Denying employees work access while on leave

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental, health, and safety news. Let’s take a look at what happened over the past month.

A Department of Labor Office of Inspector General investigation found that OSHA may have conducted certain small employer inspections in low-hazard industries that did not comply with its appropriations acts. The investigation stemmed from a September 2025 hotline complaint. OSHA disputes the findings, and its review of the cases and the Inspector General’s recommendations is ongoing.

OSHA issued guidance to help employers respond to opioid emergencies. The factsheet provides employers with practical information on recognizing the signs of an overdose and responding immediately.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health published toolbox talks addressing workplace fire hazards and lockout/tagout. The talks highlight the importance of fire prevention programs and following lockout/tagout procedures.

Turning to environmental news, EPA proposes to reallocate the excess 2025 small refinery exemption volumes to the 2026 and 2027 compliance years. The proposed rule would adjust the renewable volume and percentage standards for biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. The deadline for public comments is December 4.

EPA further extended the submission deadline for the reporting year 2025 annual greenhouse gas report from October 30, 2026, to March 10, 2027. This applies to facilities subject to the greenhouse gas reporting program.

EPA proposes to extend additional compliance dates for the trichloroethylene risk management rule finalized in 2024. If finalized, the rule would delay compliance deadlines for certain chemical processors and refrigerant manufacturers.

And finally, EPA extended the compliance date to submit Facility Response Plans for worst-case discharges of Clean Water Act hazardous substances by 3 years, to June 1, 2030. Effective December 14, the final rule also removes provisions related to climate change and environmental justice.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been on a rulemaking roll! In recent weeks, the agency has published significant proposed rules in the Federal Register that affect coal-fired power plant wastewater, pre-construction air permits, and vehicle emission requirements.

Coal-fired power plants: Unmanaged CRL discharges

EPA proposes to revise the wastewater requirements established by a 2024 final rule (2024 Rule) for unmanaged combustion residual leachate (CRL) from coal-fired power plants.

Unmanaged CRL (a type of waste stream) is water that contains coal combustion residuals and leaks from landfills or surface impoundments (i.e., waste management units). Unmanaged CRL includes:

• Pumped unmanaged CRL (leached CRL that’s captured, pumped to the surface, and discharged directly to waters of the United States); and
• The functional equivalent of an unmanaged CRL direct discharge (determined by the permitting authority).

The proposed rule applies to coal-fired power plants with unmanaged CRL that are subject to the 2024 Rule’s technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards.

The agency proposes three options to revise the unmanaged CRL requirements:

• Option 1 (preferred by EPA) would maintain the 2024 rule’s mercury and arsenic numeric limits for pumped unmanaged CRL discharges, but it would delay the compliance deadline from December 31, 2029, to December 31, 2034. Additionally, the permitting authorities would determine best available technology economically achievable (BAT) limits for functional equivalents on a case-by-case basis.
• Option 2 would maintain the 2024 rule’s mercury and arsenic numeric limits for pumped unmanaged CRL discharges and functional equivalents. It would also maintain the original compliance timeline of December 31, 2029.
• Option 3 would impose zero-discharge limits for all pollutants in pumped unmanaged CRL discharges and functional equivalents. It would also establish interim BAT limits for mercury and arsenic. Facilities would have to meet the zero-discharge limits by December 31, 2034.

Public comments are due by June 17, 2026 (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0819).

Pre-construction air permits: Begin actual construction

EPA proposes to allow construction-related activities on components or structures that don’t emit air pollutants to start before obtaining a New Source Review (NSR) pre-construction permit to build or modify a stationary source. The proposed rule:

• Redefines “begin actual construction," and
• Adds “pollutant-emitting activities” to the regulatory definitions.

Both definitions list equipment, components, and processes that are excluded, meaning that construction on these activities may begin before obtaining an NSR permit. Examples of exempt activities include compacting and stabilizing soil, paving surfaces, and installing concrete pads.

If finalized, the proposed rule will distinguish between construction on stationary sources and construction on non-emitting components (e.g., utility infrastructure, certain building foundations) and codify that on-site construction of non-emitting components or structures can begin before getting an NSR permit.

Public comments are due by June 29, 2026 (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0618).

Light- and medium-duty vehicle regulations: Tier 4 standards

EPA published Part 1 of a two-part rulemaking effort to revise the Tier 4 criteria air pollutant standards set in 2024 (Tier 4 Rule) for light- and medium-duty vehicles (LMDVs), which include:

• Light-duty vehicles and trucks,
• Medium-duty passenger vehicles, and
• Medium-duty vehicles.

In Part 1, EPA proposes to amend the phase-in schedule for Tier 4 criteria air pollutant requirements by:

• Extending the Tier 3 standards set in 2014 (Tier 3 Rule) for LMDVs to model years (MYs) 2027 and 2028,
• Delaying the start of phasing in Tier 4 standards for LMDVs from MY 2027 to MY 2029, and
• Removing the optional early phase-in of Tier 4 standards for LMDVs with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 6,000 pounds from MYs 2027 and 2028.

The agency also proposes to delay changes to the test protocols for emissions performance certification evaluations to MY 2029.

In Part 2, EPA will reconsider the Tier 4 Rule for LMDVs, which may include changing emission standards, lead time and phase-in schedules, and test procedures.

Public comments are due by July 6, 2026 (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2025–3297).

Key to remember: EPA has issued a series of proposed rules that, if finalized, may have significant regulatory impacts on power plant wastewater, pre-construction air permits, and vehicle emission requirements.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule on April 13, 2026, to revise the existing regulations governing the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) in landfills and surface impoundments as well as the beneficial use of CCR.

Who’s impacted?

The proposed rule affects coal-fired electric utilities and independent power producers subject to the CCR disposal and beneficial use regulations at 40 CFR Part 257.

What are the changes?

Significant changes the EPA proposes include:

• Adding an option for facilities to certify the closure of legacy CCR surface impoundments by CCR removal that were closed before November 8, 2024, under regulatory oversight;
• Expanding the eligibility criteria for facilities to defer CCR closure requirements until site-specific determinations are made for legacy surface impoundments that were closed before November 8, 2024, under regulatory oversight;
• Exempting CCR dewatering structures (used to dewater CCR waste for the disposal of CCR elsewhere) from federal CCR regulations (Part 257);
• Rescinding all CCR management unit (CCRMU) requirements or revising the existing CCRMU regulations;
• Allowing permit authorities to make site-specific determinations regarding certain requirements during permitting for CCR units complying with federal CCR groundwater monitoring, corrective action, and closure requirements under a federal or an approved-state CCR permit; and
• Revising the beneficial use requirements by:
  • Removing the environmental demonstration requirement for non-roadway use of more than 12,400 tons of unencapsulated CCR; and
  • Excluding these beneficial uses from federal CCR regulations (Part 257):
    • CCR used in cement manufacturing at cement kilns,
    • Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum used in agriculture, and
    • FGD gypsum used in wallboard.

Key to remember: EPA plans to make significant amendments to the coal combustion residuals requirements.

On February 24, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule repealing the 2024 amendments made to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (EGUs). It’s also referred to as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants.

Effective April 27, 2026, this rule (2026 Final Rule) repeals stricter compliance requirements made to the MATS rule in May 2024 (2024 Final Rule) and reverts them to the less stringent standards established by the 2012 MATS Rule.

Who’s affected?

The rule applies to power plants with coal- and oil-fired EGUs subject to the NESHAP (40 CFR 63 Subpart UUUUU).

What are the changes?

The final rule repeals these 2024 amendments:

• The revised filterable particulate matter (fPM) emission standard and corresponding total and individual non-metal hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metal standards for existing coal-fired EGUs (reverting to the 2012 MATS Rule requirements);
• The revised compliance demonstration requirements for all EGUs to install continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for fPM emissions and the adjusted quality assurance criteria (reverting to the previous standard, allowing EGUs to choose from three compliance demonstration methods); and
• The revised mercury (Hg) emission standard for lignite-fired EGUs (reverting to the 2012 MATS Rule limit).

The 2026 Final Rule also reinstates the low-emitting EGU (LEE) program for fPM and non-Hg HAP metals. The LEE program requires less frequent stack testing for sources with emissions below 50 percent of the corresponding limit for 3 consecutive years.

Further, EPA’s final rule updates the fPM sampling requirements for EGUs that demonstrate compliance with a PM CEMS. These units must collect either a minimum catch of 6.0 milligrams or a minimum sample volume of 4 dry standard cubic meters (dscm) per test run. EGUs demonstrating compliance using other methods must collect a lower minimum sample volume of 1 dscm per PM test run.

On March 10, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized emission regulations for large municipal waste combustors (LMWCs). The final rule revises nearly all emission limits for new and existing LMWCs.

Who’s impacted?

The final rule applies to LMWCs that combust more than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste and are covered by the:

• New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new LMWCs, or
• Emission Guidelines (EGs) for existing LMWCs.

EPA established new subparts for the amendments at 40 CFR Part 60, including:

• Subpart VVVV for the NSPS, and
• Subpart WWWW for the EGs.

What are the changes?

Generally, stricter emission limits apply. For all LMWCs (new and existing), the rule revises the emission limits for:

• Cadmium,
• Hydrogen chloride,
• Lead,
• Mercury,
• Particulate matter,
• Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans, and
• Sulfur dioxide.

For all new LMWCs, the final rule revises the emission limits for carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NO_x). The final rule also amends the CO and NO_x limits for all existing LMWCs, except for the CO limits for two subcategories of combustors and the NO_x limits for two subcategories of combustors for new municipal solid waste incinerators.

Other major changes include:

• Removing certain exclusions and exemptions for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions (requiring LMWCs to meet emission standards at all times);
• Removing the NOx emissions averaging compliance alternative for existing LMWCs;
• Amending recordkeeping and reporting requirements; and
• Eliminating Title V operating air permit requirements for qualifying air curtain incinerators that burn only wood waste, yard waste, and clean lumber.

What’s the compliance timeline?

When EPA updates EGs, states must revise their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to incorporate the changes. States have to submit revised SIPs by March 10, 2027. Once EPA approves the SIP, facilities with existing LMWCs must meet the new standards either within 3 years of the SIP’s approval date or by March 10, 2031, whichever is earlier.

New LMWCs must comply with the amended NSPS by September 10, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later.

Key to remember: EPA finalized stronger emission limits for new and existing large municipal waste combustors and made other changes to the standards.

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.

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.

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.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has rolled out the first phase of Motus, a new USDOT registration system designed to streamline compliance and modernize the way motor carriers, brokers, and supporting companies manage their regulatory obligations. Motus, which is Latin for movement/motion, represents a significant shift from the current systems and will involve consolidating USDOT numbers, biennial updates, hazmat registrations, and other filings into one secure, user friendly platform.

The initiative aims to simplify processes, enhance fraud prevention, and provide registrants with intuitive tools such as auto population, real time data validation, and mobile accessibility.

When hazmat professionals think about compliance risks, they often focus on permits, inspections, regulatory changes, and reporting deadlines. Those concerns matter. Yet one of the most significant risks facing hazmat operations has little to do with a new rule: employee turnover.

When an experienced hazmat employee leaves, the organization may lose more than a trained worker. It can also lose the practical knowledge that keeps shipments moving safely and legally — how to classify a recurring material, where approval documents are stored, which carriers accept certain commodities, or who verifies shipping papers before release.

Gaps can emerge quickly. A newly assigned employee may rely on an outdated procedure, miss a required marking, use the wrong packaging, or assume someone else is responsible for a final check. Even when the employee has received required training, unfamiliarity with the company’s products and processes can increase the risk of errors, rejected shipments, delays, or enforcement.

The good news is that you can reduce that risk before a resignation occurs. Document hazmat responsibilities by role, maintain current written procedures, and identify backups for critical tasks. Cross-train employees on recurring shipments and unusual scenarios. Keep training records, special permits, approvals, carrier requirements, and emergency contacts in a location that authorized staff can readily access. Before an experienced employee departs, conduct a structured knowledge-transfer session and capture unresolved issues.

Finally, treat role changes as a compliance trigger. Review the incoming employee’s duties, confirm that required hazmat training is current and function-specific, and provide appropriate supervision until the employee can perform independently. Turnover may be unavoidable, but allowing essential compliance knowledge to leave with one person is not.

The use of recreational drugs and alcohol never mix at work, and front-line supervisors have a tremendous responsibility to keep impaired drivers off the road.

Does your company place significant value on reasonable suspicion testing?

Training is required

Drivers that require a commercial driver’s license (CDL) to operate are subject to DOT testing rules in 49 CFR Part 382, and a carrier must have at least one employee designated as a driver supervisor to detect the use of a controlled substance or alcohol and request a DOT reasonable suspicion test.

This supervisor must meet the training requirements in 382.603, which requires:

• At least one hour on the topic of signs and symptoms of drug use, and
• An additional hour of training on alcohol.

Consider training your driver supervisors on the following 3-step approach to reasonable suspicion testing.

Step 1: Observe

The person trained in reasonable suspicion must personally observe the unusual behavior displayed by a driver. The initial supervisor may ask another trained supervisor to help determine if the symptoms being exhibited clearly indicate prohibited drug and/or alcohol activities. Supervisors must confirm that the physical, behavioral, speech, and/or performance indicators being observed are consistent with what they know about drug use and alcohol misuse.

Common signs and symptoms of drug use and alcohol misuse:

• Bloodshot eyes, pupils larger or smaller than usual
• Unusual smells on breath, body, or clothing
• Impaired coordination with routine tasks
• Engaging in erratic or suspicious behaviors
• Sudden mood swings, irritability, or spaced out

Step 2: Confront

The most difficult aspect of reasonable suspicion training is confronting an employee exhibiting unusual behavior. It may be awkward at first, but the supervisor must approach the driver and notify them of the suspicion. To corroborate your suspicions, you need to engage the employee in a private area and have an interactive conversation.

The supervisor should always describe exactly what was observed and why it prompted the ordering of a drug and/or alcohol test. For drivers that become defensive, simply listen respectively, but repeat the observations and how you are bound by the federal safety regulations to send them for the required DOT test.

Step 3: Test and document

After confirming your suspicions, the supervisor must immediately order the appropriate test. Most carriers use third-party administrators to handle reasonable suspicion testing, but in-house testing is acceptable. Just remember that DOT regulations prohibit the supervisor who requested the test from conducting it. Supervisors must document the observations leading to the alcohol or drug reasonable suspicion test and sign their names on the reports within 24 hours of the observed behavior or before the results of the alcohol or controlled substances tests are released, whichever is earlier.

After the request for a drug test, it may take up to 72 hours to receive the official result. Your company policy would dictate what you do with the driver during this interim. Many companies place the employee out of service pending the results but ensure that you collaborate with your Human Resources department to review all state and federal laws on pay during a potential suspension period.

Key to remember: One of the many roles of a trained supervisor is to ensure that no one who is impaired by drugs and/or alcohol is permitted to operate a commercial vehicle.

Every year the International Air Transport Association (IATA) updates its Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) to ensure the safe and secure handling of dangerous goods that are shipped or transported by air. While changes to the 2024 IATA DGR (65th edition) are not as plentiful as they were in previous years, they are no less important.

Mandatory compliance with the 2024 IATA DGR begins on January 1, 2024, and will be valid until the 2025 IATA DGR comes into effect. Let’s look at the key updates, listed by Section, for the 65th edition of the IATA DGR:

Need additional information for IATA? Check out this ezExplanation.

Back in October 2018, Laffon had a medical emergency and needed some time off under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Her leave lasted until November 15. Ten days after she returned to work, on November 26, her employer terminated her.

She sued, arguing that the employer retaliated against her because of her FMLA leave.

The catch? She didn't bring the suit until almost three years later.

No link between leave and termination

In court, the employer argued that there was no causal link between Laffon taking FMLA leave and her termination. Although the court documents aren't robust, they do reveal that the employer indicated that Laffon's allegations didn't show that her taking FMLA leave was a factor in the decision to terminate her. The documents showed only that the termination chronologically followed her leave.

The court agreed with the employer. It also agreed that Laffon failed to allege a willful violation of the FMLA, which would allow her to benefit from the FMLA's three-year statute of limitations.

Laffon appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit.

Statute of limitations

Under the FMLA, employees have two years from the date of the last event constituting the alleged violation for which they can bring a claim.

Those two years are extended to three years if the employer's actions were "willful." This means that an employee must show that the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its conduct violated the FMLA.

Ruling overturned

Fast forward to August 2023, when the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. It indicated that, based on Laffon's amended complaint and liberally construing the law, her allegations establish that her leave was causally connected to her termination and that the employer's action (her termination) was willful.

Glymph v. CT Corporation Systems, No. 22-35735, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, August 22, 2023.

Key to remember: Terminating an employee soon after returning from FMLA leave is risky, unless there is a clear, well-documented, non-leave-related reason. Case documents did not show such a clear reason, which can also increase the risk of a willful finding. Employees have time to file claims, even years.

In late September, a debate over whether bringing an iced coffee to a job interview was a disqualifying offense went viral on social media. One side argued that bringing a to-go drink looked too casual, as if the interview was just a quick stop on a list of errands. Some also claimed it projected poor time management, created a distraction, and signaled a lack of seriousness.

Others, however, disagreed. They said that holding an iced coffee didn’t reflect an applicant’s work ethic, talent, or intelligence. They viewed the critics as holding arbitrary, outdated hiring standards.

Whatever side of the iced coffee debate you’re on, when interviewing job candidates, it’s important to focus on core competencies and problem-solving abilities. Interviewers should overlook superficial traits like being over-prepared or showing minor nervousness.

There’s a lot to keep track of when administering employees’ time off, especially when it falls under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Employers might wonder if they need to tell employees when their FMLA leave is running out. And the simple answer is “not really.”

Neither the statute nor the regulations specifically require you to notify or remind employees that their FMLA leave exhausted or is close to it. If you know how much time FMLA leave an employee is taking, you are, however, required to include that information on the designation notice. But, otherwise, there isn’t any other form or required document to tell an employee, “Hey, you’re running low on FMLA leave.”

Does this mean you may not give employees such a reminder?

Again, the simple answer is “no.” Employers may even have good arguments for doing so.

Why a gentle reminder can be helpful

When employees are on FMLA leave, the reason behind the need for leave will probably be of great importance to the employee. It could be because a baby was born or because a family member has a serious health condition. In any case, the employees most likely have a lot on their mind. They might not be constantly thinking about when they will return to work or when they will run out of FMLA leave.

Providing a gentle reminder can show employees that you’re thinking of them, and that you expect them to return on a particular date. Employees generally appreciate knowing what is expected of them. Giving them such a reminder can also help allay any questions about whether they knew they were expected back on such a date.

This could also be a good opportunity to remind employees that if they cannot return to work because of continued issues with their own serious health condition, they should let the employer know. In cases like this, an employer then can engage in an interactive process (dialogue) with the employee regarding possible reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. One accommodation, for example, might be more leave time.

Providing employees with reminders about how much leave time they have left can also address the consequences for any absences after FMLA protections expire. This is especially important in terms of maintaining employee benefits.

Designation notice changes

If the information in the designation notice changes, such as if the employee exhausts FMLA leave then requests more leave, you must provide a written notice of the change. Like with the original designation notice, a change notice must be given to the employee within five business days of receipt of the employee’s first notice of need for additional leave.

Therefore, if, after an employee exhausts all 12 weeks of FMLA leave, the employee asks for more leave, you are to notify the employee of the changes to the designation notice. You may use another designation notice if you wish, but you are not required to do so. You could simply indicate to the employee that there is no more FMLA leave available, so the additional leave will not be designated as FMLA leave.

Key to remember: Keeping the lines of communication open between you and employees who are on FMLA leave can benefit both employers and employees, even if all types of communication aren’t necessarily required.

In early 2023, Frank, an HR manager, suffered from severe right shoulder arthritis. Starting on February 21, he decided to take leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to manage his health issues, eventually opting for surgery.

The employer’s policy indicated that requests for FMLA leave be made through the HR Department on the forms provided. The forms required employees to provide a medical certification to support the absence.

When Frank first asked for leave, he didn’t submit a medical certification. He argued that delayed submission of such paperwork was, nonetheless, consistent with the employer’s customary practice. During his tenure as HR manager, he would also retroactively approve FMLA leave for employees who began their leave before filling out the required paperwork.

On March 9, Debra, a company director, sent Frank a letter reminding him to submit the medical certification by March 17. When Frank failed to do so, Debra sent him a second, third, and fourth reminder, extending the deadline each time. In the last two letters, she warned Frank that failure to comply with the company leave policies could result in his termination.

Frank didn’t submit a certification until May 4. It excused his absence beginning May 2, but didn’t address his absences from February 21 to May 1. He never provided documentation covering the prior absences or a reason for them.

On July 7, before he could return to work, the employer informed Frank that his employment was terminated. The termination letter cited his “failure to provide the healthcare certifications required” by company policies, which resulted in his incurring “multiple unexcused absences in violation of the” company’s personnel code.

Frank sued, but the court sided with the employer, despite the suspicious timing of the termination. It first noted that when an employee takes leave without complying with the employer’s internal leave policies, they haven’t “engaged in any activity protected by the FMLA.” Also, since Frank failed to provide a certification supporting his leave from February 21 to May 1, the FMLA didn’t cover his time off, and he didn’t engage in FMLA-protected activity.

Bergman v. St. Clair County, Southern District of Illinois, No. 3:24-CV-02374, September 23, 2026.

Key to remember: If an employee fails to provide a requested FMLA certification without justification, employers may deny FMLA 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.

Welcome, everyone! In the next few minutes, we’ll review the latest HR news. Let’s get started.

My HR colleagues and I get a lot of questions about whether a company can fire someone who’s on job-protected leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. While the short answer is, “it depends,” a recent federal court case out of Ohio shows how one employer terminated an employee who was on FMLA leave and won its case.

This gist of the story is, an employee was taking FMLA leave for medical treatments and occasionally came into work late. HR investigated their timekeeping records from the company’s mobile timekeeping app and discovered that the employee had clocked in 33 times from outside of work, even though company policy prohibited employees from doing so.

The employer fired the employee, who then sued. The court, however, agreed with the employer that the policy violation, not the employee’s FMLA leave, was the reason for the termination and ruled in the employer’s favor.

In other news, on October 13th, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that it settled a $3 million sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against a restaurant chain with 15 locations in California and Nevada. Both supervisors and employees at multiple locations repeatedly subjected female employees to sexual harassment, the suit alleged.

Female employees complained to their employer about the harassment, but the restaurant didn’t stop it and retaliated against many of them. As a result, several female employees resigned.

The alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits a hostile workplace environment based on sex, including sexual harassment, as well as retaliation against individuals who complain about sexual harassment.

And, finally, on October 19th, the U.S. Department of Labor announced that it withdrew three opinion letters from decades ago that pertained to tipped employees performing dual jobs, otherwise known as the “80/20” rule.

The DOL issued a new field assistance bulletin addressing how employers should treat tipped employees with dual jobs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Some courts might disregard the agency’s interpretation and look to related case law. Employers should also note that state or local laws on tipped wages might come into play.

A notice of proposed rulemaking is in the works that would amend the FLSA regulations for tipped employees. A proposed rule was scheduled for August, but the DOL missed that time frame. Public comments will be welcome on the proposed rule once it’s published in the Federal Register.

That’s all the HR news we have time for today. Thanks for watching. See you next month!

New interpretation from OSHA’s enforcement office clarifies the general industry head protection requirements when workers could face lateral or off-center head impact hazards. The letter, posted on the agency’s website in recent weeks, also expands on the 2024 OSHA Safety and Health Information Bulletin (SHIB) on safety helmets.

A look at 29 CFR 1910.135 may lead you to think protective helmets are required only when working in areas where there is potential for injury to the head from falling objects or electrical shock from conductors that could contact the head. There is no mention of lateral or off-center impact hazards to the head, but don’t let that fool you.

Is an OSHA 10 or 30 card a certification? Who’s required to take the training? Does completing a course mean an employee is qualified to perform specific tasks? Can employers use the training as proof they’ve met all OSHA training requirements? Let’s dive into these and other common questions surrounding OSHA 10- and 30-hour courses.

OSHA’s revised Hazard Communication (HazCom) standard contains multiple compliance dates at 29 CFR 1910.1200 paragraph (j) for chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers. In fact, the next compliance date is for employers, and it’s just over two months away! The November 20, 2026, employer deadline is driven by changes to chemical hazard classifications for aerosols, desensitized explosives, and flammable gases.

Did you know that OSHA’s standard on permit-required confined spaces (PRCS) says entry occurs as soon as any part of the entrant’s body breaks the plane of the opening into the permit space?

Many workers and employers mistakenly think that placing part of the body or hands into a confined space isn’t entry. Knowing the difference between when entry occurs and not will help employers determine if a permit is required.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics reported in July 2024 that there are 8.2 million job openings in the U.S., but only 7.2 million unemployed workers.

With that in mind, employers might choose to hang onto employees even if they’re under performing. But what about when complaints are rolling in from different angles? Take, for example, a lackluster supervisor who’s annoying employees and disappointing customers.

An employer could be hesitant to let the supervisor go, especially if there’s no documentation backing up claims of misconduct. The employer must weigh their options to decide if putting the supervisor on a performance improvement plan (PIP) or moving right to termination is the ideal choice.

At-will employment

For starters, in most states employers may terminate an employee at-will, meaning they can fire employees for pretty much any reason as long as it doesn’t discriminate against someone in a protected class based on sex, age, race, religion, etc. Employers also cannot terminate in retaliation for an employee making a claim of harassment, discrimination, or safety concerns.

Aside from these limits, employers can terminate employees for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.

PIP or terminate

Deciding whether to put an employee on a PIP or terminate must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

A PIP is usually for job performance issues (hence, performance improvement plan). This could mean anything from not making enough sales to being inept at the job’s essential functions. If job performance doesn’t improve under the PIP, termination may be the end result depending on company policies and practices.

Even if an employee has job performance issues, the employer can terminate without going through the PIP process first, unless the usual process is to implement a PIP with employees who have had similar problems. In that case, not doing a PIP could be seen as discrimination against an employee, especially if the person falls into a protected class.

Workplace misconduct, however, is another situation altogether. This could be anything from a one-off poor joke to pervasive harassment. Snapping at customers or coworkers (or worse), for example, is a conduct issue. An employer could issue a warning or move right to termination if the behavior is clearly illegal or a serious threat to workplace safety.

Termination tips

If an employer decides to terminate, they should treat the employee as respectfully as possible during the termination process. Also, an employer should carefully and clearly communicate the job-related reasons for the termination to avoid any hint of discrimination. Lastly, an employer should document the reasons and reiterate the steps taken leading up to the termination and keep those records handy in case the employee files a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Key to remember: Employers sometimes struggle when making termination decisions. Having a process in place and documenting steps along the way can help if a case lands in court.

A recent government probe of an explosion and fire at a Pennsylvania chemical facility illustrates what can go wrong when Process Safety Management (PSM) safeguards fail. It also helps us understand why certain flammable gas processes are covered by 29 CFR 1910.119.

In September, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) announced its final report examining a June 2025 incident that occurred at the facility when flammable cracked gas backflowed into the firebox of an ethane cracking furnace, contacted lit pilots, and ignited. The explosion severely damaged the furnace and was followed by a fire that resulted in the evacuation of 15 employees. Despite the seriousness of the incident, no one was injured, but the explosion came with an estimated $95 million price tag.

CSB determined that the cause of the incident was the inadvertent simultaneous opening of two motor-operated valves used to isolate the furnace. Opening both valves created an unintended flow path that allowed flammable cracked gas to backflow into the furnace firebox.