Compliance Just Got Easier: Stay ahead of regulatory changes with instant notifications on updates that matter.
Copyright 2026 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.
Regulatory Compliance News & Updates
Keep up to date on the latest
developments affecting OSHA, DOT,
EPA, and DOL regulatory compliance.
Safety & Compliance News
FEATURED NEWS
2026-11-04T06:00:00Z
NewsPlant ClosingsTerminationFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)USAHR ManagementEnglishTerminationHuman ResourcesAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndustry NewsIndustry NewsDownsizingHR GeneralistAssociate RelationsFocus AreaLayoffs
Facing layoffs? Court provides insight on RIFs and FMLA leave
Brian worked for the company for a long time. A few years into his tenure, he began asking for leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for his wife, who had been diagnosed with breast cancer. He continued to take FMLA leave for years without any issues.
Brian had a good work history with the company, and he became a production supervisor reporting to Johnnie, who was aware of Brian’s leave history.
In May 2023, Brian’s wife’s condition worsened, and he began taking more FMLA leave.
On July 13, one of the days Brian was on FMLA leave, the company terminated Brian, along with 14 other employees, as part of a reduction in force (RIF). The employer told Brian that he was included in the RIF because he had the least seniority among the production supervisors.
Evidence of FMLA violation
Brian sued the employer, claiming that it included him in the RIF because of his FMLA leave. He argued that Johnnie knew about his FMLA and fired him on a day he was on leave. Johnnie had talked with the HR manager about including Brian, saying he was doing a good job, but picked him for the RIF. Johnnie also indicated that he wanted to give the company an advantage if employees take time off, including FMLA leave, as “the machines have to run.”
The employer argued that Brian’s inclusion in the RIF had nothing to do with his FMLA leave, even though it couldn’t explain why a similarly situated employee wasn’t.
The court felt that Brian had enough evidence to suggest that Johnnie wouldn’t have included him in the RIF if he hadn’t taken FMLA leave.
What employers can do
The case reminds employers planning a RIF to:
- Define all selection criteria before deciding who will be included, and carefully document how they applied the criteria.
- Ensure that all related communication is consistent with the selection criteria.
- Review whether similarly situated employees aren’t treated differently and, if so, ensure that legitimate reasons for the differences are clear, strong, and documented.
- Check to see if selected employees recently used FMLA leave.
Donald v. TOPPAN USA, Inc., Northern District of Georgia, No. 3:24-cv-00243, September 28, 2026.
Key to remember: Employees on FMLA leave may be included in a RIF, but employers must be careful not to use leave as a deciding factor.
Court decisions are based on the specific facts presented and each court’s interpretation of the law. Because courts may reach different conclusions, similar situations can lead to different outcomes. Employers should avoid relying on a solitary case as definitive guidance and instead assess each situation carefully, considering applicable laws, and seeking advice when needed.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-04T06:00:00Z
NewsChange NoticesWage and HourChange NoticeAssociate Benefits & CompensationCaliforniaAssociate RelationsHR GeneralistMinimum WageHR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman Resources
California (San Mateo County) to increase minimum wage
Effective date: January 1, 2027
This applies to: Employers with employees who work at least 2 hours per week in unincorporated San Mateo County for all hours worked within the geographic boundaries of the unincorporated area
Description of change: Effective January 1, 2027, the San Mateo County, California minimum wage will increase from $17.95 to $18.58 per hour.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-04T06:00:00Z
NewsChange NoticesWage and HourChange NoticeAssociate Benefits & CompensationCaliforniaAssociate RelationsHR GeneralistMinimum WageHR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman Resources
California (Novato) to increase minimum wage
Effective date: January 1, 2027
This applies to: Employers with employees who perform more than 2 hours of work in a particular week within city limits
Description of change: Effective January 1, 2027, the Novato, California minimum wage increases as follows:
- Very large businesses (100+ employees): from $17.73 to $18.25 per hour
- Large businesses (26-99 employees): from $17.46 to $17.97 per hour
- Small businesses (1 – 25 employees): from $16.90 to $17.40 per hour
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-04T06:00:00Z
NewsChange NoticesWage and HourChange NoticeAssociate Benefits & CompensationCaliforniaAssociate RelationsHR GeneralistMinimum WageHR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman Resources
California (Daly City) to increase minimum wage
Effective date: January 1, 2027
This applies to: Employers with employees working within the geographic boundaries of Daly City, California, and any employee working at least 2 or more hours per week
Description of change: Effective January 1, 2027, Daly City, California’s minimum wage increases from $17.50 to $18.10 per hour.
Employers may not use tips or fringe benefits such as health insurance, vacation, sick leave, or other benefits to offset or use as a credit towards the employer's obligation to pay the Daly City's minimum wage.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-03T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsHuman ResourcesAssociate RelationsHR GeneralistDisabilities and ADAIn-Depth ArticleUSAHR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaDisabilities and ADAReasonable Accommodations
Employers don’t have to be clairvoyant; employees must ask for an ADA reasonable accommodation
Under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers must not discriminate against employees because of a disability. They also must provide reasonable accommodations when called for. To trigger an employer’s obligation to provide an accommodation, however, employees must ask for an accommodation – a workplace change because of a medical condition or the need for one must be obvious.
The ADA is NOT, however, an employee’s get-out-of-jail-free card.
Case in point
About a year into her job, Cheryl was reprimanded for calling out of work too often. The reprimand form also advised her how to ask for a disability accommodation or medical leave. She didn’t.
Five months later, a coworker reported Cheryl sleeping on duty and texting during work. Though the coworker wasn’t sure Cheryl was sleeping, she raised “major concerns” that Cheryl was “nodding off multiple times in one shift” and believed she was sleeping.
Company policy forbade sleeping on duty or positioning oneself to sleep, warning employees that it could cost them their jobs.
Cheryl’s manager started an investigation. Less than 2 weeks after the incident, he met with Cheryl to discuss the accusation and get her side of the story.
Cheryl denied sleeping but admitted that she “might have shut [her] eyes” to alleviate dry eye caused by a change in her diabetes medication that was also causing fatigue. That was the first time that she disclosed her diabetes, which she had before starting her job.
Later, she emailed her manager a statement that she was “praying” for improvement and adjusting her medication; she didn’t ask for an accommodation or leave because of her condition. Soon after, the company fired her for misconduct.
Cheryl sued, claiming:
- Disability discrimination,
- Failure to accommodate,
- Retaliation, and
- Wrongful termination under the ADA.
The court rules for the employer
The court found that for Cheryl to claim the company failed to provide a disability accommodation under the ADA, she had to show that her employer knew that she needed reasonable accommodation, but failed to provide it.
Cheryl never asked for an accommodation. The first time she mentioned her diabetes and medication-related problems was when her supervisor confronted her with sleeping on the job. Even then, Cheryl never suggested an accommodation; therefore, there was nothing for the employer to accommodate.
Cheryl waited until she was on the brink of being fired before raising any work-related concerns. This was too late.
Even if Cheryl’s statement could’ve qualified as an accommodation request, the ADA doesn’t require employers to excuse misconduct.
Employers don’t have to guess whether an employee is asking for an accommodation, but they must be careful not to overlook what could be construed as such a request.
Hileman v. West Penn Allegheny Health System Inc., d/b/a Forbes Hospital, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-1459, July 20, 2026.
Key to remember: Employers’ duty to accommodate is real, but it isn’t a requirement to speculate. They must respond to what they know — not what they might imagine. And they certainly don’t need to go digging for disabilities without a signal that one exists.
Court decisions are based on the specific facts presented and each court’s interpretation of the law. Because courts may reach different conclusions, similar situations can lead to different outcomes. Employers should avoid relying on a solitary case as definitive guidance and instead assess each situation carefully, considering applicable laws, and seeking advice when needed.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-03T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyRisk Management TransportationRisk Management - Motor CarrierFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleEnglishTransportationUSA
Top 20 OSHA violations in truck transportation industry
Violations of the forklift standard top the list of most-violated rules from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) by truck transportation companies in fiscal year (FY) 2026.
In all, federal OSHA conducted 70 inspections, issued over 180 citations, and collected nearly $800,000 in penalties from truck transportation companies in the period from October 2025 through September 2026.
The following table shows the most-cited OSHA standards for trucking companies classified under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 484, Truck Transportation. The penalties shown are the average amounts paid per violation, not the initial penalties assessed.
| Standard | Topic | Total citations | Average adjusted penalty |
| 1910.178 | Powered industrial trucks | 46 | $8,776 |
| 1910.132 | Personal protective equipment – General | 14 | $5,685 |
| OSH Act 5(a)(1) | General Duty Clause | 14 | $10,263 |
| 1910.147 | Control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout) | 11 | $8,282 |
| 1910.1200 | Hazard communication | 11 | $4,384 |
| 1910.303 | Electrical – General | 9 | $3,092 |
| 1904.39 | Reporting of fatalities and injuries | 8 | $2,860 |
| 1910.157 | Portable fire extinguishers | 6 | $4,562 |
| 1910.37 | Maintenance, safeguards, and operational features for exit routes | 5 | $2,742 |
| 1910.22 | Walking/working surfaces – General | 4 | $5,198 |
| 1910.133 | Eye and face protection | 4 | $2,956 |
| 1910.252 | Welding, cutting and brazing – General | 4 | $5,214 |
| 1904.41 | Reporting injury/illness records | 3 | $665 |
| 1910.23 | Guarding floor and wall openings and holes | 3 | $2,026 |
| 1910.36 | Exit route design and construction | 3 | $2,483 |
| 1910.176 | Handling materials – General | 3 | $11,488 |
| 1910.213 | Woodworking machinery | 3 | $5,958 |
| 1910.305 | Wiring methods, components, and equipment for general use | 3 | $3,983 |
| 1926.755 | Column anchorage | 3 | $5,685 |
| 1910.28 | Fall protection | 2 | $10,263 |
Keep reading...Show less
Got a Compliance Question?
We’ve Got You Covered!
Get clear, reliable answers from experts with 500+ years of combined experience.
J. J. Keller is the trusted source for DOT / Transportation, OSHA / Workplace Safety, Human Resources, Construction Safety and Hazmat / Hazardous Materials regulation compliance products and services. J. J. Keller helps you increase safety awareness, reduce risk, follow best practices, improve safety training, and stay current with changing regulations.
Copyright 2026 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.