planning what alternative protections they will put in place before the law takes effect.

Additional State Developments to Consider

In addition to the developments addressed above, employers should be monitoring the following state law changes that are now in effect or taking effect in the months ahead.

• New Illinois Pre- and Post-Shift Compensable Time. Under a recent Illinois Supreme Court decision, pre- and post-shift activities that go uncompensated under the FLSA may be compensable under Illinois law, including mandatory security screenings, donning and doffing, equipment setup, and time spent waiting to enter a controlled-access worksite. On March 19, 2026, Illinois Supreme Court held in Johnson v. Amazon.com Services LLC that the Illinois Minimum Wage Law does not incorporate the Portal-to-Portal Act’s exclusions for activities that are preliminary or postliminary to the principal work. As a result, employers operating warehouses, manufacturing facilities, or similar sites in Illinois should review current timekeeping practices and evaluate exposure for past periods, preferably under attorney-client privilege.
• New Virginia Pay Transparency Requirements. For job postings in Virginia, employers must include a pay range in all job postings, whether internal or external, for any position that involves hiring, promotion, or transfer. The range must reflect a good-faith estimate of the compensation for the role. Also, employers may not ask applicants about prior compensation and may not use salary history to set pay unless the applicant raises it voluntarily. Employees and applicants who decline to provide salary history or who request pay range information are protected from retaliation. Employers should update their job posting process, revise interview guidance to remove salary history inquiries, and confirm that published pay ranges are consistent with how compensation is actually set.

Assess your NLRB exposure in light of recent court decisions narrowing Board enforcement authority

Federal courts and the Board itself have produced several decisions this spring that narrow the NLRB’s practical enforcement reach.

• Constitutional Challenges to NLRB Proceedings. In Aunt Bertha d/b/a Findhelp v. NLRB, a Texas federal court permanently enjoined an NLRB unfair labor practice proceeding based on two constitutional objections: first, that the removal protections afforded to NLRB administrative law judges and Board members impermissibly insulate them from presidential oversight; and second, that the Board’s pursuit of compensatory and consequential damages implicates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial under SEC v. Jarkesy. An appeal is expected, but the decision adds to a growing body of case law testing the limits of the Board’s authority and may inform strategy for employers with active matters before the agency.
• Tightened Standard for NLRB Emergency Injunctions. Following the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, the Sixth Circuit vacated a Section 10(j) injunction in Kerwin v. Trinity Health Grand Haven Hospital, holding that the NLRB must present concrete evidence of irreparable harm rather than relying on a presumption tied to alleged interference with organizing rights. The decision applies directly in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, where employers facing organizing campaigns, discharge disputes, or unfair labor practice charges should expect courts to scrutinize NLRB emergency relief requests more carefully before ordering intervention ahead of the administrative process.
• NLRB Enforcement Posture and Joint-Employer Standard. General Counsel Memorandum GC 26-03 directs regional offices to resolve cases more efficiently, reserve enhanced remedies for the most egregious situations, and limit the scope of investigative document demands. In a separate development, the Sixth Circuit rejected the Board’s Cemex bargaining-order approach on the ground that it was adopted through adjudication rather than rulemaking. The Board has also formally reinstated the 2020 joint-employer rule, which requires substantial direct and immediate control before a company can be treated as a joint employer. Employers should review any pending unfair labor practice matters, revisit handbook provisions that have been the subject of Board scrutiny, and take a fresh look at staffing and vendor arrangements that could raise joint-employer questions.

For assistance with these or any other workforce issue, please contact one of Honigman’s Labor and Employment attorneys here.