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
2026-11-05T06:00:00Z
NewsEmployee RelationsIn-Depth ArticleUSAHR ManagementEnglishAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndustry NewsWage and HourWage and HourBreaks and Meal PeriodsHours WorkedEmployee RelationsHR GeneralistFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Non-Exempt employees Associate RelationsFocus AreaHuman Resources
More employees are skipping lunch; must you pay them?
More than half of workers now skip lunch altogether at least once a week, according to a recent Workplace Lunch Trends survey from ezCater. Younger employees are 60 percent more likely to consider lunch their favorite part of the workday, but 117 percent express being more likely to feel pressure from managers to skip it.
The survey revealed the number of lunch skippers is on the rise as follows:
- 2023: 48 percent
- 2024: 49 percent
- 2025: 51 percent
- 2026: 54 percent
While the survey focused on the risks of missing lunch, such as the loss of connections and hunger’s effect on productivity, employers must also remember that if nonexempt employees work through what is thought to be their lunch break, they must be paid for that time.
What does the FLSA say?
Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), meal periods (typically lasting at least 30 minutes) aren’t work time, and employers don’t have to pay nonexempt employees for that time – as long as they’re completely relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals. If they aren’t, employers must pay for the time spent working. On the other hand, exempt employees get paid the same weekly salary whether or not they take lunch breaks.
The FLSA indicates that nonexempt employees aren’t relieved from work if they’re required to perform any duties while eating. Office employees who are required to eat at their desk or factory workers who must remain at their machine, for example, are working while eating and must be paid accordingly.
Even if nonexempt employees are allowed to leave the premises, if they aren’t otherwise completely freed from duties during the meal period, employers must pay for that time. If an employer has a policy requiring employees to take a meal break, and employees work through the meal anyway, they must still pay the employee for the time worked. They may, however, discipline employees for violating company policy.
The FLSA doesn’t require meal or coffee breaks, but many state laws do.
State laws
Break laws in the U.S. vary widely by state. About 21 states and the District of Columbia have such laws for adult employees who are classified as nonexempt. Some require strict schedules for rest and meal periods, and others are more flexible.
California law, for example, requires a 30-minute unpaid meal break after 5 consecutive work hours. Arizona, on the other hand, doesn’t have a related state law.
If a state doesn’t have a meal break law, the federal FLSA applies, which means employers don’t have to provide one, and if they do, employees don’t have to be paid unless they work through the meal period.
Key to remember: If nonexempt employees work through the meal period, they must be paid for that time, even if doing so violates a company policy.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-05T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsHead ProtectionPersonal Protective EquipmentSafety & HealthElectrical SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyElectrical SafetyEnglishFocus AreaUSA
OSHA releases two new LOIs
In two newly released letters of interpretation (LOIs), OSHA addresses head protection and electrical work practices.
The head protection LOI asked how 29 CFR 1910.135 applies to Type II safety helmets and lateral or off-center impact hazards, as well as whether OSHA’s 2024 safety helmet bulletin affects enforcement. OSHA states, “Where a hazard assessment identifies blow to the top or side of the head hazards, head protection that provides only top-impact protection may not be adequate to protect employees from those hazards.” Employers will be required to “provide proper PPE that will protect the affected employee from the specific hazards identified in the hazard assessment.”
The other LOI asked whether a lock with a permanently affixed label prohibiting unauthorized operation or removal would satisfy the agency’s electrical work practice requirements. OSHA said the lock would comply as long as the label remained legible.
The full LOIs, both dated 8/17/2026, can be found on OSHA’s website.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-05T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsFleet SafetyAccident Investigation - OSHAAccident responseAccident investigation - Motor CarrierFocus AreaFleet OperationsEnglishTransportationUSA
Agency offering $7 million to advance crash data collection
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is awarding up to $7 million in funding to state and local enforcement agencies to help understand the factors contributing to large-truck crashes.
The money is being awarded as part of the agency’s Crash Casual Factors Program (CCFP), a multi-year effort to find and share key contributing factors in commercial vehicle crashes. The program’s current emphasis is a study focusing on fatal crashes involving heavy-duty (Class 7/8) trucks, collecting and analyzing data on driver, vehicle, motor carrier, and environmental factors.
With individual awards of up to $500,000, the new funding opportunity “will support activities that maximize effective data collection,” the FMCSA says. This includes:
- Post-crash inspections,
- Crash reconstructions,
- Post-crash investigations,
- Crash data reporting, and
- Equipment needed for data collection.
The latest study involves a target sampling across 30 states over 2 years. Data will be collected from about 2,000 fatal crashes involving heavy-duty trucks.
After collecting and analyzing the data, the FMCSA and DOT aim to provide information and resources to be used to develop useful strategies to reduce the number of fatal crashes among these vehicles. The FMCSA has pegged 2030 as the year by which it will release a database of anonymized crash data for public use and issue a Heavy-Duty Truck Study final report.
Research shows that of the trucks involved in fatal crashes, roughly 70% of them were heavy-duty trucks with a GVWR of 26,001 pounds or more, including vehicles like truck-tractor semi-trailers, garbage trucks, and cement trucks, making this statistic a top priority for the FMCSA.
The CCFP is also addressing the need for updated information on crash casual factors, expanding on the Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) which is 20 years old.
Keep reading...Show less
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
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.