US

Subscribe to US via RSS

The Department of Labor (DOL) issued Technical Release 2026‑02 on June 17, 2026, providing critical clarity for employers evaluating whether to offer contributions to “Trump Accounts” under IRC sections 530A and 128; contributions to Trump accounts could be made as of July 4, 2026. The guidance addresses a key open question flagged in our earlier post regarding whether these arrangements would trigger Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan status, which would implicate technical rules regarding fiduciary duties, claims and appeal procedures, and plan reporting and disclosures, among others.

The DOL concluded that Trump Accounts and related employer Trump Account Contribution Programs (TACPs) will generally not constitute “employee pension benefit plans” under ERISA Title I, even if funded in whole or in part by employer contributions pursuant to IRC section 128. The guidance provides favorable clarity and removes a potential stumbling block for employers considering establishing a TACP.

DOL Technical Release 2026-02

Prior to Technical Release 2026‑02, ERISA classification was a key unresolved risk for employers, particularly given that TACPs require a written employer program and could resemble benefit plans.

DOL’s conclusion that TACPs will generally not be subject to ERISA removes a major barrier for employers. The rationale underlying the guidance includes that Trump Accounts are individually owned Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), not employer‑established retirement plans; that in most cases, benefits accrue to a child (dependent), not the employee, which weighs against ERISA plan characterization; and that the accounts can be funded by multiple sources (family, government, employers), reinforcing their non‑employer‑centric design.

Continue Reading DOL Clarifies ERISA Treatment of Trump Accounts: What Employers Need to Know

In our recent post, AI Regulation on Hold in Colorado—But Employer Risk Isn’t, we flagged that delay did not mean diminished risk. That continues to hold true. Colorado has now approved a comprehensive rewrite of its AI law, while Illinois regulators are advancing practical disclosure requirements for employers using AI in employment decisions.

The direction is clear: AI oversight in the workplace is moving forward—and becoming more operational.

Colorado: Recalibration, Not Retreat

Colorado’s rewrite reflects an effort to make its AI framework more workable—but not less relevant for employers.

Key points:

  • Employment uses remain in scope: AI tools used in hiring, promotion, and other employment decisions continue to be treated as “high risk.”
  • Governance expectations remain: Employers will still need risk management and oversight frameworks.
  • Transparency still matters: Notice and documentation obligations continue, even as details evolve.
Continue Reading Colorado and Illinois Advance AI Transparency Obligations for Employers
  • An overview of key global immigration and mobility issues to consider related to immigration, employment, compensation
…

May is Mental Health Awareness Month—a timely reminder for employers to take a fresh, thoughtful look at how workplace policies and practices support employees’ mental health. This includes ensuring compliance with evolving requirements around leave, reasonable accommodations under the ADA, and broader mental health considerations. As the legal landscape continues to shift, even well‑intentioned…

ICE, in a “fact sheet” available on its website, has made a significant change to the way it conducts I-9 audits. Specifically, ICE has broadened what it considers to be a “substantive” violation on an I-9. This change is likely to increase the financial penalties employers face during an audit, impacting all employers (including those who have already conducted an internal audit). This change to ICE’s protocol may signal increased enforcement in the coming weeks and months. 

Key Takeaways

In response to this change, employers should: 

  • Conduct an I-9 audit to determine potential penalties under the new guidelines and determine which, if any, substantive errors can be rehabilitated.
  • Conduct internal training to ensure the company has an established I-9 protocol and team to ensure the process is being completed accurately and in a timely manner.
  • Create a protocol for the handling of I-9 audits at the worksite should ICE issue a subpoena.

In more detail

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), enacted on November 6, 1986, requires employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of their employees and sets forth criminal and civil sanctions for employment-related violations. During an I-9 audit, ICE reviews the accuracy and completeness of an employer’s I-9s to determine the volume of: (i) missing I-9s; (ii) technical violations; and (iii) substantive violations. ICE must permit employers to correct technical violations before issuing a fine; a substantive violation is cause for a fine without opportunity for rehabilitation. Fines range from $288 to $2,861 per I-9 violation.

Continue Reading Changes to I-9 Penalties Increase Employer Liability

Six months ago, our Back‑to‑School Guide on Recent Developments in Workplace DEI examined how the 2025 executive orders—and early guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ)—led many US-based employers to recalibrate DEI-related risk, conduct DEI health checks, and fine-tune specific initiatives and practices.

In 2026, the risk is not coming from landmark court rulings declaring DEI unlawful. Instead, it is coming from enforcement tools: investigations, subpoenas, contract terms and leverage applied across multiple fronts—often before any litigation is filed.

That reality came into sharper focus on March 26, with the issuance of a new executive order further targeting “DEI discrimination” by federal contractors.

Workplace DEI remains lawful. But employers should expect heightened scrutiny of how programs are structured, incentivized, documented, and defended—through EEOC inquiries, administrative subpoenas, FCA theories tied to certifications, and discovery-driven litigation.

The New Executive Order Enhances DEI Risk for Federal Contractors

The White House’s new executive order—“Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors”—creates new contractual obligations for federal contractors and subcontractors. Potential consequences include termination, debarment, and potential False Claims Act (FCA) exposure. The order (and the accompanying Fact Sheet) is operationally consequential: it ties compliance to federal contracting, expands agency access to contractor information, and more explicitly links compliance with these contractual obligations to FCA theories.

Continue Reading Why the New DEI Executive Order Matters for Federal Contractors—and Signals Broader Risk for All US Employers

Employee monitoring tools — badge and access logs, video surveillance, productivity and activity tracking, and even biometrics — can strengthen security and operations, but they also create real privacy, employment, and (in some cases) criminal-law risk. In this installment of Baker McKenzie’s In Focus video chat series, our cross-border Employment and Data Privacy lawyers break…

On March 20, the White House published a “National AI Legislative Framework” outlining policy recommendations for Congress to develop a unified federal approach to AI legislation and regulation. While our cross‑disciplinary AI team prepared a more detailed analysis (copied below), here is the employment‑law tl;dr:

  • No immediate legal change. The framework does not impose new obligations on employers, and it does not include draft legislation or an executive order directing federal agencies. Instead, it sets out legislative recommendations for Congress, reflecting the administration’s vision for a comprehensive federal AI statute.
  • Preemption is the through‑line. The recommendations are consistent with the administration’s December 2025 Executive Order and July 2025 AI Action Plan, and they expressly support broad federal preemption of state AI laws that impose undue burdens. At the same time, the framework contemplates carve‑outs to preserve states’ traditional police powers—such as protecting children and preventing fraud.

Takeaway for Employers

Unless and until Congress enacts federal legislation with preemptive effect, state and local AI laws remain fully in force. That matters: a growing number of jurisdictions already regulate how employers use AI in hiring, promotion, performance management, and other employment decisions—including California, Colorado, Illinois, and New York City, among others. For now, compliance remains a decidedly multi‑jurisdictional exercise.

For support developing your AI adoption strategies, including compliance with regulations outside of the US like the EU AI Act, please contact your Baker McKenzie employment lawyer.

White House Outlines AI Legislative Agenda with National AI Legislative Framework

By Brian Hengesbaugh, Justine Phillips, Lothar Determann, Keo McKenzie, Cristina Messerschmidt, Susan Eandi, Caroline Burnett, Joshua Wolkoff, Alysha Preston, Stanislav (Stan) L. Sirot, Brian Zurawski and Avi Toltzis

On March 20, 2026, the White House published a four-page document with “Legislative Recommendations” in its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (the “AI Framework”). The AI Framework does not include specific draft legislation or an executive order, but instead contains recommendations for Congress, setting out the administration’s vision for a comprehensive federal AI legislative package. The AI Framework is not legally binding either for on Congress or on private sector companies. The AI Framework, building on Executive Order 14365, outlines eight key policy areas for federal AI legislation aimed at preempting restrictive state laws and bolstering AI innovation.

Background

The AI Framework represents the latest significant step in the Trump administration’s technology agenda and is consistent with, and builds on, its past actions regarding the national AI strategy going back to the very first days of President Trump’s second term. Within the first week of returning to the presidency, President Trump revoked the Biden-era Executive Order 14110 on “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence”, which he swiftly replaced with Executive Order 14179 on “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence”. Executive Order 14179 established the national AI policy to “sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security,” but provided few specifics.

Continue Reading What the March 20 ‘National AI Legislative Framework’ Means for US Employers Right Now

We are proud to share that George Avraam, a distinguished trial and appellate litigation partner managing the Firm’s Toronto office, has been inducted as a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL), one of the most selective and prestigious honors in the legal profession.

Invitation to fellowship in the ACTL is extended…