The law firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that Scott Seaman, Palma Yanni, and Ian Wagreich have been recognized in the 2026 edition of the Lexology Index Thought Leaders: USA guide.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP today announced that Palma Yanni has joined the firm’s immigration law team, in the Labor & Employment Practice Group, as senior counsel in Chicago.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that 80 lawyers are recognized in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America, with ten receiving this honor for the first time. Additionally, 22 Hinshaw lawyers are included in The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.

Read Hinshaw immigration partner Ian Wagreich's commentary via The DePaulia in a story that examined the Trump Administration’s revocation of student visas and its impact on international students attending universities in the United States.

Read Hinshaw partner Ian Wagreich's discussion on the challenges faced by international students regarding visa terminations and due process in a recent panel at Northwestern University.

Discover insights and recommendations from Hinshaw partner Ian Wagreich for restaurant owners and employees when interacting with ICE agents.

Chicago-based partners William Schiller and Ian Wagreich in the immigration law group will co-present a "Hospitality Industry Roundtable" for the Illinois Restaurant Association on August 14, 2025.

Join Hinshaw immigration partners William “Bill” Schiller and Ian Wagreich for an MCLE program at the Illinois State Bar Association’s (ISBA) Annual Meeting titled "Hot Topics in U.S. Immigration Law and the Road Ahead."

Hinshaw is pleased to be a gold-level sponsor of the 26th Annual National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) Human Rights Awards on June 3, 2025, in Chicago, Illinois.

On April 11, 2025, Hinshaw partners Bill Schiller and Ian Wagreich will present an Illinois State Bar Association webinar titled "LIVE WEB - Immigration Law 2025: Updates and Essentials Under the New Administration."

Chicago-based partner Ian Wagreich will present at the 2025 American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Hot Topics and Survival Skills Virtual Conference on March 3, 2025.

Chicago-based partners William Schiller and Ian Wagreich will present a webinar titled "Workplace Immigration & Employer Rights" for the Illinois Restaurant Association on February 18, 2025.

On March 1, 2021, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will open up the electronic registration process for cab-subject H-1B petitions, including those filed for the advanced degree exemption. The registration process will remain open until March 20; the registration fee for each H-1B candidate is $10. The USCIS will notify employers by March 31 and let them know whether their petitions have been selected in the lottery. If chosen, employers will have up to 90 days to file an H-1B petition.

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2018. In the spirit of the season, we are using the next "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law a day and that law's impact on California employers. On the fifth day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me – five golden rings and AB 450.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published the newest version of the Form I-9 on July 17. The new Form I-9 replaces the version previously released on November 14, 2016. While the changes to the form are subtle, the consequences for employers who do not use the new form to verify the employment eligibility of all new employees by September 18 are anything but. Fines for omissions or mistakes on Form I-9 can range from $216 to $2,156 per form.

On April 22, 2020, citing concerns over preserving jobs for U.S. workers and the economy amid the COVID-19 pandemic, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that suspends issuance of immigrant-based visas for 60 days. The order went into effect at 11:59 p.m. Eastern on April 23, 2020.

Learn how the HHS reclassification of the Health Center Program as a "Federal public benefit" impacts access, compliance, and funding for health centers, and read our urgent guide on the critical steps your organization should take now.

Explore how the new USCIS visa bulletin accelerates the timeline for filing employment-based permanent residence applications and its implications on this immigration process.

Read the latest immigration compliance obligations for employers created by changes to humanitarian parole and TPS programs, including new EAD revocations and evolving reverification requirements.

With the H-1B cap pre-registration period quickly approaching, now is the appropriate time to review your hiring needs, identify those individuals you intend to sponsor for H-1B employment authorization, and gather the necessary documentation.

Affordable Care Act's Contraceptive Care Mandate Applies to Covered For-Profit Corporate Employers

Exempt Classification of Position of Employment Does Not Automatically Create Predominate Issue for Class CertificationA group of employees filed suit against a news organization on behalf of current, former and future non exempt employees at the company’s Los Angeles facility. The class argued that the agency’s reporters were not exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and, as a result, the employer wrongfully denied them overtime compensation, as well as other issues arising under state law. The class was certified and a jury returned a $2.5 million verdict. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit originally affirmed the trial court’s ruling, but the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the opinion and remanded it for reconsideration in light of the Court’s holding in Dukes v. Walmart. On remand, the court focused on whether common questions of law or fact predominated over individual issues, a requirement for the form of class action at issue. While the Ninth Circuit ultimately remanded the case to the district court, it held that predominance could not be presumed simply because the agency had a uniform policy of classifying all reporters as exempt. Rather, it was required to evaluate whether individual issues existed that would make class treatment impossible. This case creates a valuable precedent for employers that a uniform policy does not in and of itself render class treatment appropriate, and thereby offers an additional basis on which to challenge class treatment.Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., Nos. 08-55483, 08-56740, (9th Cir., Mar. 4, 2013)

Breaking News: Florida Court Declares 104-Week Limit of Temporary Benefits Unconstitutional, Reinstates 260-Week CapThe Florida First District Court of Appeals was presented with a question of the constitutionality of the 104-week limitation on temporary indemnity benefits based on an injured worker who was not yet ready to return to work after the 104 weeks of temporary benefits, but who was not able to prove eventual permanent and total disability benefits, and therefore not entitled to indemnity benefits. The claimant’s condition left him in the not-uncommon position of exhausting his statutory benefits prior to reaching the ability to return to substantial gainful employment. As amended in 1994, the Florida Statutes allowed only 104 weeks of temporary benefits. The court, in a scathing 25-page opinion, found that the claimant was denied access to the courts and to the constitutionally granted right to the administration of justice without denial or delay, in violation of the Florida Constitution. The court found unconstitutional the 1994 change to the law, which revised entitlement to temporary benefits from 260 weeks to 104 weeks. The court therefore remanded the case, with instructions to grant the claimant additional temporary total disability benefits not to exceed 260 weeks, as would have been provided under the previous relevant statutory provision prior to the 1994 amendment of Fla. Stat. § 440.15(2)(a). The court evaluated the workers’ compensation statutes in all other states and found that more than 40 allow a minimum of 312 weeks, and only five jurisdictions limit disability to 104 weeks. The court concluded that the natural consequence of “such a system of legal redress is potential economic ruination of the injured worker, with all the terrible consequences that this portends for the worker and his or her family,” and indicated that this system of redress for injury is “not merely unfair, but is fundamentally and manifestly unjust.”  The court, however, did not strike the entire 1994 or 2003 amendments to the statute, but only severed Section 440.15(2)(a), reviving the pre-1994 statute solely as it speaks to the time-limitation on temporary disability benefits. As this is a substantive change in the law and deals with an unconstitutional statute, the decision affects all cases, regardless of the date of accident. This case has a tremendous impact on the current cases nearing the 104-week mark, as well as those currently in litigation for permanent and total disability benefits. Bradley Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg, Case No. 1D12-3562 (1st DCA Feb. 28, 2013)