Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that Senior Counsel Palma Yanni has been honored with an Achievement Award by the Alum Association of Mount Holyoke College.

Hinshaw partner Ian Wagreich authored a chapter, “Service Center Processing: US Applications,” in the newly released 2026 edition of the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education (IICLE) “Immigration Law” handbook.

Read a Law360 “Expert Analysis” by Hinshaw Lauren Swanson that provides compliance takeaways for employers from a recent Eleventh Circuit decision clarifying the limits of compensable work time under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida law. 

Listen to Hinshaw partner Ambrose McCall’s discussion about corporate social media rights, censorship, and AI legal risks on the Greg and Dan Show.

Hinshaw partners Aimee Delaney and Jason Oliveri will present on “The Future of Work: Embracing Generative AI For Workplace Innovation” at a CLE webinar on June 8.

Read how Illinois employers using AI in hiring, promotion, or other employment decisions face new notice and compliance obligations under amended Human Rights Act rules effective January 1, 2026.

Learn about compliance guidance for California’s recently updated requirements under the Fair Employment Housing Act, which protects against employment discrimination arising from AI, algorithms, and other automated decision systems.

Learn who’s covered under New York City’s Earned Sick and Safe Time Act (ESSTA), new tracking/reporting rules, and compliance steps for employers.

Read our latest privacy alert covering key trends and developments in children’s privacy laws, AI in employment decisions, cyber threats posed by Claude AI, recent litigation on AI notetaking tools, and more.

Learn about the impact of a federal ruling that the Trump Administration’s $100,000 H-1B visa petition fee is unlawful, finding that the fee violated the Administrative Procedures Act by bypassing mandatory notice-and-comment requirements.

Read our guidance about the new USCIS policy memorandum’s impact on how Adjustment of Status applications are evaluated, as well as key takeaways and next steps for employers and individuals.

DHS’s May 2025 memo points to at-home arrests based on administrative warrants (Form I-205), with unresolved questions about business entries and “exigent circumstances.” Explore what’s changed, the constitutional backdrop, and the current litigation landscape in our new alert.

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)

NLRB Recess Appointments Are Invalid