June Industry News
June: Industry News & Updates
Brought to you by VirgilHR.
Connecticut Enacts Sweeping Workforce Reforms Under Omnibus Bill
Connecticut has enacted House Bill 5003, titled An Act Concerning Workforce Development and Working Conditions in Connecticut, one of the most expansive workforce reform packages the state has adopted in recent years. The legislation introduces wide‑ranging changes affecting hiring practices, compensation transparency, training repayment agreements, workplace accommodations, successor employer obligations, and contractor liability. While the bill spans numerous subject areas, many of the most impactful employer obligations take effect October 1, 2026, with additional provisions rolling out in2027.
Expanded Wage Transparency Obligations (Effective October 1, 2026)
HB 5003 significantly broadens Connecticut’s wage transparency law. Employers must now include both a wage or wage range and a general description of benefits in all public and internal job postings, rather than providing this information only upon request or at the offer stage. The required benefits description must cover items such as health insurance, retirement benefits, paid leave, fringe benefits, and other non‑wage compensation. The law also strengthens anti‑retaliation protections related to wage disclosures and extends the statute of limitations for wage transparency claims from one year to two years.
Employment Promissory Notes Effectively Prohibited (Effective October 1, 2026)
The bill sharply curtails the use of employment promissory notes, which require employees to repay training or other costs if they leave employment before a specified period. Any such agreement entered into on or after October 1, 2026 will generally be void as against public policy, with only narrow exceptions remaining for items such as repayment of advances, property transactions, educational sabbaticals, or programs established through collective bargaining. Employers that rely on training repayment or retention‑based clawback arrangements will need to reassess these practices.
Mandatory Lactation Accommodations (Effective October 1, 2026)
HB 5003 strengthens Connecticut’s lactation accommodation requirements by converting previously permissive language into affirmative employer mandates. Employers must provide reasonable break time (beyond ordinary meal or rest breaks) for employees to express breast milk or breastfeed. Employers must also make reasonable efforts to provide a private, non‑bathroom space that is shielded from view and intrusion, has access to electricity, and is located near refrigeration or cold storage. These obligations apply to all employers, including those with only one employee.
New ADA Accommodation Notice Requirement (Effective October 1, 2026)
The bill introduces a new written notice requirement regarding employees’ rights to reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Employers must provide this notice:
To new hires at the start of employment;
To existing employees within 120 days after October 1, 2026 (by January 29, 2027); and
Within 10 days after an employee notifies the employer of a disability.
Employers may satisfy this obligation by posting a notice issued by the Connecticut Labor Commissioner in a conspicuous and accessible location.
Pay Stub Transparency for Large Employers (Effective October 1, 2026)
Employers with 100 or more employees must publish a pay code guide explaining overtime codes and commonly used pay differentials, such as shift differentials, on‑call pay, hazard pay, holiday pay, and geographic differentials. The guide must include at least ten pay codes where applicable, be made available on the employer’s website, be translated into English, Spanish, and other commonly spoken languages, and identify a contact person for pay disputes. Employers using third‑party payroll providers may rely on vendor‑supplied guides if they meet statutory requirements.
Successor Employer Obligations (Effective July 1, 2027)
Beginning July 1, 2027, HB 5003 imposes new successor employer retention requirements for certain service contracts and covered property transfers. Successor employers must retain the predecessor’s employees for at least 90 days, during which terminations are permitted only for just cause based on individual performance or conduct. Penalties for noncompliance range from $500 to $1,000 per employee per day for failure to retain, and $50 to $200 per employee per day for notice violations.
Joint and Several Liability for Unpaid Wages (Effective January 1, 2027)
HB 5003 expands wage‑and‑hour liability in the construction context by imposing joint and several liability on certain contractors for unpaid wages owed by subcontractors. Beginning January 1, 2027, upstream contractors may be held legally responsible for wage violations committed by downstream subcontractors, even where the contractor did not directly employ the affected workers. This provision heightens the importance of subcontractor due diligence, contract language addressing wage compliance, and ongoing monitoring of payroll practices on covered projects.
Enhanced Workers’ Compensation Benefits for Assault‑Related Injuries (Effective October 1, 2026)
The bill strengthens workers’ compensation protections for healthcare workers and educators who are injured as a result of workplace assaults. Covered employees may be entitled to expanded wage replacement and related benefits, including compensation for time missed while participating in criminal proceedings related to the assault. Employers in healthcare and education settings should anticipate increased claims exposure and ensure incident reporting, leave coordination, and workers’ compensation procedures align with the expanded benefit structure.
Expanded Prevailing Wage Recordkeeping Requirements (Effective October 1, 2026)
HB 5003 also enhances compliance obligations for employers performing public works projects subject to prevailing wage requirements. Contractors must maintain more detailed payroll and classification records and make those records available upon request for inspection. These changes are intended to strengthen enforcement and increase transparency, and they raise the stakes for employers that rely on subcontractors or complex labor classifications on public projects.
Employer Takeaway
HB 5003 represents a substantial expansion of employer obligations across multiple areas of workforce management. Employers operating in Connecticut should begin reviewing job posting practices, compensation disclosures, onboarding documentation, accommodation policies, payroll transparency tools, and contract‑transition protocols well in advance of the October 1, 2026 effective date. Given the bill’s breadth and staggered implementation, early coordination among HR, legal, payroll, and operations teams will be critical to ensuring compliance and minimizing enforcement risk.
Bloomington Repeals Local Earned Sick and Safe Time Ordinance to Align with Statewide Law
The City of Bloomington, Minnesota has enacted Ordinance No. 2026‑09, repealing its local Earned Sick and Safe Time (ESST) ordinance in light of Minnesota’s comprehensive statewide ESST law, which is now fully in effect. The ordinance amendment reflects the City’s determination that maintaining a separate municipal ESST framework is no longer necessary and may create unnecessary complexity for employers navigating overlapping requirements.
Bloomington originally adopted its ESST ordinance in 2022 to ensure workers had access to paid leave for health, safety, and family‑related needs. In the years that followed, Minnesota enacted a statewide ESST law establishing uniform minimum standards, and the City amended its ordinance to align with those statewide requirements. According to the City, the statewide regime has largely supplanted the need for local enforcement, as reflected by a significant decline in ESST‑related complaints handled at the municipal level.
Under Ordinance No. 2026‑09, Bloomington concluded that the benefits of a dual compliance system no longer outweigh the administrative burden on employers. Maintaining a separate ordinance required ongoing monitoring and updates to stay consistent with evolving state law, while providing limited additional enforcement value. By repealing the local ordinance, the City aims to streamline compliance obligations and reduce confusion for employers operating within Bloomington.
Importantly, the repeal does not eliminate earned sick and safe time protections for employees working in Bloomington. Instead, all covered workers remain fully protected under Minnesota’s statewide ESST law, which continues to guarantee paid leave rights at the state level. Employees will no longer have the option to file complaints with the City, but they retain the ability to pursue enforcement through applicable state agencies. As a result, the change represents an administrative consolidation rather than a rollback of employee rights.
Employer takeaway: Employers operating in Bloomington should shift their compliance focus exclusively to Minnesota’s statewide ESST requirements, rather than maintaining compliance systems tailored to both city and state laws. While this change simplifies administration, employers should ensure that policies, handbooks, and leave practices remain fully aligned with state ESST standards, which continue to govern employee entitlements and enforcement.
Virginia Extends and Clarifies Discrimination Complaint Procedures
Effective July 1, 2026,Virginia House Bill 925amends the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA) to expand the timeframe for filing discrimination claims and to formalize the procedures governing how such complaints are processed, investigated, and resolved by the Office of Civil Rights within the Virginia Department of Law. The changes are expected to increase potential exposure for employers by extending filing deadlines and standardizing enforcement processes.
Extended Filing Deadline for Discrimination Complaints
The most significant change under HB 925 is the extension of the statute of limitations for administrative discrimination claims. Individuals alleging unlawful discrimination now have one year from the date of the alleged discriminatory act to file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights, replacing the prior 300‑day filing period. This extension provides individuals with additional time to evaluate and bring claims, and increases the window during which employers may face administrative and litigation risk.
Standardized Complaint Processing and Investigation Procedures
HB 925 also establishes clearer procedures for handling discrimination complaints. Once a complaint is filed, the Office of Civil Rights is required to:
Investigate the allegations to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe unlawful discrimination occurred; and
Attempt to resolve the matter through informal methods, such as conciliation or mediation, where appropriate.
Receiving appropriate notice from the Office of Civil Rights, or
180 days have passed since filing the complaint, if the agency has not resolved the matter.
These provisions formalize the agency’s investigative role and emphasize early resolution efforts before matters proceed to litigation.
Pathway to Civil Litigation
The law clarifies when complainants may bring civil actions. This framework aligns administrative and judicial processes and provides greater predictability regarding when litigation may proceed.
Employer Takeaway
Beginning July 1, 2026, Virginia employers should expect a longer exposure period for discrimination claims and more structured agency investigations. Employers should review record‑retention practices, strengthen internal complaint resolution procedures, and ensure managers are trained to address discrimination concerns promptly. With employees afforded additional time to file claims and clearer pathways to litigation, proactive compliance and early issue resolution will be critical to managing risk under the updated VHRA framework.
Cal/OSHA "Safety and Health Protection on the Job" Poster Updated
California employers should be aware that the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has issued an updated version of its mandatory workplace posting titled “Safety and Health Protection on the Job.”
This poster is required to be displayed in the workplace pursuant toTitle 8, California Code of Regulations, section 340, which requires employers to post and maintain the notice in a conspicuous location where employee notices are customarily placed.
The updated posting continues to summarize key employer obligations under California occupational safety and health laws, including the duty to maintain a safe and healthful workplace, implement an effective Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP), and report serious injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. It also outlines important employee rights, such as the right to report unsafe working conditions, request Cal/OSHA inspections, and be free from retaliation.
Employer Action Items:
Ensure the most current version of the “Safety and Health Protection on the Job” poster is obtained.
Replace any outdated versions currently posted.
Confirm the notice is displayed in a conspicuous location at each worksite where employee notices are customarily posted.
Failure to post the updated notice may result in penalties and expose employers to compliance risk.
Colorado Amends AI Regulation Framework Governing Automated Decision-Making
Colorado has enacted Senate Bill 26-189, significantly revising and replacing key provisions of its 2024 artificial intelligence law (SB 24‑205) to establish a more detailed regulatory framework governing the use of automated decision‑making technology (ADMT) in high‑impact decisions. The new law, which takes effect January 1, 2027, imposes expanded compliance obligations on both developers and deployers of AI systems used in “consequential decisions” and introduces new transparency, documentation, and consumer‑rights requirements.
Colorado’s earlier 2024 AI statute was due to become operative in June, and was recently delayed after a federal court paused its enforcement. Notably, SB 26-189 replaces the earlier 2024 AI statute, establishing a new and updated compliance framework effective January 1, 2027.
Scope: Covered AI Systems and Consequential Decisions
SB 26‑189 defines automated decision‑making technology broadly to include systems that use personal data to generate outputs such as predictions, rankings, classifications, or recommendations that inform or influence decisions. The law applies where such tools are used to materially influence “consequential decisions,” including decisions affecting an individual’s access to or terms of:
Employment and compensation,
Education,
Housing,
Financial or lending services,
Insurance,
Health care, and
Essential government services.
The system’s intended uses;
The categories of training data used;
Known limitations and risks; and
Instructions for appropriate use and human oversight.
This scope places many HR, recruiting, performance management, lending, and underwriting systems squarely within the law’s reach.
New Obligations for AI Developers
The law imposes significant new requirements on developers of covered ADMT systems. Beginning January 1, 2027, developers must provide deployers with detailed technical documentation, including:
Developers are also required to notify deployers of material updates or changes to the system and must maintain records demonstrating compliance for at least three years. These provisions are designed to improve transparency and allow deployers to better assess downstream compliance risks.
New Compliance Responsibilities for Deployers
Entities that use AI systems to make or assist consequential decisions (defined as "deployers") must meet new transparency and accountability requirements. Deployers must provide clear and conspicuous notice to individuals at the point where they interact with a covered ADMT system.
In addition, where a covered ADMT contributes to an adverse decision, deployers must provide the affected individual, within 30 days, a plain‑language explanation of how the AI system influenced the outcome. The Colorado Attorney General is tasked with issuing rules clarifying these disclosure requirements by January 1, 2027.
New Consumer Rights and Protections
SB 26‑189 grants individuals several important rights related to automated decision‑making:
The right to access personal data used by the AI system;
The right to correct inaccurate personal data; and
The right to request meaningful human review and reconsideration of adverse decisions.
These rights align Colorado’s AI framework with broader trends emphasizing explainability and human oversight in high‑stakes automated systems.
Enforcement and Liability Framework
The law will be enforced under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, meaning violations may be treated as deceptive trade practices. Before initiating enforcement actions, the Attorney General must provide a 60‑day notice and opportunity to cure, where a cure is possible.
Notably, the law does not create a standalone private right of action, but it does clarify how liability may be allocated between developers and deployers in existing discrimination claims. This allocation framework is likely to influence litigation strategies and contractual risk allocation between vendors and users of AI systems.
Exemptions and Interaction with Other Laws
Certain entities may be exempt from some requirements to the extent they are already subject to comparable regulatory obligations under other laws. Employers and organizations should carefully assess whether existing compliance regimes (such as those governing financial services or health care) may partially overlap with or satisfy the statute’s requirements.
Employer and Business Takeaway
SB 26‑189 is likely to have a direct and operational impact on employers, particularly those using AI‑driven tools in hiring, promotion, compensation, performance evaluation, or workforce analytics. Many common HR technologies (such as resume‑screening tools, algorithmic candidate scoring systems, employee monitoring platforms, and performance‑ranking software) may qualify as ADMT if they meaningfully influence employment decisions.
Chicago Updates Fair Workweek Rules, Expanding Scheduling and Pay Obligations
The City of Chicago has issued substantive revisions to the rules implementing its Fair Workweek Ordinance, with the updated rules taking effect June 1, 2026. The revisions clarify employer obligations around scheduling, predictability pay, employee notice, and recordkeeping, while introducing new definitions and operational requirements that will directly affect employers in covered industries.
Expanded Definitions and Clarified Coverage
The updated rules refine key definitions and introduce new terms that may broaden compliance responsibilities. Notably, the rules add a definition of “on‑call shift,” capturing shifts where employees must remain available on short notice, and clarify that a “week” consists of any seven consecutive 24‑hour periods, regardless of when it begins.
The rules also clarify how the City determines whether an employer meets coverage thresholds. Employer size is now calculated based on the average number of global employees over a 12‑month period (or 90 days for new employers), and whether an individual qualifies as a covered employee depends on where the employee performs the majority of their work.
New Scheduling and Notice Requirements
The revisions impose more detailed requirements for advance scheduling and initial work estimates. Employers must:
Provide a good faith estimate of expected work schedules at the time of hire, including anticipated hours, days, shift times, locations, and any expected on‑call shifts;
Include on‑call shifts in advance work schedules; and
Provide written schedules at least 14 days in advance, with specific formatting requirements such as time‑stamping and identifying all employees at a worksite.
These chanes increase transparency expectations and require more detailed documentation at both hiring and scheduling stages.
Changes to Predictability Pay and Schedule Adjustments
The revised rules clarify when predictability pay applies and expand exceptions. Employers are no longer required to pay predictability pay where schedule changes result from voluntary employee requests, including shift swaps, use of paid leave, or other mutually agreed changes, provided such requests are documented in writing.
The rules also require that:
Predictability pay be issued by the next regular payday;
Pay be separately itemized on wage statements; and
Predictability pay not count as hours worked or affect leave accrual.
At the same time, the rules remove certain prior provisions specifying payment thresholds for canceled shifts, signaling a shift toward a more streamlined but still enforceable framework.
Expanded Requirements for Offering Additional Work Hours
Employers must first offer additional shifts to existing covered employees before hiring externally. The revised rules strengthen this process by requiring:
These changes broaden internal hiring obligations and increase documentation requirements for staffing decisions.
Enhanced “Right to Rest” Protections
The rules further clarify “right to rest” protections, requiring premium pay where employees work shifts separated by less than 10 hours. Employees must receive 1.25x their regular rate for qualifying shifts, even if they voluntarily consent to the schedule.
Employers must also:
Document employee consent in writing;
Apply premium pay to certain double‑shift and split‑shift scenarios; and
Itemize right‑to‑rest compensation on wage statements.
Expanded Posting and Recordkeeping Requirements
The updated rules clarify acceptable methods for posting notices, including physical postings (e.g., breakrooms) and digital channels (e.g., internal displays). Employers must also maintain more detailed records, including information about tipped employees and employees performing mixed duties.
Employer Takeaway
The 2026 rule updates do not fundamentally change the Fair Workweek Ordinance but significantly increase operational complexity and documentation expectations. Employers should expect greater scrutiny of scheduling practices, employee communications, and payroll documentation.
Virginia Enacts Statewide Paid Sick Leave Law
Virginia has enacted House Bill 5, establishing a statewide paid sick leave law that will be phased in over several years. The law creates a new article (Article 2.1:1 (§§ 40.1‑33.6:1 through 40.1‑33.6:7)) within the Virginia Code and significantly expands employee leave protections while introducing compliance obligations, enforcement mechanisms, and private litigation risk for employers.
Phased Implementation Based on Employer Size
HB 5 adopts a tiered rollout schedule based on employer size:
July 1, 2027: Employers with50 or more employees must comply;
January 1, 2028: Employers with25 or more employees become covered;
January 1, 2029: The law applies to all employers, including those with a single employee.
This phased approach provides smaller employers additional time to prepare while establishing a clear timeline for statewide coverage.
Paid Sick Leave Accrual and Usage
Under HB 5, covered employers must provide paid sick leave that accrues at a rate of at least one hour for every 30 hours worked, up to a minimum of 40 hours per year, unless the employer chooses a higher cap.
Employees may use accrued paid sick leave for a broad range of purposes, including:
Their own illness, injury, or medical care;
Caring for a family member’s health condition;
Absences related to preventive care; and
Leave associated with domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, including related legal or safety‑planning needs.
The law’s broad definition of permissible uses aligns with trends in other jurisdictions requiring flexible, employee‑driven leave use.
Employer Obligations and Administrative Requirements
HB 5 directs the Commissioner of Labor and Industry to issue implementing regulations governing:
Employee notice requirements;
Employer recordkeeping systems; and
Compliance and enforcement procedures.
Employers will need to establish systems to accurately track hours worked, leave accrual, usage, and carryover, and to ensure employees are properly informed of their rights.
The law includes certain limited exemptions, including for specific healthcare workers and employees covered by qualifying collective bargaining agreements, though most employers and employees will ultimately fall within its scope.
Enforcement and Private Right of Action
HB 5 introduces both administrative enforcement and private litigation risk.
Employers may face civil penalties of:
Up to $150 for a first violation;
Up to $300 for a second violation within two years; and
Up to $500 for subsequent violations.
In addition, employees may bring private civil actions, with potential remedies including:
Twice the amount of unpaid sick leave;
Double actual damages;
Attorney fees and costs; and
Equitable relief such as reinstatement or back pay.
Courts are also authorized to issue injunctive relief, further increasing compliance risk.
Employer Takeaway
HB 5 represents a major expansion of leave obligations in Virginia and positions the state alongside others with comprehensive paid sick leave requirements. As the law phases in beginning July 1, 2027, employers should begin preparing now by:
Reviewing and updating leave policies and PTO structures;
Implementing or upgrading time‑tracking and accrual systems;
Training HR and management teams on permissible leave uses and anti‑retaliation protections; and
Planning for increased recordkeeping and litigation exposure.
With both regulatory enforcement and a robust private right of action, early compliance planning will be critical to mitigating risk under Virginia’s new paid sick leave framework.
California Issues Executive Order on AI and Workforce Impacts
California Governor Gavin Newsom recently issued Executive Order N-6-26, directing state agencies to evaluate and respond to the growing impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the workforce, economy, and labor market. While the Order does not impose immediate compliance requirements on private employers, it signals a coordinated policy effort to assess workforce disruption, expand training programs, and prepare for potential legislative and regulatory changes affecting employers.
Focus on Workforce Disruption and Economic Impacts
The Executive Order directs the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), in coordination with other state entities, to conduct a comprehensive review of how AI and other technological changes are reshaping California’s labor market.
This includes identifying:
Potential job displacement and workforce disruption trends;
Industries and occupations most affected by AI adoption; and
Disproportionate impacts on specific demographic groups.
The state will also develop methods to detect early warning signals of economic disruption, indicating a move toward more proactive workforce intervention strategies.
Potential Revisions to WARN and Worker Protection Laws
The Order specifically directs agencies to evaluate whether existing laws—particularly the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act—should be updated to better reflect AI‑driven layoffs and industry changes.
Recommendations are expected within 180 days, raising the possibility of:
Expanded notification requirements tied to automation or AI adoption;
Enhanced reporting obligations; and
Earlier or more detailed disclosure expectations for workforce reductions.
Expanded Focus on Worker Protections and Benefits
The Order calls for a review of policies supporting workers impacted by technological change, including:
Severance practices and compensation models;
Safety net programs and employment support mechanisms; and
Alternatives to layoffs such as work‑sharing programs.
The state will also explore ways to increase participation in unemployment insurance and workforce transition programs, suggesting future emphasis on employer engagement in these systems.
Workforce Training and Upskilling Initiatives
A central component of the Order is the expansion of training and reskilling programs aligned with emerging technologies. Agencies are directed to:
Review and update workforce training programs to ensure they align with AI‑affected industries;
Develop an “AI workforce playbook” to guide training and reemployment strategies; and
Strengthen coordination among employers, educational institutions, and workforce development systems.
The Order also encourages higher education institutions to expand apprenticeships, certificates, and job‑integrated training programs to prepare workers for an AI‑driven economy.
Increased Data Collection and Reporting
The Employment Development Department (EDD) is directed to enhance reporting on AI’s labor market impacts, including:
Launching a public dashboard tracking employment trends affected by AI; and
Providing regular reports incorporating employer feedback on how technology influences hiring and workforce decisions.
This increased data collection signals closer monitoring of employer workforce practices related to automation and AI adoption.
Emphasis on Worker Voice and Collective Bargaining
The Order highlights the role of collective bargaining and worker input in managing technological change. The state will evaluate how labor‑management relationships address AI adoption and consider how worker voice can be incorporated into technology deployment decisions.
Encouragement of Responsible AI Adoption and Business Engagement
The Governor also directs state agencies to promote “opportunity AI”—the responsible use of AI to support economic growth—through:
Outreach and education for businesses, particularly small businesses;
Support for technology adoption and workforce training; and
Potential exploration of public‑private partnerships and incentive structures related to AI development.
Employer Takeaway
Executive Order N‑6‑26 does not immediately impose new legal obligations on employers, but it signals a clear policy direction toward increased regulation, oversight, and workforce protections tied to AI adoption.
Employers in California should view this Order as an early indicator of potential future developments, including:
Expanded workforce reporting and layoff notification requirements;
Greater scrutiny of automation‑related employment decisions;
Increased expectations around training, reskilling, and workforce transition support; and
Potential integration of worker input or collective bargaining considerations in technology implementation.
Organizations using or planning to adopt AI‑driven systems should monitor forthcoming reports and recommendations from state agencies, as these are likely to inform future legislation and regulatory action affecting workforce management in California.
