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
2026-11-11T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsIndustry NewsAssociate Benefits & CompensationAssociate RelationsHR GeneralistFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)HR ManagementEnglishFocus AreaHuman ResourcesUSA
Moving RIF termination date up after FMLA leave request foils employer’s argument
John had been with the employer for a few years when the company began restructuring plans. This restructuring would involve eliminating some positions. John reported to Erica, who would decide which roles should be eliminated. In December 2024, Erica decided that John’s position would be eliminated.
The employer, however, didn’t document this decision until January 13. The next day, John contacted Canden in HR asking about the company's paternity leave policy. He asked that this be kept private due to complications with his wife’s last pregnancy.
Then, on February 17, John discovered documentation that reflected changes to his role. He asked Erica about it, and she encouraged him to apply for a different position. He didn’t. The next day — still before he announced his planned paternity leave — Erica created and sent a form that reflected the elimination of John’s role.
On March 3, John formally notified Erica about his wife’s pregnancy and his intention to take paternity leave later that spring.
On April 9, John formally requested FMLA leave. Two days later, on April 11, the employer told him about his upcoming termination. The remaining employees identified in the reduction in force (RIF), however, weren’t terminated until July.
John sued.
While the court ruled that no reasonable jury could find a “causal link” between John’s FMLA leave request and the general decision to include him in the RIF, it indicated that the employer might have accelerated his termination notice to April 11 because of his FMLA leave.
The close timing between John’s leave announcement and his termination notification caused the court to find in John’s favor and not throw the case out, as the employer wanted.
Shoemaker v. McKesson Corporation, Northern District of Texas, No. 3:25-CV-2558, September 9, 2026.
Key to remember: Employers must consider the dates of all the decisions surrounding a termination in relation to FMLA rights and protections.
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 single case as definitive guidance and instead assess each situation carefully, considering applicable laws, and seeking advice when needed.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-11T06:00:00Z
NewsSafety and Health Programs and TrainingRisk Assessment and ManagementOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOLSafety and Health Programs and TrainingIn-Depth ArticleEnglishRisk Assessment and ManagementIndustry NewsSafety & HealthConstruction SafetyGeneral Industry SafetyAgriculture SafetyMaritime SafetyFocus AreaUSA
The Swiss Cheese Model: Use it for safety AND sanity!
What does Swiss cheese have to do with safety and sanity? If you’ve spent any time in the safety field, you’ve likely heard of the Swiss Cheese Model for safety program effectiveness. The model is a powerful way to understand why incidents happen and when used properly, preventing these incidents becomes more manageable. Applying this model will help you to strengthen your safety program, one cheese hole at a time, so you can close gaps without feeling overwhelmed.
The Model
The Swiss Cheese Model is pictorial way to look at why incidents still occur when multiple layers of protection fail. Imagine several slices of Swiss cheese stacked together, each slice represents a safety barrier such as machine guarding, work procedures, or training.
The holes in the slices symbolize safety weaknesses like human error, poor communication, or equipment failure. When the holes perfectly align across all layers, a hazard can pass all the way through every line of defense and result in an incident.
Visualizing your safety program in this simple and easy-to-remember graphic can help you identify gaps and strengthen protections.
The Myth
One misconception with the Swiss Cheese Model is that as long you are addressing the basics of regulatory standards, incidents would be prevented. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and additional factors must be considered.
Factors that influence the layers of protection include:
- Organizational such as the prioritization of safety in the workplace, a strong safety culture, resource management, and consistent processes;
- Supervisory including communication, leadership and oversight, planning, enforcing safety, and corrective actions;
- Environmental like tools and technology, work tasks, and workplace conditions;
- Individual which includes workers’ mental and physical conditions, fitness for duty, and overall well-being; and
- Behavioral that result from decisions or skill-based mistakes, perceptual failures, or errors in judgment that lead to unsafe acts.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-11T06:00:00Z
NewsShiftworkRhode IslandHR ManagementEnglishTalent Management & RecruitingAssociate Benefits & CompensationRecordkeepingRecruiting and hiringWage and HourChange NoticesChange NoticeWage and HourRecordkeepingBreaks and Meal PeriodsRecruiting and hiringHours WorkedMinimum WageHR GeneralistNon-Exempt employees StaffingUnions/Labor RelationsAssociate RelationsEmployee OrientationOnboardingFocus AreaHuman Resources
Rhode Island Warehouse Worker Protection Act to take effect
Effective date: January 1, 2027
This applies to: The law defines “employer” as a person who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, including through the services of a third-party employer, temporary service, or staffing agency or similar entity, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of 100 or more employees at a single warehouse distribution center or 1,000 or more employees at one or more warehouse distribution centers in the state.
Description of change: Effective January 1, 2027, Rhode Island’s Warehouse Worker Protection Act takes effect. It requires covered employers to provide nonexempt (“hourly”) employees who work at a warehouse distribution center, upon their hire, with a written description of their daily tasks, expectations, and quotas that they’re expected to complete. This also includes what materials might be produced or handled.
A “quota” is broadly defined to mean a work standard under which an employee is assigned or required to perform at a specified productivity speed, or perform a quantified number of tasks, or to handle or produce a quantified mount of material, within a defined time period and under which the employee may suffer an adverse employment action, if the employee fails to complete the performance standard.
An employee shall not be required to meet a quota that prevents compliance with meal or rest periods, use of bathroom facilities, including reasonable travel time to and from bathroom facilities, or occupational health and safety laws in the labor laws or department standards.
An employer shall not take adverse employment action against an employee for failure to meet a quota that doesn't allow a worker to comply with meal and rest periods, use of bathroom facilities, or occupational health and safety laws, labor laws, or for failure to meet a quota that has not been disclosed to an employee.
Rhode Island is the 7th state to enact this type of legislation, along with similar laws in California, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Washington, and Connecticut.
View related state info: Employee notices – Rhode Island
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-11T06:00:00Z
NewsTraining & DevelopmentOn-the-job TrainingAssociate Benefits & CompensationDiscriminationGender DiscriminationDiscriminationTitle VII (The Civil Rights Act of 1964)HR PoliciesRace DiscriminationCompensationPolicies and ProceduresProtected classesCompensationPerformance AppraisalsHuman ResourcesTrainingSupervisor trainingEmployee DevelopmentHuman Resource ManagementHuman Resource ManagementPerformance ManagementPerformance ManagementMetrics/measurementsHR ManagementEnglishTalent Management & RecruitingIndustry NewsIndustry NewsAffirmative ActionHR GeneralistAssociate Relations
Employer settles discrimination case for $29.5 million
On November 4, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Equal Employment Commission (EEOC) announced a $29.5 million settlement with a defense and aerospace manufacturer. The settlement resolves allegations relating to employment discrimination and related false certifications of compliance with federal civil rights laws while serving as a federal contractor.
A portion of the settlement, $7.5 million, will be paid to more than 1,000 employees affected by alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The EEOC claims the company engaged in race discrimination against white employees, including in performance assessments and in bonus and other compensation decisions. This is the largest class of workers awarded payment under an EEOC settlement for alleged Title VII violations arising from or relating to a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion program or practices.
Alleged violations included claims that the company:
- Took race into account when making employee compensation decisions.
- Took race or sex into account when making hiring and promotion decisions, including, efforts to achieve progress towards non-public race and sex-based workforce composition goals for business units. The goals were intended to impact the company’s promotion and hiring decisions.
- Offered certain training, mentoring, and leadership development programs, and/or similar opportunities to eligible employees based on race or sex, for example, an Executive Leadership Diversity Mentoring program. These programs were designed to boost the career prospects of these individuals over others through sponsorship and networking.
As part of the resolution, in addition to monetary relief, the EEOC’s agreement requires the company to comply with Title VII and Executive Order 14151 and to maintain a merit-based workplace in which race and sex aren’t considered in hiring, compensation, bonus, or promotion decisions. The EEOC may review the company’s compliance over the term of the agreement.
Key to remember: Manufacturer resolves allegations relating to employment discrimination and related false certifications of compliance with federal civil rights laws while serving as a federal contractor.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-10T06:00:00Z
NewsIndustry NewsBusiness planning - Motor CarrierFocus AreaIn-Depth ArticleFleet OperationsEnglishTransportationBusiness planning - Motor CarrierUSA
Follow the freight: When an intrastate trip becomes interstate
When most carriers think about interstate commerce, they picture a truck crossing a state line. A driver picks up a load in Wisconsin and drops it off in Illinois. That's clearly interstate.
But what if the truck never leaves Wisconsin? That trip could still be interstate commerce.
Under the federal definition in 49 CFR 390.5, interstate commerce includes transportation between two places in the same state when that transportation is part of trade, traffic, or transportation that starts or ends outside of that state or country.
This means you can't just look at the route your truck takes. You also need to know where the freight came from, where it's headed, and how the whole movement works.
Look beyond the truck’s route
In other words, a trip can stay entirely inside one state and still be interstate if it's one piece of a larger movement that starts or ends somewhere else.
Say your driver picks up freight at a Wisconsin warehouse and delivers it to a customer elsewhere in Wisconsin. The truck never leaves the state, but if that freight came from another state and your delivery is part of that same continuing movement, the trip could still be classified as interstate.
Likewise, if your driver hauls freight to a Wisconsin rail terminal and the freight continues by rail to another state, your part of the trip may be considered interstate commerce.
For passenger carriers, this may look like picking up passengers from the airport and driving them to their hotel. If their flight took off in a different state, you are operating interstate.
The question isn't just, "Did our driver and vehicle cross a state line?" It's, "How does our trip fit into the overall movement of the freight?"
Five questions to ask
Before you call an operation intrastate just because the truck stays in one state, ask yourself:
- Where did the freight (or passengers) originate?
- Where was it headed when the shipment began?
- Did it come from another state or country?
- Will it continue to another state or country after my part of the trip?
- Is my trip just one leg of a larger movement?
Shipping documents, bills of lading, customer orders, and distribution arrangements can help you answer these questions.
Why the distinction matters
If you treat an interstate movement as intrastate, you could end up applying the wrong federal and state requirements. That can include:
- Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations applicability;
- USDOT registration;
- Driver qualification requirements;
- Hours-of-service requirements;
- Drug and alcohol testing requirements, when applicable;
- Unified Carrier Registration (UCR); and
- State-specific registration or operating requirements.
Please note being interstate doesn't automatically mean every federal motor carrier rule applies. To determine what applies, you'll still need to look at vehicle weight or passenger capacity, the type of operation, whether a CDL is required, any exceptions or exemptions, and the specific regulation in question.
But you can't make those calls correctly if you've incorrectly classified your transportation as intrastate from the start.
Key to remember: The state line isn't always the dividing line between interstate and intrastate commerce. A truck can spend its whole trip in one state and still be part of interstate commerce. That's why it pays to look past the route on the map and follow the freight.
Keep reading...Show less
2026-11-10T06:00:00Z
NewsFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)LeaveIn-Depth ArticleTime offFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)LeaveHR ManagementEnglishUSAAssociate Benefits & CompensationIndustry NewsHR PoliciesEmployee BenefitsPolicies and ProceduresEmployee BenefitsHR GeneralistAssociate RelationsFocus AreaHuman Resources
Employer beware: 11 percent of employees plan to take off November 19
The popular video game series Grand Theft Auto (GTA) has been around for years. On November 19, however, the latest version (VI) of the game is scheduled to drop. GTA fans are chomping at the bit for it, but employers aren’t playing games when it comes to employee attendance.
According to Zety, a professional career site, 11 percent of workers plan to take time off or adjust their schedules for the release. Employees might simply call in sick, ask for vacation, request paid time off (PTO), or ask to work remotely.
Taking time off for major cultural events isn’t new. People have long enjoyed blockbuster occasions, such as:
- Sporting events (i.e., World Series, Super Bowl, Olympics, World Cup);
- Concerts or album releases (i.e., Taylor Swift); or
- Other big entertainment days.
Employers, however, might want to be prepared for higher absences on November 19 and beyond.
While a concert or sporting event might last a few hours, people will want to take some extra time to actually play GTA VI. That extra time off might run into the Thanksgiving holiday the following week.
Employers might experience dips in production resulting from increased absenteeism.
GTA is NOT FMLA
To help curb potential leave abuse, employers might want to keep a close watch on employees who have been approved to take leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), particularly intermittent leave. They might try to claim time off for GTA as FMLA leave. Employers shouldn’t jump to conclusions, but they can carefully review the certification to ensure it supports the time off.
PTO policies
Employers generally govern their company policies regarding PTO or vacation time. Thus, they have the wiggle room to deny requested time off if work demands are high. In light of the upcoming video game release rolling into Thanksgiving week, employers might want to remind employees of this and note that PTO requests will be scrutinized and that violating company policies could result in discipline.
State laws
A few states, such as Illinois, Maine, and Nevada, have laws that entitle employees to take leave for any reason. Employees, however, must give employers notice of the leave, and might have to schedule leave to prevent undue hardship on the employer’s operations.
Key to remember: Employers might want to prepare for a smaller workforce on and after November 19 due to the release of the latest version of a popular video game.
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.